reserved

As you've said, titans themselves are fine as they are.

Why not, instead of nerfing damage or tank, nerf availability? A titan is a very desirable ship, as shown by the massive numbers of them brought to the battlefield. Currently, big alliances can press the "I win" button and drop fourty titans onto a battlefield, winning instantly.

Why not make it so the cost of those fourty titans can only build one titan? Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4. After this, make titans 40x (or even 100 if you're feeling Shari'ah-ic) more costly to build.

Problem solved.

*Dusts off hands and walks away*

Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4.

As you've said, titans themselves are fine as they are.

Why not, instead of nerfing damage or tank, nerf availability? A titan is a very desirable ship, as shown by the massive numbers of them brought to the battlefield. Currently, big alliances can press the "I win" button and drop fourty titans onto a battlefield, winning instantly.

Why not make it so the cost of those fourty titans can only build one titan? Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4. After this, make titans 40x (or even 100 if you're feeling Shari'ah-ic) more costly to build.

Problem solved.

*Dusts off hands and walks away*

As you've said, titans themselves are fine as they are.

Why not, instead of nerfing damage or tank, nerf availability? A titan is a very desirable ship, as shown by the massive numbers of them brought to the battlefield. Currently, big alliances can press the "I win" button and drop fourty titans onto a battlefield, winning instantly.

Why not make it so the cost of those fourty titans can only build one titan? Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4. After this, make titans 40x (or even 100 if you're feeling Shari'ah-ic) more costly to build.

Problem solved.

*Dusts off hands and walks away*

Personally with these 2 changes Titans and Supers remain a massive defensive force but when on offense they lose the ability to hotdrop on fleets.
Jooce

As you've said, titans themselves are fine as they are.

Why not, instead of nerfing damage or tank, nerf availability? A titan is a very desirable ship, as shown by the massive numbers of them brought to the battlefield. Currently, big alliances can press the "I win" button and drop fourty titans onto a battlefield, winning instantly.

Why not make it so the cost of those fourty titans can only build one titan? Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4. After this, make titans 40x (or even 100 if you're feeling Shari'ah-ic) more costly to build.

Problem solved.

*Dusts off hands and walks away*

The empires should be working to create a sub-cap or cap titan buster. Perhaps a smart bomb with a huge radius that does tremendous damage to anything as large as a titan. Or ECM linking to blast and override the Titan's ECM invulnerability. Bothan spies uncover a secret weakness... something on that order.

What strikes me though, is that the main reason you dont see massive titan battles is that the price for loosing an entire fleet of them is so large that it could topple alliances and destroy empires. So maybe - if titans were ships you could afford to loose even in large numbers - things would even itself out :) I am however not sure if I am really serious about that.

Yes.

The problem with this however, is that it will give the defender a massive advantage over the attacker, probably to a level were it would be futile to try an attack in the first place. So, the Titan blob shifts from a offensive weapon to a defensive weapon, making it impossible to eject alliances from space they allready hold.

This would be bad. After all, we want to promote conflict, not restrain it.

It could but then if they have all their titans in one place, attack somewhere else. Also Titans and Supers can be **** caged in poses.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a problem in itself.

It also might be a good idea to give a reason to attack two systems at once or three systems instead of focusing on one.

it's not a perfect solution but I view it as one of the major problems of super caps.

while i do argree more cap ships... i think a simple fix for titan tracking could be in the damage applied formula...

You're analyzing this like a developer, but you still have some bias apparent

In my humble opinion, titans should never be able to engage subcaps. Period. They are far too large and far too effective at murdering capitals for this to be even remotely balanced. They should be the superweapons of EVE - a hard counter to massive capital / supercarrier fleets, extremely effective at this role, but completely vulnerable without heavy cap / subcap support.

This basically means that the only alliances using titans in the foreseeable future would be confined to the established nullsec powerhouses allready using them. There is no room for lone supported titans or even a small group of titans. In your world, titans should be used in a massive blob and only that, and only against other capitals. The is no room in this view for a lone or small group of titans to turn the scale of battles like it has done since 2005.

Also, in your world, the only effective counter to a massive blob of titans would be an even more massive blob of titans, which is exactly what we have today. So basically you woudnt improve the game that much, only free the subcapital blob to roam with impunity.

Needless to say, I disagree with this view.

I want to democratize titans, making them useful and even desirable for most serious nullsec entities. I dont want to see a nullsec continuing as a stalemate between the old established haves and the new aspiring have-nots. Which is also why I want to see counters to titan blobs which does not consist of titans but rather other capital ships providing both hard- and softkill capabilities.

I tend to agree with the OP that the real problem with capital and supercap warfare is that there's not enough content to make a true rock, paper, scissers scenario. Introducing some new content along the lines of tier 4 bs's, and capital ewar ships would go
a long way towards bringing balance to the game.

Years ago motherships(aka predomion supercarriers) were used by pirates to solo gatecamp lowsec pipes because they were effectivelly untacklable in lowsec. CCP balanced them by introducing the HIC with the scripted Warp disrupt field gen. That brought alot of balance to the situation, not by nerfing anyones toys directly, but by expanding the sandbox.

There really is no way to prevent titan blobs from happening. The alliances that can field 40 titans will field 40 titans when they are applicable, and there isn't much you can do to prevent that.

The key is limiting their role - they need to be specialized.

Also, alliances incapable of matching Titan numbers are perfectly capable of fighting them off in the right situation.

I feel my implementation makes life much easier for smaller alliances.

You literally made my roommate laugh :P

His words:

"Adding **** to a game is the exact opposite of improving balance."

I disagree. There is no good way to prevent alliances from aquring massive amounts of titans in a sandbox game. But there are certainly ways to influence how to best employ them in the field. Which is why I'd like to see soft-kill and area denial mechanics implemented as well as hardkill mechanics.

Titans is the "battleship" of the capital class, and as such they are not specialized, they are generalized. I think they should continue to be so, because it would provide a massive boost to any fleet big or small using them. What needs to be done is introducing more specialized ways to break up blobs of them without killing their viability as smaller entity hammers.

What you are proposing is a one dimensional tank vs DPS calculation, instead of full spectrum counters. Imagine how dull sub-capital pvp would be of tank and dps were the only considerations. I want to see that complexity introduced on the capital level as well.

Yes, if you mean that they only have to watch as the titan blob enters the field killing every capship they have while having absolutely no possibility of doing anything about it, you are right. It is indeed easy.

Actually it did in the example I mentioned.

dreads not doing much except sieging structures,

You're forgetting that when something is added, you have to account not only for its intended role, but its relation to everything else in the game, and the inevitable unforseen applications players devise.

Adding anything to a game hurts balance, and things need to be re-balanced in the aftermath once most of the influences become apparent. Its a part of the development pipeline, and it is unavoidable. Don't be shortsighted.

Actually it did in the example I mentioned.

Indeed it did. The old motherships could be used in lowsec with impunity because of a combination of no bubbles + EWAR immunity. Introducing the HIC added to the game, and stopped this flawed gameplay. That came with Trinity I think, 2007.

Indeed it did. The old motherships could be used in lowsec with impunity because of a combination of no bubbles + EWAR immunity. Introducing the HIC added to the game, and stopped this flawed gameplay. That came with Trinity I think, 2007.

All HICs prove is that specialization is how you solve these sorts of problems.

All HICs prove is that specialization is how you solve these sorts of problems. It is an extremely risky move to balance a game by introducing new content, however. Just look at the track record of nearly any heavily supported game, from RTSes to MMOs. New things get introduced, or expansions added, and everything is broken for a few months.

CCP got lucky that their solution was so focused. Pushing said luck is not the optimal way to solve said problems, and I have heard CCP devs say much the same in interviews when asked about introducing new ships in the past.

In this case it solved a problem with a generalized capital ship (the mothership) used in ways never intended, with a specialized counter - the HIC. Not unlike what I propose to to with new specialized capital ships countering generalized titans.

Unfortunatly all the other options I've seen are going to **** off 1000's of players on either side of the debate and probably cause mass ragequits. CCP could've probably smacked supers with the nerfbat really hard 4 or 5 years ago and gotten away with it because they were so rare. The "HIC" option is probably going to be the only one I see that would keep most people happy.

The problem is more elegantly fixed by treating the source, not applying a bandaid to the symptom.

That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute tosh.

Which is it, I wonder?

Problem: Titans **** everything we do with our subcap blob.

Solution A: Retool titans so our blob is free to roam.

Solution B: Introduce something new in order to introduce a true-rock-paper-scissors game at the capital level., then re-balance as required.

Tell me, which sounds more elegant to you?

Solution A: Retool titans so our blob is free to roam.

Solution B: Introduce something new in order to introduce a true-rock-paper-scissors game at the capital level., then re-balance as required.

Tell me, which sounds more elegant to you?

Are you reading my suggestions, or dismissing them offhand because of my alliance?

Genuinely curious, because you're being excessively hostile, while I'm trying to hold a debate here. You also obviously haven't been reading what i have to say, as the "anti subcap" focus would shift from Titans (accessible only to a handful of old alliances) to Carriers (more disposable, accessible to any alliance or even individual, flexible, and capable of both winning or losing against subcaps in an engagement).

What i'm thinking would be an idea based off what CCP proposed.

A ship that has the ability to affect Supercapitals with ewar.

I am, although you beeing a testie I attribute the typical Goon view to you. Which incidentally, you have said nothing to make me change my mind about.

As for your solutions, no I dont think it will work. I think it will only push titans off the sub-cap field (making your side of this debate very happy), while preserving the titan blobs in the old established alliances as the only ones who have them, and where the only effective counter to a titan blob would be a bigger titan blob.

All of which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I want to see. I dont belive there should be artificial barriers between ship classes. I dont belive the capital game today is nearly complex enough. And I dont think countering a blob with more of the same blob is very good gameplay.

yes, this is basically what I mean when i say I want to see capital sized EWAR ships. because it would be ****** up if a 3 month old player in a t1 frigate could keep a titan out of play. A capital sized verison of said frigate however, I am all for.

Why not capital warp disrupters that can effect supercaps. That way the carriers and dreads can take part in pinning down the supercap fleet.

Why not capital warp disrupters that can effect supercaps. That way the carriers and dreads can take part in pinning down the supercap fleet.

The issue here is not "the blob", it is the Titan. And I also brought up the problem of the Supercarrier's overnerf, and the Dreadnought's marginal role.

The titan is not specialized, and capable in any situation with minimal support. In numbers, it is unstoppable. They should not be used as anti-supcap ships, as they themselves are nearly immune to subcaps once a critical mass is reached. That critical mass is extremely low. The counter should be farther down the capital chain - in my suggestion, Carriers. This allows for fights where the better coordinated fleet wins, not the one with Titans.

Oh the issue here is definitly about the blob as well as the titans. For years, the subcap blob ruled the north. Due to a combination of cluster limitations and the fact that titans werent nearly as numerous as they are today, the old NC managed to hold the north against several invasion attempts.

Enter the fight on lag with its server improvments, massive titan production and the banding together of "elite PVP" alliances fielding massive amounts of titans. The NC no longer had the numbers to employ nodecrashing tactics with the server improvements, and lost subcap after subcap battle in face of highly trained elite PVP fleets. Geminate fell without supers beeing fielded much at all. By the time of the siege of TVN-FM, NC resolve had been all but spent, but they tried one last massive effort. Which was countered by massive amounts of Titans. Losing Vale, the NC prepared to defend Tribute, the Goons got involved and the outcome once again went up in the air. The Tribute campaign however, saw more and more use of the Titan blob, which effectively countered the massive subcap fleets thrown into the meatgrinder. So, after 4 years, the elite PVP forces had finally found the counter to massive subcap fleets.

And here we are. Massive Titan fleets today represent the quality alternative to nullsec warfare, while the subcap blob still represent the quantity alternative. These two opposing strategies are two sides of the same problem. Now, we both ackowledge that the titan blob is OP compared to the subcap blob - and this is not how it should be. However - I think that a return to the subcap blob as the only viable strategy would remove the quality alternative to nullsec warfare, which I think should be preserved. The issue is to balance the gameplay without breaking it.

Titans are fine as is.

Titans are fine as is.

Problem: Titans **** everything.

Solution A: Retool titans.

Solution B: Introduce something new in order to **** Titans, then re-balance once the dust settles months down the line.

Tell me, which sounds more elegant to you? The problem here is not far removed from the problems which arise when you introduce a new predator to an ecosystem in order to combat a pest.

The NC did not die because their tactics were outdated. They died because they refused to cooperate with allies.

I don't want either the supcap or supercap fleet to dominate, that is the entire base of my suggestion. Its why I chose carriers as the bridge between subcaps and caps, and the counter to subcaps - it is easy to get a large number of carriers compared to titans, making the counter more accessible. It fixes the titan problem, while maintaining a role for them. And it ensures that the resulting fights are good ones. Well coordinated subcap fleets vs well coordinated carrier-heavy fleets could go either way - subcaps are entirely capable of taking out carriers in a fleet setting, while the thought of attempting to take out a Titan in said setting is pretty much laughable.

This certainly sped things up. However, I doubt the outcome would have been very different.

What I would like is more details about your proposed carrier. Because today carriers are not primarily offensive platforms, while absolutely owning as logistic ships.

What I'm thinking is a module similar to triage in the sense that it is activated, and impossible to fit alongside a triage module. This would boost the effectiveness of drones significantly, or another method of increasing the ship's combat effectiveness. I'd also want to see fighters become capable of severely hurting subcaps, at the very least specializing in killing battleships while being capable of hurting (not optimally) cruisers. It would be important to keep the subcap killer and triage carriers as distinct entities, to prevent hilarious overpoweredness, if an approach like this were to work.

So what would stop me from fielding 40 drone enhanced subcapital owning carriers, supported by another 40 triage carriers? And how would that differ from todays titan blob?

Any chance someone could give a quick list of changes made to titans over the years in order to "ballance" them out ?
They are afterall 8 years old.

Quite a long time to get a ship in line with the overall gameplay dont you think ?

Simple - apply the exact same penalty to the drone enhancement module as the triage.

That could work - at least in isolation from other capitals. But alpha would pretty much be the lone subcap counter, otherwise there is the issue of cycling triage/offensive mods and cyclerepping. I'm not happy with that. I think we need more tools and more complexity.

You know how I feel about introducing too much, but multiple options isn't a bad thing.

All I'm suggesting is shifting the "subcap murderer" role down to carriers, so the fight is two-sided as opposed to one-sided. No one likes to be murdered without any chance of fighting back, and players like me don't like to murder without any real fight to get the blood pumping. Titans would be far from obsolete, IMO, through my suggestions. What would become obsolete is the "IWIN Drop".

sure lets get it to be carriers i mean goons and test can just alpha a carrier. what your asking for id the 1 sided murdering.

the titan atm is the only thing stopping goons/test from taking over null more so goons than test

TL;DR

So this is the situation. If CCP does nothing, the situation will worsen and the titan blob will claim more and more attention, ultimately driving players away from nullsec altogether. If CCP guts titans as combat ships, it will only free the blob to roam nullsec and prevent a quality based doctrine any chance of success. If CCP removes supercaps from the game it will introduce a skillcap that thousands of players have already reached, and GÇô with no option to evolve and improve GÇô will see veteran players leave EVE by the thousands.

Therefore, I believe that the only way forward is to introduce a more diverse capital battlefield, comprised of new low-entry capital ships (price/training wise) with different capabilities which will introduce titans and other capital ships to a true rock-paper-scissors environment. Capital electronic warfare ships, XL gun wielding glass cannon type ships (maybe a tier 4 battleship similar to the tier 3 battlecruisers), maybe capital death ray ships (think a GÇ£lightGÇ¥ doomsday weapon on a dreadnought that require it going into siege to fire) capital mines with properties that will hurt capitals primarily, supported by capital minelayers and capital minesweepers, heavily tanked capital interdictors with multiple long range infinipoints. Captial cyno jamming ships. Maybe capital cyno generator ships holding special "titan cynos". Carriers with improved remote tanking capabilities. I am sure people can think of even better alternatives. The object however is to provide tools to counter titans without resorting to more titans.

the titan atm is the only thing stopping goons/test from taking over null more so goons than test

The problem with titans is that they scale badly with numbers. Ship for ship, Titans is where they ought to be. But used en-masse, they become an unstoppable rapetrain.

Correct.
That's why your idea is wrong. It is not titans that need to be nerfed, but their numbers.

The thing is, the titan as a ship isnGÇÖt really overpowered. It does more DPS than a dreadnought, as it should GÇô while sharing the same weapon size and -properties.

If CCP guts titans as combat ships, it will only free the blob to roam nullsec and prevent a quality based doctrine any chance of success.

Are are assuming that first, the side with most supercaps doesn't blob just as hard as they can afford to, like the side with most numbers. Second, that the side with most numbers is made of low-sp, low-isks characters, and that there is a signifiant difference in combat efficiency between the average goon and the average death/whatever member.

Both assumptions are wrong.

Balance the supercaps, and the side with most numbers (as is, the side that make the biggest effort) get an edge. Why should it be different?

I dont assume anything. It is a fact that the CFC enjoys a numerical superiority over team tech, about 3:1 I think is close to reality. It is a fact that alliances like PL consists for all intents and purposes purely very higly skilled characters. Last I checked, their average SP was around 100 million. Alliances like Goonswarm and Test isnt even close. Finally it is a fact that team tech holds a numerical superiority in Titans.

What I am saying however, is that QUANTITY (The blob) should NOT be the only viable doctrine in nullsec warfare. For most of its existence, EVE has had smaller QUALITY ("elite PVP") alliances that have won battles, campaigns and even wars. I dont want to see that gone in favor of the return to the blob only.

So lets just agree to disagree on that particular issue.

The problem with your argument is that the blob has always been there and has a long history of being defeated. Titans are causeing the very thing you want to avoid.

I think you will find that numerical superiority has been rather succesful in EVEs 10 year old history. Its not like they have "a long history of beeing defeated" - quite the opposite in fact.

Right now titans > blob, which makes the game unbalanced on the strategic level. But I dont want to see blob > everything either.

What I am saying however, is that QUANTITY (The blob) should NOT be the only viable doctrine in nullsec warfare. For most of its existence, EVE has had smaller QUALITY ("elite PVP") alliances that have won battles, campaigns and even wars. I dont want to see that gone in favor of the return to the blob only.

So lets just agree to disagree on that particular issue.

What I am saying however, is that QUANTITY (The blob) should NOT be the only viable doctrine in nullsec warfare. For most of its existence, EVE has had smaller QUALITY ("elite PVP") alliances that have won battles, campaigns and even wars. I dont want to see that gone in favor of the return to the blob only.

In PVP, there is usually a 100% correlation between an alliance comprised of very high skilled characters and an alliance that employs inovative tactics and good strategy. I aplologize for not staing that in big bold letters for you.

The titans is currently the tool of choice for the elite PVP alliances. And no, when i talk of blob I talk about numerical superiority - as in more players. Quantity is better ships, better tactics. Titans are better ships.

In PVP, there is usually a 100% correlation between an alliance comprised of purely high skilled characters and an alliance that employs inovative tactics and good strategy. I aplologize for not staing that in big bold letters for you.

The titans is currently the tool of choice for the elite PVP alliances. And no, when i talk of blob I talk about numerical superiority - as in more players. Quantity is better ships, better tactics. Titans are better ships.

You continue to say that the CFC would have an unfair advantage if titans got nerfed but would you be saying that if the CFC were the ones with the titan advantage?.

Yes Baltec, as the matter of fact I would, because unlike you, I have a game design perspective when I post. I dont belong to any powerblock, and my nullsec characters are in alliances with zero titans.

That said, had the roles been reversed I suspect that the CFC propaganda - and by extension you - would have taken the opposite view of what you hold now. If you had them, titanblobs would be "fine".

Speaking of which - I dont intend to fill another thread with you sperging propaganda like a god damn parrot on autorepeat, so consider this my last answer to any of your posts in this thread. Go sperg somewhere else, preferably start your own thread.

Right, I understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the best tactics seems to be to one of quantity - i.e. more titans or a bigger blob. And that would never change unless mechanisms that favor synergy among ship types are strengthen and I think that was basically what you did discuss in your OP - but only as a counter against titan blobs. More titans would probably still be the best strategy if you had the means to deploy them.

I dont assume anything. It is a fact that the CFC enjoys a numerical superiority over team tech, about 3:1 I think is close to reality.

It is a fact that alliances like PL consists for all intents and purposes purely very higly skilled characters. Last I checked, their average SP was around 100 million. Alliances like Goonswarm and Test isnt even close. Finally it is a fact that team tech holds a numerical superiority in Titans.

What I am saying however, is that QUANTITY (The blob) should NOT be the only viable doctrine in nullsec warfare. For most of its existence, EVE has had smaller QUALITY ("elite PVP") alliances that have won battles, campaigns and even wars. I dont want to see that gone in favor of the return to the blob only.

So lets just agree to disagree on that particular issue.

Don't try to paint the world in only black and white. The two coaltions we discuss have BOTH quality and quantity. The only difference is that one of them has an edge in number (collective willpower), while the other is heavily relying on a flaw of the game design (supercaps when in large numbers).

Well there is blob and there is blob. Strategically speaking the CFC has the numerical superiority in players, while team tech has fewer players but are better skilled, trainend and equipped (with among other things titans). Tactically, dropping 40 titans in a battle is certainly a titan blob, but when i refer to blob vs titans or quantity vs quality i speak about the strategic level.

[Don't try to paint the world in only black and white. The two coaltions we discuss have BOTH quality and quantity. The only difference is that one of them has an edge in number (collective willpower), while the other is heavily relying on a flaw of the game design (supercaps when in large numbers).

Those alliances that failed joining supercap arms race can just pack their bags and move to npc space
Dont blame CCP ...
Blame your leaders

What is so "Elite" with having SP and ISK? It can be bought straight off the market and character bazar with your daddy's credit card before you have even finished the tutorials.

Any additional* titan on the same grid reduces all capital class ships electronics by 33%. Stacking without penalty.

3* titans on grid = no locking capabilities from ALL capital ships (including supercaps) on the same grid. This simulates the vast electronic interference a titan produces. Bases on standing or somesuch. Or just make a hardcap of 4 titans per grid, any more = useless capital fleet.

Now you can use your 30 titans to attack 15-30* odd targets at the same time on different grids/systems.


* Numbers are open for balance discussion

You know... I can live with that.

+ 1

I worked it out a bit in the scc-lounge


Riley Moore > 4+ titans on same grid = so much electronic interference from the vast systems on the titans rendering all capital and super capitals on the same grid unable to lock anything

Riley Moore > lets add in more negative effects: 200% increase in time to warp, cap recharge -50%, resistances -50%

Riley Moore > the super carriers could be like 20 on grid, any more = penalties across grid on all supercaps

Riley Moore > 200 carriers max, same penalties
Riley Moore > then you're forced to split to different grids

Riley Moore > it does fit into the scifi stuff though, large ships do create so much electronic "noise"
Riley Moore > you can explain it that way (lore wise)
Riley Moore > too much electronic noise from other ships causing electronic's failures across vast systems on titans, capitals and supers carriers
Riley Moore > subcaps are small enough to not be effected by it

I think you should perhaps look at basing that per x-amount of supers per fleet as opposed to per grid.

Also, sub caps should be effected as well.

I'm not 100% behind your figures, but I approve of the idea behind it. It will not be something that prevents you from spamming a titan/sc/cap/sub cap blob on the grid, but it will have its side effects that will definitely not make you or your brosefs happy pandas.

so you basically have a race, whoever is the first to bring 30 titans on grid (i.e. log them in and jump) is victorious

no thanks!

At that level of game play only quantity should matter - i.e. more titans. And that is the strategy you name: "Elite PvP".

What is so "Elite" with having SP and ISK? It can be bought straight off the market and character bazar with your daddy's credit card before you have even finished the tutorials.

It could but then if they have all their titans in one place, attack somewhere else. Also Titans and Supers can be **** caged in poses.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a problem in itself.

It also might be a good idea to give a reason to attack two systems at once or three systems instead of focusing on one.

it's not a perfect solution but I view it as one of the major problems of super caps.

You literally made my roommate laugh :P

His words:

"Adding **** to a game is the exact opposite of improving balance."

so you basically have a race, whoever is the first to bring 30 titans on grid (i.e. log them in and jump) is victorious

no thanks!

Supers and titans are just fine... enough nerfed....
Now...
Its up to ppl... alliances... CEO's... to adapt.....
Leave CCP and the nerf hammer out of this...
This is just stupid

Name a counter to a titan blob other than more titans.

You know, I really dont care. This thread is about probably the biggest game design issue that faces CCP currrently, namely how to create a counter to the titan blob, withouth killing the titan as a combat ship

So the point is that titans need to be nerfed (again) since if the other side doesn't have same or superior number of titans to drop in the fight, they cant win?

As you've said, titans themselves are fine as they are.

Why not, instead of nerfing damage or tank, nerf availability? A titan is a very desirable ship, as shown by the massive numbers of them brought to the battlefield. Currently, big alliances can press the "I win" button and drop fourty titans onto a battlefield, winning instantly.

Why not make it so the cost of those fourty titans can only build one titan? Delete 99 in every 100 titans, compensate the current owners with the material cost of the titans at that time and stash the fittings in Jita 4-4. After this, make titans 40x (or even 100 if you're feeling Shari'ah-ic) more costly to build.

Problem solved.

*Dusts off hands and walks away*

In PVP, there is usually a 100% correlation between an alliance comprised of purely high skilled characters and an alliance that employs inovative tactics and good strategy. I aplologize for not stating that in big bold letters for you.

The titans is currently the tool of choice for the elite PVP alliances. And no, when i talk of blob I talk about numerical superiority - as in more players. Quantity is better ships, better tactics. Titans are better ships.

This is exactly why devs get so many complaints about their game. Sometimes or actually a lot of the time, adding stuff to game is a perfect way to balance and also makes the game tremendously more interesting for the people paying them to live. Most devs have that stupid God complex that makes them think they know everything just because "it's their game". Maybe if devs would pull their heads out and listen to the people that spend hours and days in game living with stupid dev mistakes then things would be MUCH MORE BALANCED!!!

Tell your roommate to try listening and give up the arrogance, then he/she might be amazed at what they can accomplish and how many more subscribers "suddenly" find their game more fun than anything else.

I have yet to see those "elite PvP" alliances control a fleet like Mr Vee does, with the constant relocation / warpins / probedowns at a dizzying rate. Seriously, on a good Vee fleet it feels like we're spending 50% our time in warp and always landing perfectly for several good kills, warping off right before the opposing fleet has time to react.

Although I am sure mr Vee has many fine qualities as a fleet commander, it is about as relevant to the topic in this thread as the question of the meaning of life. Please stay on topic.

Its relevant when continuously insisting that the ~elitepvp~ alliances rely on quality, experience says otherwise. they rely on total SP number, not player skill.

Every alliance has their amazing players, good players, average joes, and terrible stragglers. Every single one. Some alliances like to bring tons of people, some like to bring tons of SP. "Quality" doesn't really factor into the equation at this point.

And with that you told me everything I need to know abouth where you come from. ktxbye

If you're implying that I'm affiliated with Goonswarm or one or it's allies... wrong guess.

I note that you avoid replying to my points, however. Running out of arguments?

No.

the point is to find good counters to the titan blob without nerfing the titan itself. As I have said in the OP, ship for ship the titans are where they ought to be. the problem is that they scale badly with numbers, becoming unstoppable rapetrains when used en-masse. Right now, the only counter to a titan blob is a bigger titan blob. This thread is about what other posibilities there is (or should be).

If you're implying that I'm affiliated with Goonswarm or one or it's allies... wrong guess.

I note that you avoid replying to my points, however. Running out of arguments?

This happened last time. Nerfing titans is all one big CFC conspiricy to take over all of 0.0 with the all mighty blob. Although if we talk about the blob, elite pvp or tactics we will be off topic dispite the OP originally brining up the subject.

What destroys the Titan debate is that super capitals GÇô and titans in particular GÇô translate to in-game political power. Thus, many commentators speak not from a game design perspective but really from an in-game political perspective, using the forums as an alternate arena for PVP.

Name a counter to a titan blob other than more titans.

Oh I get that you dont acknowledge the basic premise of this thread. But since ignoring the premise of a discussion is the recipie for destruction of that discussion in the first place - as you bloody well know - I am concluding that it is in yours and your masters best interest to destroy discussions like this. Every thread on this subject you to try to twist into be about how the shining white knights of Deklein - defenders of EVEs goodness - is abused by de despicable, game abusing, probably exploiting forces af "elite pvp". Which enables you to ignore the topic and instead use the tread to sperg whatever propaganda your masters have told to to fill the forums with, like the good little monkey you are.

But I know at some point the spin doctors would take over. So be my guest. have fun sperging.

This would make it so that instead of needing to counter a titan blob with X+1 titans, you could counter them with 2X Dreads or 1.5X SC's or 4X carriers.

This would be hilarious, seeing 60 Titans die to just 120 Dreads. It would definitely favor the group able to spam dreads at everyone since you could lose all 120 dreads but kill 6 titans and come out about equal or so, let alone wasting 30 titans for the total loss of 120 dreads.

A fleet of say 100 Revelations tanked for doomsdays and 50 triaged & tanked Archons would be bloody hilarious to see. The first capital welpfleet for hunting supercaps. Of course you'd have to toss about 500 or so drakes into it, cause ~elite pvp~ titans always come with ~elite pvp~ tengus.

But yeah, at least you have one type of ship beating a different type of ship, instead of having to counter apples with apples all the time. Don't you think that seems more interesting and exciting?

There's some problem with ~elite pvp~ Titans not wanting to engage stuff that might kill them...

As a nonFC though, if it was reimbursable why not? They train people with hero rifters and drake battles for a reason.

Also I guess ~blueball erryday~~. Meatgrind erryday~, 10% TiDi erryday~

Another way is to nerf cynosural fields somehow. So for example the distance a cap ship can jump is dependent on their mass, so instead of instant titans from halfway across the map it could be made, so it takes them 5 hours instead.

You'd have to try pretty hard to actually welp a titan fleet, certainly if you had 50 of them. Isn't that what the titan blob is all about?

Amazing

First you crititize them for not taking risks with their titans.

Then I point out that in all probability, you wouldnt have either.

Then you say, if they are reimbursable why not?

Then someone point out the impractiability of reimburisng masive losses.

And then you go ahead and say sure, but we would blob so we wouldnt take those losses.

ROFL. Brilliant logic there my dear.

She was talking about risks as in NOT a huge blob, so when the person says "well in a huge blob the losses would be absurdly costly" and she says "well if you are in a huge blob you shouldn't lose them anyway."

Her logic seems pretty sound to me actually...

The solution to titans is to stop whining and build your own. You own tech, you own space, so stop reimbursing morons in roaming drakes and save up for a couple titans and be brave.

No one will... ...read your drivel anyway

cutting off reimbursement for delve losses was a good start

[quote=M5 Tuttle]There's some problem with ~elite pvp~ Titans not wanting to engage stuff that might kill them...

Well I'm not quite the elite PVPer by any means. Here's my thoughts. Titans & other Capitals don't really incur a significant cost after construction so they can be amassed over time. That's the issue. I imagine it takes quite a while to field Titan fleets of the scale we're referring to but yet no cost is incurred after construction except fuel. Why not simply add a maintenence fee per month or week or whatever to the corp/alliance that owns the super cap / capital. Apply a very inexpensive fee for Dread and Carriers while having a massive fee for super caps. Don't nerf them since they seem balanced in their role. The problem is that they numerically persist and grow. I imagine even as far in the future as eve is **** still breaks. Massive ships have a massive cost associated with them. I don't have enough information to recommend a valid cost / time figure but I'm sure someone can figure that in. Capital/Super Cap ships simply get a maintenence cost to upkeep the massive ship. Hurt a group's bottom line and those Super Caps will actually begin hurting the alliance/corp that owns them.

Individual groups will then have to decide how many they can afford to upkeep and how to deploy them. Even null sec needs to get their goods to markets right? Titans and Super Carriers can't just wander around escorting freighters. Super Caps continue to be an investment and symbol of strength while the intent of the game centered around sub-Cap and caps is maintained. Plus it gives an oppenent looking to hurt a group with a larger capital fleet a different means than hoping they can catch one or two alone or OUT capital the opponent.

Just my thoughts.

Well I'm not quite the elite PVPer by any means. Here's my thoughts. Titans & other Capitals don't really incur a significant cost after construction so they can be amassed over time. That's the issue. I imagine it takes quite a while to field Titan fleets of the scale we're referring to but yet no cost is incurred after construction except fuel. Why not simply add a maintenence fee per month or week or whatever to the corp/alliance that owns the super cap / capital. Apply a very inexpensive fee for Dread and Carriers while having a massive fee for super caps. Don't nerf them since they seem balanced in their role. The problem is that they numerically persist and grow. I imagine even as far in the future as eve is **** still breaks. Massive ships have a massive cost associated with them. I don't have enough information to recommend a valid cost / time figure but I'm sure someone can figure that in. Capital/Super Cap ships simply get a maintenence cost to upkeep the massive ship. Hurt a group's bottom line and those Super Caps will actually begin hurting the alliance/corp that owns them.

Individual groups will then have to decide how many they can afford to upkeep and how to deploy them. Even null sec needs to get their goods to markets right? Titans and Super Carriers can't just wander around escorting freighters. Super Caps continue to be an investment and symbol of strength while the intent of the game centered around sub-Cap and caps is maintained. Plus it gives an oppenent looking to hurt a group with a larger capital fleet a different means than hoping they can catch one or two alone or OUT capital the opponent.

Just my thoughts.

Oh I get that you dont acknowledge the basic premise of this thread. But since ignoring the premise of a discussion is the recipie for destruction of that discussion in the first place - as you bloody well know - I am concluding that it is in yours and your masters best interest to destroy discussions like this. Every thread on this subject you to try to twist into be about how the shining white knights of Deklein - defenders of EVEs goodness - is abused by de despicable, game abusing, probably exploiting forces af "elite pvp". Which enables you to ignore the topic and instead use the tread to sperg whatever propaganda your masters have told to to fill the forums with, like the good little monkey you are.

But I know at some point the spin doctors would take over. So be my guest. have fun sperging.

+1 For Elise aka Wasp O'Ryan, for the highest number of kills using a Titan in 2011 :)

Don't worry, that mentality is not limited to RDN/NC.
Really? 4 to 1 and you still can't win?

Speaking of biased players and ~spin doctors~



welp, you fooled me.

I think I have made very clear throughout this thread that I consider titans - ship for ship - absolutely fine as they are. So when I give Elise a well done for beeing an awesome PVPer in a titan, I dont think that breaks with anything that I have said previsosly. What I do not like, is the attempts made by your alliance mates in this thread to turn this discussion away from the topic - which is titans - into some sort of ideological debate of playstyles.

Did that help?

Yep, takes a lot of skill to get bridged in and not move at all while blapping anything and everything with no risk.

Don't worry, that mentality is not limited to RDN/NC.

Really? 4 to 1 and you still can't win?

Hope we see some bold cap moves in Inferno... this thread is relevant.