These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

Forum Index

EVE Forums » Council of Stellar Management » Assembly Hall » [Proposal] Titan Balance (Updated 3/13/2012)

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page23456Next pageLast page

[Proposal] Titan Balance (Updated 3/13/2012)
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

The Scope Gallente Federation 8
Tyran Scorpi The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 8	#61 - 2012-03-04 19:59:38 UTC Arbiter Reformed wrote: i propose a boost! [able to fit warp disruption field generators] [50% bonus to focused warp disruption range per level] This is already a part of the proposal, if you read post #2 I suggested this for the superdread.


Tyran Scorpi The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 8	#62 - 2012-03-07 19:00:47 UTC Any thoughts/suggestions/feedback for the specific layouts for each ship detailed in post #2?


Tyran Scorpi The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 8	#63 - 2012-03-12 03:17:30 UTC ok, could some of you hitting the like button tell me why you like it? or what you would like to see improved?

Asuka Solo

I N E X T R E M I S

Tactical Narcotics Team

Likes received: 3,024

#64 - 2012-03-12 05:23:50 UTC

Tyran Scorpi wrote:

Malcanis wrote:

Counter proposal:

(1) Admit Titans were a huge mistake, even though they sounded :awesome: at the time

This part at least I agree with.

Asuka Solo wrote:

I fully support expanding capitals and super capital hull ranges.

But I flat out reject this proposal.

Titans are not broken. They were designed to be giant dicks and they are working exactly as intended.

Blobbing Rifter pilots crying about blobbing supers and...........

Please do not make a broad assumption about me based on nothing other than the alliance I am in. Check my alliance history if you would like.

I have been tossing this idea around among friends and corp mates for more than a year in various similar incarnations. I was considering proposing this change long, long before we app'ed to test.

Like I have stated before, if you are going to make a negative post in this thread please give me some valid reasons for your disapproval that focus on the topic.

I disapprove because:

Breaking down the Titan into multiple 1 trick ponies that are good at PvP against a modest 3 hulls (Carriers, dreads and supers) at the cost of 50 bil isk or so per ship, is nerfing the Titan into a pitiful state similar to what the Black Ops is in now. And that is underwhelming for a ship that costs half a bil to say the least.

Your moaning in this topic because of tracking abilities while being buffed in fleet + Titan fits that allow those ships to shoot at smaller ships. You justify this emotive demand by pointing out its lack of role and the fact that it should be rare as per design.

Last time I checked, Eve has less than 1000 Titans. Out of how many hundred thousand players? Yea, that sounds pretty rare to me.

So your idea of breaking the Titan down will fail in the long term because people will want the underwhelming ship to do more later down the line.

Your justification fails because the ship is already rare, even if allot of them are owned by a small number of alliances within the powerblocks.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

knobber Jobbler

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 609

#65 - 2012-03-12 12:51:43 UTC

Tyran Scorpi wrote:

New super weapon could be something along the lines of a focused beam weapon that ramps up the damage based on the time spent firing at a single target. (unable to fire at sub caps)

Please no. No more supercapital size ships. There are to many in EVE already and with the amount of ISK around, the botting, the ability to buy ISK online means those will just get blobbed as well eventually.

Best solution for Titans = Remove them.

Alexingeras

Lowlife.

Snuffed Out

Likes received: 3

#66 - 2012-03-12 15:32:30 UTC

My solution to the problem, probably hard to implement but here goes.

1. Nerf capital turret tracking to the level of sieged dreads for structure bashing only
2. Add another rack of turret slots to titans, only being able to fit bship sized guns.
Or: double damage bonus from 100% per level to 200% per level for capital turrets and make titans fit only half number of capital turrets ( marauder style) and leave the rest of turret slots for bship sized guns with appropriate bonus

So you would have a massive ship able to fit anti cap and subcap weapons, wich only makes sense. Subcap weapons although highly bonused ( 100% dmg per level and the equivalent of 8 bship sized turrets ) would inflict far less damage than the current capital sized weapons but would still add a huge advantage at a proper cost: 1 titan = 50 bil hull, firepower equivalent for 5 bships compared to a bship costing 150m. I say it's only fair.

As for the massive ehp titans have just remove their ability to receive remote repairs forcing them to fit a local tank or just a massive buffer.

Now titans are both very useful, not highly overpowered and should start dying.

Problem solved.

Smiling Menace

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 244

#67 - 2012-03-12 16:43:32 UTC

Still think the simplest way of fixing the Titan issue is remove the damn turrets. It still has the DD for virtually instapopping capitals and structures, why have it shooting at sub-cap fleets at all?

They were never designed to be taking on a fleet of sub-caps. Why else remove the AoE DD's of old if CCP still wanted them to take on fleets solo?

Do this and the Titan still retains it's usefulness in fleets and there's no need to remove them or redesign them.

Asuka Solo

I N E X T R E M I S

Tactical Narcotics Team

Likes received: 3,024

#68 - 2012-03-12 16:43:49 UTC

knobber Jobbler wrote:

Tyran Scorpi wrote:

New super weapon could be something along the lines of a focused beam weapon that ramps up the damage based on the time spent firing at a single target. (unable to fire at sub caps)

Lol....

Your logic works the other way as well.

More isk = more disposable sub caps = bigger and more frequent sub cap blobs.

Fix the blob and delete all spaceships from Eve!

WiS for everyone yay \o/

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Tyran Scorpi

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8

#69 - 2012-03-12 19:03:13 UTC | Edited by: Tyran Scorpi

Asuka Solo wrote:

Actually, my proposal would make the mothership cost about 7 Bil, the superdread about 18 Bil, and I left the titan up in the air as for price until someone else came up with a reasonable suggestion.

EDIT: You mean carriers, dreads, supers, and structures. Also of note, only 2 of the proposed ships are for combat.

The only time I mentioned tracking was to say that its a problem that needs to be fixed, but doing so will not magically "fix" titans like some seem to think it will. Plus, my point is that it is currently balanced as a rare ship, when it no longer is, and as thus needs a re-balance.

I would define rare in eve terms as any time you only see 3-5 per fleet. Given that we regularly see more than that, I would say that it is no longer rare.

I would like suggestions to prevent making the ships underwhelming, while allowing them to be balanced effectively.

Please go re-read my proposal, it appears to have been updated since the last time you looked at it.

Tyran Scorpi

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8

#70 - 2012-03-12 19:05:54 UTC

knobber Jobbler wrote:

Too many people have too much isk invested in building/having/flying titans. Removing them from the game would dump trillions upon trillions of isk back into the game, and would massively screw up the economy. As such this is a bad idea.

Tyran Scorpi

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8

#71 - 2012-03-12 19:21:22 UTC

Alexingeras wrote:

As for the massive ehp titans have just remove their ability to receive remote repairs forcing them to fit a local tank or just a massive buffer.

The reason they have massive EHP is to account for the fact that they cost 50B for a hull. If you nerfed their survivability, you would also have to nerf their price tag along with various other things to compensate.


Tyran Scorpi The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 8	#72 - 2012-03-14 00:56:41 UTC \| Edited by: Tyran Scorpi Original post updated yet again due to this thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80374 Please check out the changes before replying. Thank You. EDIT: apparently I wasn't happy with the previous version, so I am working on cleaning it up a bit. (again) EDIT EDIT: ok, I think I'm done for now.

Mechael

Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail

Likes received: 248

#73 - 2012-03-14 03:16:06 UTC | Edited by: Mechael

Still not a very good idea, for exactly the same reasons everyone else and I have already mentioned. All that capital ships need to do is:

Fleet support and Force Projection (ideally what carriers, including tier 2 carriers aka motherships aka supercarriers, would do.)
Structure bashing and blowing up other caps (ideally what dreads and Titans would do.)

Whether or not you win the game matters not. It's if you bought it.

James Amril-Kesh

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 11,532

#74 - 2012-03-14 04:19:41 UTC

Nylith Empyreal wrote:

I always thought the objective should be more about fleet synergy, versus; 1k bs's vs. 300 caps, 500hacs, vs. 100 titans or some other random as number / fleet combo. Shouldn't the objective be giving every ship a role to fit the perfect fleet? Utilizing different race techniques to give variations and changes of, instead of MOAR DEEPS! or MOAR EHP! speed etc etc. shouldn't we be encouraging 'flanking' with say gallente ships, holding the line with amarr ships, coming around and firing cars up their asses with minmatar, while providing ewar, ranged support via caldari?

I would honestly like to see some kind of diminishing return for having a shitload of the same exact ship in a fleet engagement. Instead of giving bs's / caps or whatever ship a myriad of roles draw it down a bit. Hell a rock paper scissors balance should be in order. I kind of hope that weird random general discussion thread about diminishing returns on focus firing is added, give some ship list, give a job description institute officers, change channel priority and turn this into all those awsome fleet fights we see on the videos, hell that empyrean banner on the website was a nice rendition of what i would love to see. Can we work this way?

THIS, a thousand times this. There's nothing I hate more than homogeneous fleets.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

knobber Jobbler

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 609

#75 - 2012-03-14 10:14:42 UTC

Tyran Scorpi wrote:

knobber Jobbler wrote:

I don't agree. There aren't that many Titans that it would upset the economy. Most of the ISK that paid for them will ill gotten anyway.

All it would do is upset a tiny minority of players who have amassive sway over the game; we're better off without them anyway.

Tyran Scorpi

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8

#76 - 2012-03-14 19:49:30 UTC

Mechael wrote:

Still not a very good idea, for exactly the same reasons everyone else and I have already mentioned.

You mean the reasons of yours that I have already refuted?

James Amril-Kesh wrote:

THIS, a thousand times this. There's nothing I hate more than homogeneous fleets.

That would be the pipe dream, yes, but ideas for getting there that would actually succeed are non-existent thus far.

knobber Jobbler wrote:

Most of the titans out there were paid for with moon goo, and as such you have to re-imburse everyone's titans, plus all the BPO's for titans out there too. Lets assume that betwen completed titans and titans in build, that you would have to reimburse 1000 of them. Thats 50 Trillion ISK right there, not to mention another 50 billion for each BPO, and probably another 5 Bil for every BPC in existance. You can't possibly think that dropping significantly more than 50 Trillion isk back into the market isnt going to have serious side effects.

Rimase

Likes received: 42

#77 - 2012-03-18 15:33:55 UTC | Edited by: Rimase

Suggestions:

Deny Titans of Capital Weaponry. Keep them on Dreadnoughts & Carriers please.
A new Super-Support device as a defensive option
(to diminish multiple Titans in area): Being physically/electronicly/somethingly unable to have Titans operate untimely within range of each other. Instead, there'd be sequential activations of, say Super-devices within vicinity of each other requiring communication to discuss your next Titan's next move. Fleets w/ Titan(s) have 'activation priority rights' above solo Titans and multiple Fleets w/ Titan(s) have 'competitive activation rights' against each other. Consider this as a militarized safety protocol.

Variations:

TECH 1 - STANDARDIZED Titan (1 per Empire)

new

TECH 2 - SPECIALIZED Titans (2 per Empire)

TECH 3 - GENERALIZED Titan (Only 1)

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

Tyran Scorpi

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8

#78 - 2012-03-18 19:56:35 UTC

Rimase wrote:

Deny Titans of Capital Weaponry. Keep them on Dreadnoughts.

CCP gave the titans their capital weaponry to give them something to do against structures since their doomsday was not really useful there. If you want to remove capital weapons from titans you will need to change the titan superweapon to allow it to be more useful against structures. My proposal does remove capital weaponry from the titan, but only alongside a doomsday buff to allow the titan a consistent damage capability rather than a single blast every 10 minutes.

Rimase wrote:

A new Super-Support device as a defensive option

Interesting suggestion, how would you make that work?

Rimase wrote:

(to diminish multiple Titans in area): Being physically/electronicly/somethingly unable to have Titans operate untimely within range of each other. Instead, there'd be sequential activations of, say Super-devices within vicinity of each other requiring communication to discuss your next Titan's next move. Fleets w/ Titan(s) have 'activation priority rights' above solo Titans and multiple Fleets w/ Titan(s) have 'competitive activation rights' against each other. Consider this as a militarized safety protocol.

I think the easier and simpler solution would be a re-design of the superweapon.

Rimase wrote:

TECH 1 - STANDARDIZED Titan (1 per Empire)
TECH 2 - SPECIALIZED Titans (3 per Empire)
TECH 3 - GENERALIZED Titan (Only 1)

My proposal only adds one super capital hull to the mix, this would add 4. The best solution is most often the simplest solution that will be effective. I can't support a suggestion that is more complex than my own, but if you come up with a simpler solution, feel free to post it.

Rimase

Likes received: 42

#79 - 2012-03-19 12:07:14 UTC | Edited by: Rimase

Tyran Scorpi wrote:

Rimase wrote:

A new Super-Support device as a defensive option

Interesting suggestion, how would you make that work?

I don't know but I imagine it'd equalize the mass devastation that their super-destructive weapons(A) bring. Possibly an active forcefield(B) like player-owned structures as one example, which I don't know how they work, or a specious active Cloaking Field(C) similar to those deployables.
(A):(B):(C) = MassDestruction : MassProtection : MassEvasion/Invasion.
This thought spawned from having Titans not just a militarist presence but instead supporting industrialists and sovereign deficits, budgets, economists and all that financial babble.

Tyran Scorpi wrote:

Rimase wrote:

I think the easier and simpler solution would be a re-design of the superweapon.

But it is applying a new game-rule to using Capital super-weapons. It is a control to the chaos from which sub-ordinate ships have more perseverance in combat without multiple super-devices being activated. It is a control for balance, and where Balance and Control exists produces a Fairer game and satisfied gamers. A fictional militarized safety protocol addressing the need to control 'the Titan problem'. Still, they can be re-designed to target structures with this Control solution in-mind, that's no problem.

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

Tyran Scorpi

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 8

#80 - 2012-03-19 18:45:07 UTC

Rimase wrote:

Putting a POS shield on a titan seems a little overpowered to me, so would a field that cloaks everything around it.

Rimase wrote:

If you can solve the super weapon issue by redesigning it, the "new game rule" becomes pointless, and a waste of time and effort by dev teams who could be working on fixing other stuff.

First pagePrevious page23456Next pageLast page