These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Titan changes - update

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#381 - 2012-03-29 16:16:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now
Dear CCP Grayscale, could you please comment on the idea of removing XL weapons and compensating for this with a cycle boosted doomsday weapon.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#382 - 2012-03-29 16:24:24 UTC
Kazanir wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough. Is the ineffectiveness of EW in these situations something that there's a potential easy fix for? It's a decent on-paper solution to the problem, and it'd be nice if we could make it scale properly. If not, oh well, we look at something else.


Without discussing this with my esteemed colleagues at length, I think the only way you "easy fix" this is by making it much, much harder for titans to kill ewar and subcap ships, which is what you're trying to achieve in the first place. It becomes a circular argument. The steps are like this:

-- Titans are so good at killing subcaps
-- No subcap can do all that much to tackle them or (hypothetically ewar) them
-- So, allowing more tackle and more ewar most likely won't solve your problem
-- And it certainly will only lead to people bringing more titans so they can take advantage of...
-- [Back to top] titans being so good at killing subcaps

So basically, you can't make ewar really very useful against a ship that deals thousands of DPS to subcaps without first fixing...the "thousands of DPS to subcaps" part. Which is what the ewar thing is intended to fix.

Titans need nerfs and it all goes back to their DPS. Damage per second is the king stat of any MMO, and titans have it in spades, with no downsides.

The kind of game mechanics an MMO needs to make "more DPS" not the right choice are pretty heavy handed stuff. To illustrate this, I'm going to take an extended look at dreadnoughts, who have very high DPS but remain balanced. Observe what it takes to balance a dreadnought:

1. To deal high DPS, dreads need to give up massive amounts of locking speed, half of their tracking, and go down to 2-3 max targets.

2. In addition, dreads cannot move while sieged, nor can they leave. They tackle themselves and cannot (due to the above) most likely clear their own tackle before leaving siege. A dread is committed to either winning, winning while dying (attrition), or dying in a huge fire. There are few situations where a dread fleet loses a battle and then escapes intact.

3. Dreads have a limited number of EHP, between 2-3 million. This is a lot of HP, but relatively trivial for a subcap fleet of any size. In addition, their repping power is STRICTLY limited by their capacitor battery and they physical numbers on their local reps. They simply do not scale beyond a certain point. This means that a dread fleet facing signficant opposition is committed to some level of attrition -- some of them will always die if the fight is anything like equal.

You see how titans have none of those drawbacks. And really, no drawbacks at all other than cost -- which isn't a drawback since titans so rarely suffer attrition except in cases of massive strategic error.

In my opinion there are two ways to balance titans before you look at giving them an actual coherent role in the game.

A: Nerf their damage, especially against lower-class subcaps like dictors and cruisers but also signficantly against battleships. The originally proposed nerfs were a great step in the right direction because of the dreadnought-like combination of locking-speed/target caps and tracking nerfs. Electronic warfare vulnerability would also be a good addition to this method.

B: Nerf titans' EHP severely and also create diminshing returns on remote reps in some way. A titan with 10M EHP instead of 40-60M is going to be a much different choice on being deployed or not, because 10M EHP would mean that it is still vulnerable *even if you have 50 other titans* in the fleet. This would mean that "should I bring a titan or some other ship" would actually be a choice again.


Generally agree with this, but the one thing I would point out is that the "more DPS than you can deal with" thing can be mitigated if you have enough EW on the field that the titans can't kill them all before they've all been TD'd, at which point the EW boats are safe from the titans. (And then you kill them with half a dozen HACs, so you need to toughen up and/or distribute your EW, and defend them by killing teh enemy support before they kill your EW, and then you suddenly have a really interesting fight. Or they just put TDs on their supercarriers because yeah.)

pmchem wrote:
Raivi wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc.


The issue here is that sig radius already effects combat too weakly. If you don't give any incentives to reduce it then you lose a lot of the advantages of ABs, armor tanks, and minmatar gang bonuses.

The end result would be to remove the number of choices that are worth making in fleet combat.


The end result is having titans that can't significantly damage subcaps, while still being able to target them for usage of modules or broadcasts. I assume these changes would be XL turret specific, so all those sigrad effects you talk about would still be important for subcap v subcap and subcap v carrier/supercarrier gameplay. I don't see the problem. The idea is that titans would need support fleets to operate, so sigrad choices will still be important.


Yup, we'd probably go about this sort of fix by having an authorable attribute that we set to 0 on most weapons (ie, they do reduced damage to targets with a sigradius of less than 0).
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#383 - 2012-03-29 16:26:08 UTC
Kata Amentis wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now, then. It's something we might revisit in some form when we get round to looking at EAFs, but that's out of scope here.

....


The issue is with coordination and awareness on the battlefield in large conflicts... I've not had the "pleasure" of the silly big fights, but coordinating EWar even on a moderate scale within subcap fights is something that's really hard to remain effective.

I don't think this is something to be revisited when looking at EAFs, as it's not linked to a role or hull, it's something to look into getting into that snazzy battle tactical overlay doohicky you had in one of the FF presentations. Or even the information awareness aspect that was discussed (the star trek bridge simulation example from ccp soundwave).


Yup, this is one of those "other things"; in particular, while we want more gameplay that rewards smart decision-making (agree with Raivi on this), we can't have the counter to titans require you to be one of the top n FCs on the server (where n is a small number). Reducing the co-ordination load on FCs is something we should probably address in the long run, but it's not happening right now obviously.

Shin Dari wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now
Dear CCP Grayscale, could you please comment on the idea of removing XL weapons and compensating for this with a cycle boosted doomsday weapon.


Would require us to do an upgrade script to remove all the suddenly-illegal weapons on patch day, which introduces too much overhead for it to be a viable option for this release.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#384 - 2012-03-29 17:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Raivi
CCP Greyscale wrote:
we can't have the counter to titans require you to be one of the top n FCs on the server (where n is a small number). Reducing the co-ordination load on FCs is something we should probably address in the long run, but it's not happening right now obviously.


Damp on every ship distributed to hostile logistics was something Atlas was able to pull off. Just saying. Lol
(Your point is completely valid but I couldn't resist a dig at Atlas)

Also like you said if you miss one or two titans you're still left in the same non-overpowered situation of subcap fleet vs one or two titans.

:Edit: BTW ewar idea is supported by Lazarus Mother****ing Telraven, something you'd know if you got twitter with the other cool kids.

:Edit again: Is that word really not censored? I'll do it myself for politeness I guess.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#385 - 2012-03-29 17:09:02 UTC
Also, longshot I know, but would there be a way to do the base sigres thing without having it effect dreads? :prettyplease:
Lord Helghast
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2012-03-29 17:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Helghast
Seems silly but the problem isn't really titans

the problems is mass amounts of titans in 1 system

so why don't you just do the right thing CCP and FIX CAP MOVEMENT!

Simple enough change, add a spool up to cynos, that increases the Mass allowance the longer it runs, so to get a titan through it will tkae 1-2 minutes to build up to size.... and gives the enemy a chance to defend against the quickly growing cyno that a titans about to enter through...

it was even suggested previously to tie the cyno gen to heavy cap usage... so to generate a small cyno you could use a frigate (small cynogen = small cap usage but also very low maximum mass... large = large cap draw, and no limit to cyno mass size....)

this makes it so to get a titan in you need a battleship with support and fit for cap and tank.

want to bring in 30 titans, its possible but your gonna have to bring 30 cyno fit + capacitor fit battleships, with support to defend them while there cynos build up to get each of there titans through.....

Wouldn't this do a lot to discourage the proliferation of titans and supers en-mass on single battlefield?

Recons would be able to fit large sized cyno generators, that way hot drops of non-capital sized fleets would still be possible, as they could activate and generate a large mass field quickly to get say a gang of bombers/recons etc through and get the field down again


Also opens up the possiblity for recons and a recon specific module for "remote cyno transfer" to help a single a remote cyno ship generate mass faster
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#387 - 2012-03-29 17:16:58 UTC
Lord Helghast wrote:
Seems silly but the problem isn't really titans

the problems is mass amounts of titans in 1 system

so why don't you just do the right thing CCP and FIX CAP MOVEMENT!

Simple enough change, add a spool up to cynos, that increases the Mass allowance the longer it runs, so to get a titan through it will tkae 1-2 minutes to build up to size.... and gives the enemy a chance to defend against the quickly growing cyno that a titans about to enter through...

it was even suggested previously to tie the cyno gen to heavy cap usage... so to generate a small cyno you could use a frigate (small cynogen = small cap usage but also very low maximum mass... large = large cap draw, and no limit to cyno mass size....)

this makes it so to get a titan in you need a battleship with support and fit for cap and tank.

want to bring in 30 titans, its possible but your gonna have to bring 30 cyno fit + capacitor fit battleships, with support to defend them while there cynos build up to get each of there titans through.....

Wouldn't this do a lot to discourage the proliferation of titans and supers en-mass on single battlefield?

Recons would be able to fit large sized cyno generators, that way hot drops of non-capital sized fleets would still be possible, as they could activate and generate a large mass field quickly to get say a gang of bombers/recons etc through and get the field down again


Would cause the same problem of overpowered defense that cynojammer AOE titans caused back in the day.
Tweaking cap movement would be worth it on it's own though. My favourite idea is to give a DD-like cooldown after jumping that prevents jumping again (and maybe warping) for a few minutes.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#388 - 2012-03-29 17:29:53 UTC
Raivi wrote:
Also, longshot I know, but would there be a way to do the base sigres thing without having it effect dreads? :prettyplease:


It's possible. We'll look into it Smile

(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#389 - 2012-03-29 17:35:10 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Raivi wrote:
Also, longshot I know, but would there be a way to do the base sigres thing without having it effect dreads? :prettyplease:


It's possible. We'll look into it Smile

(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)


yo


CynoNet Two wrote:
Balancing caps / hotdropping is p simple.

Give all caps a base spool-up time for their jump drive, eg:
Carrier/Dread: 5 seconds
Supercarrier: 20 seconds
Titan: 30 seconds

Then have different sizes of cynogen like guns (with appropriate fitting reqs) that modify the spool up time:

Small: 5x
Med: 3x
Large: 2x
XL: 1x

Voila. Now small disposable cyno ships force a longer spool-up for jumps and aren't as useful for hotdrops. Instead someone trying to hotdrop needs to risk a larger ship to reduce the delay
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#390 - 2012-03-29 18:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
Wouldnt work instead they would let the titan go first then time everyone to start thiers around the time to titan jump.

Tieing in the distances though (exact) into the math would however help screw it up. you could also add a 'cool off' so the more rapidly you jump the longer the spool up from over stressing and redlining the drives.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#391 - 2012-03-29 18:30:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Also, further clarification:

This EW-immunity stuff is something we're *exploring*. This discussion is part of that exploration.

The specific benefits I'm hoping it might yield at this time aren't really to do with warp scrambling, they're to do specifically with tracking disruption. You can get four -62% TDs on an Arbitrator, each of which cancels out four Shadow Serpentis tracking computers. Even if you assign 2x TDs to each titan, this ought to let you significantly mitigate a 30-titan blapfleet with 15 T1 cruiser hulls, which is pretty decent scaling IMO.


Overall good Idea. Jamming, or TDing a Titan should be a team assignment. That is, one Arbitrator should not be able to make a Titan useless..
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#392 - 2012-03-29 18:39:44 UTC
I'm actually cool with one arbitrator making a titan useless because the titan's support fleet should be able to shoot that arbitrator.
gfldex
#393 - 2012-03-29 18:52:12 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)


Is that the working title or do you have to kill us now?

An a different note, will jumping be cancel able while spooling up?

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Callic Veratar
#394 - 2012-03-29 19:20:24 UTC
gfldex wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)


Is that the working title or do you have to kill us now?

An a different note, will jumping be cancel able while spooling up?


I'd like to think it'd be implemented like the current align/warp system. You can tell your ship to jump, where it'll spool and jump immediately (cancelling as long a you're still spooling). Alternately, a fleet can all spool their jump drive and warp together as long as the cyno remains lit for the duration.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#395 - 2012-03-29 20:10:36 UTC
gfldex wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
(My current favored implementation of a spool-up timer is just to tie spool length to jump distance, so if you want a fast hot-drop you have to base your caps nearby, which in turn makes it at least reasonably possible in principle to scout them. It's not a quick enough change to get it into Escalation, though.)


Is that the working title or do you have to kill us now?


IIRC at fanfest they said Escalation is the name of the big patch that's coming BEFORE Inferno.

Could be wrong though.
Savaage
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#396 - 2012-03-29 21:18:06 UTC
@ CCP Greyscale

i don't know if its been mentioned already but one thing that should be looked at is bumping of titans. but from whats been posted at lest for this release titans will still have guns and tracking. Even in a anti cap role when 2 or more titans login/ cyno in near one another even if they are a few km away on there range finders they have a strong tendency to bump at ridiculously high speeds. When this happens even a titan shooting another titan has a high tendency to miss. with all the changes coming at titans it would be nice if 1/2 the titans in the fleet didnt go flying 300-400km away.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#397 - 2012-03-29 21:24:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Raivi wrote:
Also, longshot I know, but would there be a way to do the base sigres thing without having it effect dreads? :prettyplease:


It's possible. We'll look into it Smile

Yeah, and if you end up going with the current changes, put a -50% tracking role "bonus" on titans rather then the XL guns and keep the -50% tracking penalty in the siege mod. Dreads don't need a nerf.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#398 - 2012-03-29 21:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now, then. It's something we might revisit in some form when we get round to looking at EAFs, but that's out of scope here.

Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc.

Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking.

I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem.

Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819

Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts.
I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable.

Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights.

And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.
Raivi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#399 - 2012-03-29 22:21:42 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fair enough, shelving that idea for now, then. It's something we might revisit in some form when we get round to looking at EAFs, but that's out of scope here.

Changing subject and following up an earlier discussion, we were knocking around the possibility of damage-scaling based on unmodified sig radius, so you couldn't affect it with TPs etc.

Mate, this does not work. You can't fix the problem with a tweak to a broken system, you need to fix the system. The reason we can find ways to exploit the system is because it's not built correctly. I can already come up with a way to abuse this system simply because it's not addressing the issue at hand, which is range affecting tracking.

I'd love to have a live chat with you sometime because discussing this on the forums in not very effective. But needless to say, buffing DD and / or trying to work the game within the current tracking mechanics are both horrible ideas for numerous reasons. You just need to grit your teeth and actually fix the core problem.

Also let me point you to this very old post now that was aimed at the first round of titan changes and balance, got huge positive player feedback including the CSM chair, and actually addresses the problem of stacking supers on grid to counter the one natural counter... dreads.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1014819

Although, I would make sure that the cap requirement is above 40% to prevent jump in and DD instantly attempts.
I would also make sure that siege dreads got a reduction in effects, but unsieged dreads were vulnerable.

Makes the DD near impossible to stack, penalizes huge super numbers to support a titan who chooses to DD, and acutally makes the titan more of a supportive role in fights.

And it actually ushers in the age of new tech 3 modules and ships.


Right now he needs ideas for things that can be done before April 24th dude.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#400 - 2012-03-29 22:24:22 UTC
Raivi, I get that, and he needs to adhear to his own logic in the original post of start small and work out rather than throw out 15 hair brained ideas that are bad, but serve as a temp fix.

If he's going to nerf tracking and lock amount... stick with that for now and patch in more later. Don't focus on 15 horrible small fixes all together simply because each one is small and easy to do in the now.