Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ayari
Caldari Flying Monkey Squad
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:02:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ayari on 18/03/2010 12:03:13 I think a lot of people would agree that the amount of Titans in game nowadays has become somewhat absurd, and if this trend is to continue, eventually fleet combat will be entire fleets of titans one shotting each other with doomsdays. I have a proposal to reverse this trend that I would like some constructive feedback on.
Titans were originally meant to be so expensive in mineral cost that alliances could only possibly afford one. However, this is not the case, as alliances seem to make so much money that the cost of a Titan is almost trivial. What I suggest is a concept that will not be unknown to strategy gamers, and is quite apt, as a Titan is a *strategic* asset. I am of course talking about 'Upkeep'.
I propose that to operate a Titan, an alliance should need to pay a monthly upkeep cost, the price of which should be high enough to make it economically unfeasible for an alliance to maintain an increasing amount of Titans and still manage to remain solvent. This cost might have to be pegged to a reasonably stable currency, such as the ISK to Euro exchange rate (As reflected by PLEX prices) This ISK sink would also help to balance the amount of ISK flowing into the game via pirate bounties and insurance.
I would be interested in any constructive feedback about what the possible reprocussions of this change would be.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:12:00 -
[2]
the first major flaw in your proposal: you think CCP is defining the plex price ingame. but they are not. so using that as a factor will fall short quickly.
|
Ayari
Caldari Flying Monkey Squad
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: darius mclever the first major flaw in your proposal: you think CCP is defining the plex price ingame. but they are not. so using that as a factor will fall short quickly.
No, the price of the plex fluctuates with the percieved value of isk/hour. Therefore, it shows how much 1 ISK is worth.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:02:00 -
[4]
Adding maintenance costs wont have the desired effect if you don't encourage losing the damn things as well. Super-capitals are still being built on assembly lines with isk/resources being a non-issue. Sovereignty and moon changes was supposed to force the bloated holders to shed space and have had almost the opposite effect. Less systems with actual sov but still "owned" allowing even further expansion.
Tie the maintenance cost to where the Titan is located; Higher cost for ships in neutral or friendly (on "blue list" or standings not assigned) space and lower cost if in hostile space (on "red list") .. make it even more advantageous to use them as spearheads. Added benefit: Adds a cost to the silly buggers hanging out in near 100% safety in low-sec (neutral space) and encourages them to get back on the 0.0 horse.
It is a decent idea, accumulation of military assets has always been a natural limitation on build-up in the real world so could probably be used virtually as well. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:08:00 -
[5]
as you said yourself there is now lots of unclaimed space that is still controlled by the blocks holding sov in the surrounding space.
I form a small alt alliance. give it a system next to mine with the titan deathstar in it. set that alliance -10. voila i am saving upkeep cost.
the major problem with claiming those holes in the cheese is instant intel on sov changes (ingame and outofgame (dotlan/verite sovmap)).
you instantly know someone is trying to claim a system next to you. you dont even have to patrol the area. it will just popup on the screen and then you can move over and stomp them into the ground and kick the rest back into empire.
i think if you want those holes in the sov filled you need to make that kind of intel disappearing or delayed long time. removing the instant intel would be the best though.
i think the better approach to this might be marlona's "slowing down capships". i still dont like the idea much. but for supercaps and especially titans it might actually work. |
Ayari
Caldari Flying Monkey Squad
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 20:58:00 -
[6]
I was actually wondering what sort of turnover a large alliance has, if you say that isk/resources is not an issue for people continually building capital ships, make it so the upkeep cost is so high, it cuts into this production, so, they have to either choose building more caps or maintaining a Titan fleet.
I don't know how much money alliances make, but it would be interesting to see how much of an ISK sink was needed to cut into their bottom line. |
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:12:00 -
[7]
Quote: I think a lot of people would agree that the amount of Titans in game nowadays has become somewhat absurd, and if this trend is to continue, eventually fleet combat will be entire fleets of titans one shotting each other with doomsdays.
What is the issue of a Titan again? A single shot one hit wonder on non-titan cap ships? That its stuck on the battlefield when it fires its gun? Most fleets are populated by sniper BS that don't need huge buffer tanks anymore? That its uninsurable? That its a huge investment in time to train a character that ends up locked inside of it? |
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ayari Edited by: Ayari on 18/03/2010 12:03:13 I think a lot of people would agree that the amount of Titans in game nowadays has become somewhat absurd, and if this trend is to continue, eventually fleet combat will be entire fleets of titans one shotting each other with doomsdays. I have a proposal to reverse this trend that I would like some constructive feedback on.
Titans were originally meant to be so expensive in mineral cost that alliances could only possibly afford one. However, this is not the case, as alliances seem to make so much money that the cost of a Titan is almost trivial. What I suggest is a concept that will not be unknown to strategy gamers, and is quite apt, as a Titan is a *strategic* asset. I am of course talking about 'Upkeep'.
I propose that to operate a Titan, an alliance should need to pay a monthly upkeep cost, the price of which should be high enough to make it economically unfeasible for an alliance to maintain an increasing amount of Titans and still manage to remain solvent. This cost might have to be pegged to a reasonably stable currency, such as the ISK to Euro exchange rate (As reflected by PLEX prices) This ISK sink would also help to balance the amount of ISK flowing into the game via pirate bounties and insurance.
I would be interested in any constructive feedback about what the possible reprocussions of this change would be.
I see two ways for Titans to become de-proliferated:
1. Their desirability must go down. The idea posted here goes some lengths towards this end, but it's not a pleasant mechanic and again favors much richer players over others. Generally speaking, this is probably not a good idea.
2. The ability to acquire them must drop off dramatically. This is the method I favor. The reason there are so many Titans today are the extremely low price of minerals from miners, loot refiners and drone region drops, and from the abundance of ISK filling the economy from 0.0 ratting, level 4 mission running, and the widespread insurance fraud propping up current prices.
Addressing the ability to acquire ISK and material is the only way the number of Titans in game won't continue to spiral upwards. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:22:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Evelgrivion I see two ways for Titans to become de-proliferated:
1. Their desirability must go down. The idea posted here goes some lengths towards this end, but it's not a pleasant mechanic and again favors much richer players over others. Generally speaking, this is probably not a good idea.
Ok we finally have titans that can stay on the battlefield and are not pos ornaments or drive by vessels anymore and you want to nerf them right away yes?
Originally by: Evelgrivion
2. The ability to acquire them must drop off dramatically. This is the method I favor. The reason there are so many Titans today are the extremely low price of minerals from miners, loot refiners and drone region drops, and from the abundance of ISK filling the economy from 0.0 ratting, level 4 mission running, and the widespread insurance fraud propping up current prices.
Addressing the ability to acquire ISK and material is the only way the number of Titans in game won't continue to spiral upwards.
how well balancing with isk worked you see on the current number of titans. |
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:36:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 18/03/2010 21:38:51
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Evelgrivion I see two ways for Titans to become de-proliferated:
1. Their desirability must go down. The idea posted here goes some lengths towards this end, but it's not a pleasant mechanic and again favors much richer players over others. Generally speaking, this is probably not a good idea.
Ok we finally have titans that can stay on the battlefield and are not pos ornaments or drive by vessels anymore and you want to nerf them right away yes?
Originally by: Evelgrivion
2. The ability to acquire them must drop off dramatically. This is the method I favor. The reason there are so many Titans today are the extremely low price of minerals from miners, loot refiners and drone region drops, and from the abundance of ISK filling the economy from 0.0 ratting, level 4 mission running, and the widespread insurance fraud propping up current prices.
Addressing the ability to acquire ISK and material is the only way the number of Titans in game won't continue to spiral upwards.
how well balancing with isk worked you see on the current number of titans.
A good chunk of the problem in "balancing with ISK" is that it works better if the supply of ISK in the economy would be visibly constrained by the acquisition of BPOs. The production of Titans from existing BPOs only works if there is a visibly constrained supply of raw materials. At present, neither of these constraints exist and the amount of money and material just keeps going up. Making something that's even more expensive than the previous top end gear will only dent the supply in the very short term, and as the game goes on it will ultimately make no difference.
I'm not suggesting that CCP should balance things like Titans by making them expensive. What I am saying is everything needs to be balanced by making the material expensive and making the money valuable. |
|
Meredith Midnight
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:15:00 -
[11]
Quote: 2. The ability to acquire them must drop off dramatically. This is the method I favor. The reason there are so many Titans today are the extremely low price of minerals from miners, loot refiners and drone region drops, and from the abundance of ISK filling the economy from 0.0 ratting, level 4 mission running, and the widespread insurance fraud propping up current prices.
I like this idea.
Maybe have titan production involve extremely rare minerals that are seeded by CCP somehow, and have that max limit be 100. If you want your own titan, you can pop one of the existing ones and salvage its wreck for an equivalent of that titan. If people horde it so that no one can make titans, i see no issue with it.. but what if one side manages to grab all the titan minerals... What's to stop one side from obtaining all the available titans if CCP decides to limit its population.
I rather they change the mechanic so that only one titan can be on grid, but change it so that it can't jump out for 30 minutes after cyno'ing in. reset the timer if it decides to use its doomsday or something (probably a bad idea i know). The first option is probably more 'friendly' to the game as a whole rather than making the game completely one sided (if you go with the latter option).
Next on the thought stream... introduce a new class of ships that is meant to replace titans (t2 cap ships ). Cease the ability to make new titans. Introduce a 'sleeper core' that can only be broken by 3 simultaneous doomsdays (within a span of 3 minutes). the resulting feedback destroys the titans, the contents of the sleeper core contains the bpo of a new ship, as well as a bunch of super-alloys (that can be carried in an unbonused orca) that results in 80% of the titans mineral requirements. After that, you can only invent the new ship thru the dreadnought bpo.
Anyways... carry on |
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:17:00 -
[12]
Triple build costs, half HP
That should make people not want them/ many of them.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:17:00 -
[13]
do you actually live in 0.0 or so?
super cap production already got more risky and expensive. given the costs for a cyno jammer to protect your CSAA tower. if you dont install a cyno jammer, the tower is in higher danger of getting killed and the supercap build gets aborted.
|
mchief117
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Meredith Midnight
Maybe have titan production involve extremely rare minerals that are seeded by CCP somehow, and have that max limit be 100. If you want your own titan, you can pop one of the existing ones and salvage its wreck for an equivalent of that titan. If people horde it so that no one can make titans, i see no issue with it.. but what if one side manages to grab all the titan minerals... What's to stop one side from obtaining all the available titans if CCP decides to limit its population.
you dont play this game much do you, if there where only 100 " titan super consoles" they would be collected buy the largest corp there is and disapear forever they by removing them from the game , |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:24:00 -
[15]
Making supercaps not vanish in thin air when character logs off is one way to induce de-proliferation |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ephemeron Making supercaps not vanish in thin air when character logs off is one way to induce de-proliferation
you mean as everyone would self destruct them to get some iskies back and then buying something that isnt nerfed into oblivion yet? |
Meredith Midnight
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:37:00 -
[17]
Quote:
you dont play this game much do you, if there where only 100 " titan super consoles" they would be collected buy the largest corp there is and disapear forever they by removing them from the game ,
I do play quite often actually. I honestly believe that the titan has lost sight of its original role of being the OP'd shiny anti-blob ship that's so expensive only the few top alliances will have one. Now that there's so many, it'd probably be best to start phasing them out somehow, (and i admit my idea was pretty short sighted) |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:40:00 -
[18]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Ephemeron Making supercaps not vanish in thin air when character logs off is one way to induce de-proliferation
you mean as everyone would self destruct them to get some iskies back and then buying something that isnt nerfed into oblivion yet?
not everyone, just the softcore pussies.
Not everyone deserves to fly a titan. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Ephemeron Making supercaps not vanish in thin air when character logs off is one way to induce de-proliferation
you mean as everyone would self destruct them to get some iskies back and then buying something that isnt nerfed into oblivion yet?
not everyone, just the softcore pussies.
Not everyone deserves to fly a titan.
what use would be a super capital if you can be probed out in space after logging out, be killed there and waking up in your medclone on the next login?
doesnt sound dumb to you? |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:01:00 -
[20]
Quote: what use would be a super capital if you can be probed out in space after logging out, be killed there and waking up in your medclone on the next login?
doesnt sound dumb to you?
The non-trivial titan owner would know of some friendly POS where he could park the titan overnight.
If titan owner's alliance loses all friendly POS in all of EVE, well then he lost, game over. |
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:12:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote: what use would be a super capital if you can be probed out in space after logging out, be killed there and waking up in your medclone on the next login?
doesnt sound dumb to you?
The non-trivial titan owner would know of some friendly POS where he could park the titan overnight.
If titan owner's alliance loses all friendly POS in all of EVE, well then he lost, game over.
or the titan owner has no chance to login for various reason (hospital, army, work).
for the sake of consistency you would need to apply the same logic to all other ship classes logging off in space. and then you would hurt roaming pvper more than the odd titan/mothership pilot. |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:28:00 -
[22]
supercaps should not be for trivial player
The original CCP design did not even intend titans to be privately owned. Those ships were meant to be alliance/corp assets.
I would support new corp interface tools for changing titan pilots, so people with proper access could kick or board the titan. It should not be personal. |
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:15:00 -
[23]
what exactly is the problem with having titans around in numbers? Post dominion you don't even have to worry about DDD's. Just one lucky contestant gets the single target DD and in the right numbers...man, I like them odds.
Secondly why should alliance pay if member corps are titan rich? Alliance not there to tell corps or corp memebers what to do with money or what stuff to buy beyond fleet fits (and more often than not, thats only cause you want fleet replacements.
And lastly, prices are market based. Not CCP's fault the market went to crap for most mats. Also not CCP's fault if certain corps do such strange things like corp based fund drives. Strange concept I know...teamwork. Maybe temp rate hikes, a corp mining op here and there, having ratters drop off loot in corp hangars...
One corp has the members who realize without the corp they wouldn't have access to the stuff in null sec so they chip in more occassionally to fund stuff like titans. One corp filled with selfish idiots doing there own thing so the corp can't fund titans. Why should the former be punished for it? Sounds like a personnel problem with the latter that needs to be fixed to me. |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:26:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Misanthra what exactly is the problem with having titans around in numbers? Post dominion you don't even have to worry about DDD's. Just one lucky contestant gets the single target DD and in the right numbers...man, I like them odds.
While roaming in Delve, within 1 week, IT Titans have tried to solo-DDD me 4 times, 1 time was successful.
I was flying Dominix. How is that for a sign that something's wrong? |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:29:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Misanthra what exactly is the problem with having titans around in numbers? Post dominion you don't even have to worry about DDD's. Just one lucky contestant gets the single target DD and in the right numbers...man, I like them odds.
While roaming in Delve, within 1 week, IT Titans have tried to solo-DDD me 4 times, 1 time was successful.
I was flying Dominix. How is that for a sign that something's wrong?
bored titan pilot who wanted a 1v1. you didnt accept? |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:44:00 -
[26]
Originally by: darius mclever bored titan pilot who wanted a 1v1. you didnt accept?
lets make their lives a little more interesting by perma-ing their titans in space, whether they are logged in or not |
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: darius mclever bored titan pilot who wanted a 1v1. you didnt accept?
lol. Yeah bored titan pilot can't be factored in.
Plus its delve, IT brought out all the fixings for a fight they didn't get cause goons imploded. Ratting good and all...but chance comes up some will hunt down shuttles just because its that or ratting lol. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:15:00 -
[28]
Dominion did a good job at making Titan's worth bringing to the front, but at the same time it made a mockery of the large scale wars where Titan's have value.
You won't make so much as a dent in the Titan population by any changes to isk/mineral costs, only way is to "force" them into the open where they can be destroyed.
Fix the lag and create some nifty mechanic to encourage their use and it will sort itself out in no time. Best way to do that is to have something so shiny that even friends turn on each other .. be it a super-moon, planet or something entirely different.
PS. Time an old-school three-way: NC vs. IT vs. -A-. That should reduce the numbers to more reasonable level if they go all out |
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 10:28:00 -
[29]
a more sutble way of doing it would be to increase the ice cost of flying them , add npc trade goods would increase logistics requirements, and the more the are the more that will die as different groups attack each other |
Kon Pepper
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:16:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Kon Pepper on 19/03/2010 15:17:05 what about making the titans have monthly feul costs, like a pos but on a much larger scale. say 500m per month just to keep it online.
at any time the owner could choose to offline the titan, but with some penalty to online it again.
So lets say i own an erebus and i am paying ~500m to keep it online every month. then the alliance/ coalition im in enters a dry patch between wars. i can choose to offline my erebus and let it sit in space without sucking fuel. To online it agian i would have to wait out some sort of timer or pay a hefty sum in fuel costs.
Just an idea, i liked the OP's idea of titans having maintenance costs and this is just a little more realistic, and most alliances would opt to keep the titans but may choose to offline a few of them |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |