Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:59:00 -
[61] - Quote
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
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:00:00 -
[62] - Quote
Any thoughts/suggestions/feedback for the specific layouts for each ship detailed in post #2? |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 03:17:00 -
[63] - Quote
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
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1274
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 05:23:00 -
[64] - Quote
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. |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 12:51:00 -
[65] - Quote
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
S0utherN Comfort Cascade Imminent
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:32:00 -
[66] - Quote
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
Star Nebulae Holdings Inc.
172
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 16:43:00 -
[67] - Quote
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
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1276
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 16:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
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)
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.
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/ |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:03:00 -
[69] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: 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.
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.
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 ship underwhelming, while allowing it 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
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote: 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.
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
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:21:00 -
[71] - Quote
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
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 00:56:00 -
[72] - Quote
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. |
Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 03:16:00 -
[73] - Quote
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.) I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 04:19:00 -
[74] - Quote
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. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 10:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Tyran Scorpi wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote: 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.
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.
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
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 19:49:00 -
[76] - Quote
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: 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.
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
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 15:33:00 -
[77] - Quote
Suggestions:- Deny Titans of Capital Weaponry. Keep them on Dreadnoughts & Carriers please.
- A new Super-Support device as a defensive option
- TECH 1 - STANDARDIZED Titan
- Foundations to specialized roles & Economical flagship option. - Super-Weapon device (offensive) - new Super-Support device (defensive)!
- TECH 2 - SPECIALIZED Titans (3 per Empire)
- Specialized Command (Gang Links/Titan Fleet Bonus). - Specialized Logistics (Bridging/Clone Vat) - Specialized Super-Weapon/Super-Support platform.
- TECH 3 - GENERALIZED Titan (1 per Empire)
This probably will not happen. Not even necessarily.
|
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 19:56:00 -
[78] - Quote
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
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 12:07:00 -
[79] - Quote
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 an activated-passive Cloaking Field(C) similar to those deployables. (A):(B):(C) = MassDestruction : MassProtection : MassEvasion. This thought spawned from having Titans not just a militarist presence but instead supporting industrialists and sovereign-space.
Tyran Scorpi wrote: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. 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. |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 18:45:00 -
[80] - Quote
Rimase wrote: 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.
Putting a POS shield on a titan seems a little overpowered to me, so would a field that cloaks everything around it.
Rimase wrote: 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.
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. |
|
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 03:28:00 -
[81] - Quote
On to page 5 |
Joyelle
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:36:00 -
[82] - Quote
If anything is OP, it's the damn dreads pushing out way more DPS than any super atm whilst still having a good tank, being relatively cheap and easier to produce. Nowadays, It makes more sense to engage in a lot of dreads instead of a few titans and still come out ahead in terms of isk efficiency and general effectiveness. There's no need for the titan, if it'll be limited to a certain role, especially when you consider all the effort put into getting and maintaining one. I think all capital and supercapital production should be done in a capital assembly array. It'll even out the availability of capitals as a whole.
P.S. nerf titan turret tracking and increase dps. Dreads pushing out more dps than titans is unacceptable. |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 01:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
Joyelle wrote: P.S. nerf titan turret tracking and increase dps. Dreads pushing out more dps than titans is unacceptable.
They are already rolling out a tracking fix, and its to nerf all XL turret tracking by 50% across the board. They are removing the 50% tracking penalty from the siege module tho.
As for your dread damage complaint, I dont see anything wrong with it, since they have to take a massive risk by going into siege mode to get that damage. If you want a titan to be able to use a siege module to be able to beat a dreads damage output I could get behind the idea since it comes with risks. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
75
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
Simple: THE TITAN SHOULD NOT BE A COMBAT SHIP
There is just no way to balance it otherwise, without making it either overpowered or obsolete.
It should be a mobile station, full docking and logging off at location, corp asset like a pos, titan bridge, station services and both the old and the new doomsday weapons (both very ice-expensive to use so emergency-only)
Big alliances will use it as a front-line command post for reshipping and logistics. Small alliances will use it as a their mobile HQ (keeping away from the front-lines). http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:26:00 -
[85] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote: Simple: THE TITAN SHOULD NOT BE A COMBAT SHIP
There is just no way to balance it otherwise, without making it either overpowered or obsolete.
I disagree.
Tobiaz wrote: both the old and the new doomsday weapons (both very ice-expensive to use so emergency-only)
Expense should not be used for balancing, on a ship that costs as much as a titan. Even if you made a single doomsday cost a Bil to fire, it would still get fired at every single cap ship it faced. Plus, you would have people taking advantage of the cargo space you had to include for that Bil worth of fuel.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:50:00 -
[86] - Quote
Tyran Scorpi wrote:Tobiaz wrote: Simple: THE TITAN SHOULD NOT BE A COMBAT SHIP
There is just no way to balance it otherwise, without making it either overpowered or obsolete.
I disagree. Tobiaz wrote: both the old and the new doomsday weapons (both very ice-expensive to use so emergency-only)
Expense should not be used for balancing, on a ship that costs as much as a titan. Even if you made a single doomsday cost a Bil to fire, it would still get fired at every single cap ship it faced. Plus, you would have people taking advantage of the cargo space you had to include for that Bil worth of fuel.
Since you don't make any valid arguments i'll just disagree with you disagreeing.
As for the doomsday... yeah this is just because I think as a mobile station it deserves a good last line of defense, anti-cap and anti-support. And on a timer to make so there's a good risk of getting caught with your pants down if used willy-nilly.
Though the biggest factor limiting projection of power is ALWAYS operational cost. When big enough and people will just start weighing cost vs benefit. If the cost is too high to be used just to gank some carrier, but low enough to be acceptable to be fired to prevent losing a station (with possibly tens of billions of stored stuff from corpmates), then it should be balanced.
The reason why this didn't work before was because there was practically no cost for firing the (old) doomsday. Nor could you run out of bullets.
The point is, when you have people storing their stuff in it and logging off at it it will be way less likely to be used as an offensive front-line ship anyway.
As for the cargo abuse... a station should have insane cargo-space. And tt's not like there's no easy solution to your posed problem, just turn all the ice into a doomsday bullet first before it can be used. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:34:00 -
[87] - Quote
This Tobiaz guy seems to have a brain on him. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:52:00 -
[88] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote: Since you don't make any valid arguments i'll just disagree with you disagreeing.
You didnt provide a reason why you believe that titans cant be balanced as a combat ship, so I didnt feel inclined to provide a reason why I disagreed with you.
Tobiaz wrote: Though the biggest factor limiting projection of power is ALWAYS operational cost.
Maybe, it would reduce the amount of titan hot drops specifically to DD something, but alliances will shell out the money to fire the DD's on fleet operations no matter the cost, so your idea is really only going to nerf them in a solo setting anyway.
Tobiaz wrote: As for the cargo abuse... a station should have insane cargo-space. And tt's not like there's no easy solution to your posed problem, just turn all the ice into a doomsday bullet first before it can be used.
True, you can easily get around the first problem that came to mind, but I really didnt fell like putting much effort into it when you didnt bother to explain why you dont believe that titans can be balanced as combat ships in the first place. |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:59:00 -
[89] - Quote
Mechael wrote:This Tobiaz guy seems to have a brain on him.
heh, we agree on some things mechael, just not this topic. His current argument doesnt really hold water the way he is describing it, but he may yet come up with something good, who knows. |
MercenaryBlue
Couch Athletics
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:12:00 -
[90] - Quote
Here's how I would balance the titans.
- Remove any bonus to XL guns. They can fit them, but they'll do average DPS. - Keep the Logistics (clone vats/etc) and Leadership Bonus. This should be the Titan's primary role. - Have the Doomsday consume ammo. Not just Oxygen - actual ammo that'll take several weeks to research and manufacture. - Have diminish returns on Doomsday depending on how many Titans are in fleet. Prevent more than one doomsday per 5 minutes from being fired in the grid. - Add Drone Bandwith to field Fighters.
A single Titan providing logistics and Leadership to a Cap/Sub-Cap fleet is great. But too many titans in the same space should hampers their effectiveness. You only need one for Leadership. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |