Ships & Modules

Actually there is a rush regarding titans, our numbers are growing.

I personally like the idea of completely removing supercap ewar immunity.

I hate conundrums.

I can see any change that would reduce the bite of titans against smaller ships nearly a no win for anything.

Signature radius of ships would make sub capital compartment forced to scale down as well to deal with the new sizes which also means adjusting the target painters to be viable again and we're back to square one. Target Ship electronic size would be large enough to get nailed by the titan.

XL Gun only tweaking is off the shelf and I have to agree special casing a gun size is rather silly, short sighted, and short solution and the quickest path to make the entire weapon class 'useless'.

I think the best solution is to have signature radius of a ship verses the gun resolution to effect damage rolls. For example if a ship is 1/10th of the guns resolution 90% of hits will actually register as misses or glancing blows to help signify that yes the gun did place round into the resolution area but because the ship is that much smaller the round missed entirely.

The more on center the round was placed in the more likely it would have been a wrecking hit causing a critical strike. However this has to be tweaked and monitored and will take time to assure its quality of effect but it would make it more advantageous for smaller ships to fire on larger ships. HOPEFULLY you can stick with just adjusting gun resolution and not have to mess with ship resolutions as much.

Maybe have 'tebo's effect gun resolution as well?

Either way this idea would make it 'less' effective for a titan to attempt to shoot a sub cap but not impossible and at least increase the time between targeting and blaping the poor bugger out of existence.

-Vix

EW is far more powerful than remote assistance though. A single arbitrator supported by a link proteus could knock a titan down to 2% of its normal range or tracking.


Ideally I would like to see webs, target painters, tracking disruptors, sensor damps, and ECM changed so that only a single (more powerful) effect can be applied to any single target. As an example, webs could be changed to -80% speed reduction but stacking more than one on a target wouldn't do anything more.

An angular sig resolution for guns (which seems to be similar to what I'm Down was proposing), combined with decoupling sig radius/sig resolution from the tracking formula, would have the effect of making it more difficult to hit small ships at long range - but *only* small ships. A titan gun could have 100km optimal and still be unable to hit a frigate (or, more importantly, a dictor) *even with zero transversal* at 15km, which no amount of tweaks to optimal/falloff/tracking will achieve under the current formulae. (It'd make the sig radius/sig resolution comparison less intuitive, true, but would make tracking comparison more intuitive if 0.1 rad/s actually *means* 0.1 rad/s, regardless of what ship you're shooting at.)

What is "a large built-in WCS bonus" ? You can get tangled in ideas as much as you want. The truth is i won't buy a ship that is worth 100 bil to be jammed by a falcon/kitsune or tracking disrupted by curse/pilgrim. I don't understand one thing isn't it obvious that CFC coalition made a strong case against titans with them making suicidal runs at them ? If there is something to implement i suggest you implement some imagination to some of the fleet commanders that have no idea how to run their fleets. About all the people complained that got hot drooped in frigs and cruisers they have no idea how to play this game. They have so many ways to counter titans but you need a brain in order to find them out and i will not do their work for them if they are so narrow minded they should leave other people lead. At some point a dude said is like comparing a Lada with a Lamborghini , you do get what you pay for as in real life ( spare me the comments of this is not real life is a game ) the more expensive the product is the better the quality of that product. Goons unfortunately for them showed that is possible to counter titans, but why making life easier for people that want to race a Lamborghini with a Lada ? The overall tactic is to suicide run insurable ships ( that is from CFC side) but they don't want to suicide dreads because are expensive in stead why not suicide a hurricane or drake in stead. And now comes the idea of casual players and hard-core players ( casual - the dude that plays this game to have fun and hard core - that play this game to achieve something ). You nerfed the supers once reducing their ehp with 20 % - everyone said that was it , titans are no longer able to remove instantly command ships from the field - fair enough, you took out supercarriers from their engagements agains subcapitals now beeing only logistics for titans and a guardian in case of a capital fight, so what is next ?. You can't kill a well organized fleet with only i have 1200 people lets do it. It doesn't work that way, you managed to get the game in to a point that if you have 150 mil sp or 40 it would not matter. Along the years you encouraged "the dude" and his friends for quite along time. It think is enough if they want to win let them try harder , let them try different stuff. If you fly a drake , a maelstrom and a hurricane and you have 1000 friends that shouldn't allow you to win everything. Tell me a feature that will keep veterans in game ? tell me something that you have done so that old players would come and openly say: HELL YES, THIS IS THE GAME I AM PLAYING SINCE 2003 AND I LOVE IT


best regards.

don't TPs get diminishing returns? if there is no point in putting more than 2-3 painters on a target, you can account for that by adding a constant factor to the damage nerf. i'm not an expert but a scenario where titans can damage other caps without any help, damage BS and buffer drakes drakes with TP support, and not seriously damage cruisers no matter how much they get webbed/painted seems reasonable to me.

if the diminishing returns on TPs aren't strong enough, you can still nerf TP stacking.

We don't want to balance turrets around the *assumption* of TPs, and we don't want to do a wider nerf to TPs just to solve this one case.

Yes because that's really how it stands atm.

Sarcasm aside; identifying a perceived problem is not the same as providing a future vision (to borrow ccp's beloved term). Where are we headed? Or at least where are we supposed to be headed? I'm finding it hard to get a clear picture.