EVE Search - The Solution to the Titan Problem

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Solution to the Titan Problem

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.05 21:57:00 - [1] Originally by: CCP Prism X Prism X's opinions are in no way related to CCP's internal opinion. He is neither a game balancer nor a Game Designer That is pretty good because i thought you just said "olol t1 goonies fly frigates" Now on to the real post after getting past your personal attack on my corporation. Prism, have you [or the game design department?] ever studied nuclear war and what it does to wars? The world has dedicated many years playing games to figure out just what happens when you introduce massive "frigate killers" into existence. And the end result was "less war". The end result is "less war" because the costs of initiating war increases. I don't care how much you or the design team want to believe that these things are good for the game. They are not. They increase the buy in for fight and increasing the buy in for a fight makes fights larger. With one titan you not only need a massive fleet to fight you need a massive fleet in reserve in case the first gets blown up. With 3 titans you need 3 in reserve. With 12 you're just screwed. Now, it may be just me. But i believe that in a primarily PvP game massive mechanics used by the old to prevent the new from attacking them is simply bad form. And lets get another thing straight. These ships are not "frigate killers". They do some 60k damage which puts them square in the range of battleship/battlecruiser and below killer. Vote Goumindong for CSM http://myeve.eve-online.com/council/vot
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.05 23:34:00 - [2] Originally by: CCP Prism X Edited by: CCP Prism X on 05/05/2008 22:53:12 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Prism X Prism X's opinions are in no way related to CCP's internal opinion. He is neither a game balancer nor a Game Designer stuff Oh come on now. I congratulated him on a well written post. Admitted my ignorance in the field of balancing. Added my own take on his suggestion which would be the nuke killer you want. Then disagreed with how he reached his conclusion through the presented logic. So you imply I'm bashing your Alliance and ask me about how much we've studied nuclear war? I've said it time and over again that I like the GoonSwarm! Every good story needs a good antagonist, amongst other reasons. There's nothing wrong with it! I'm crying already! By the gods man, what do you expect of me? The callout on the GS response might have been bad wording on your part, but yea, it was worded in a way to clearly suggest that 315 was suggesting this because he was in Goonswarm. I ask you how much you've studied it because its a study that can lead us to understand these types of games more. We can identify the differences and similarities between the weapons and then use that to form a coherent prediction of what is going to happen when that mechanic is implemented. I know this isn't your job, but oftentimes it seems like its no ones job at CCP to look at the set of tools and say "this is how i would win with this set of tools". Every time someone comes out and says "yea, i think blog anti-blobbing AOEs are a good idea" it just makes me cringe[See: Jade Constantine for a good example of this type of foolishness]. I ask because we can learn things from basic game theory about how the game will be played. And even though game theory as a discipline doesn't account for fun we can apply common sense towards its study and then figure out what people will do when we implement various mechanics. And if we know what people will do when we implement various mechanics all we need is an ideal of what we want people to do and we can balance the game in that manner. But its clearly not being done, and its clearly not being done because we have introduced and kept large scale AoEs which invariably reduce the frequency of combat[and increase its magnitude] rather than decrease the magnitude of combat as was the intention. Big huge ships that do big huge cool things is very cool. But often times its not balanced in a game whose design goals are stated blatantly by the company as Quote: PvP (Player vs. Player) based on strategy, not levels - Tactics have value in EVE Online. Experience and treachery will often beat top-of-the-line modifications and fancy ships. And its certainly not good for the game when you consider its implications on player action. To make a movie analogy its like introducing the Death Star without introducing a Luke Skywalker. Now of course its not so balanced if it only takes one guy to blow up a titan. But without the weakness[and with weapons that hit all ships equally] its unbalanced in the other way. E.G. its like rock, paper, scissors Rock>Scissors>Paper>Rock Titans>Carriers/Dreads>POS/Battleships>Cruisers>Frigates>Titans If we remove that last >titans from the picture then the equation is just "titans > all"[It should be mentioned that these > are not needing to necessarily be absolute for all values, but only at some specific value that is reasonable] This problem also shows up in nano-ships for non-strategic combat. Anyway, i'm rambling now but i'd be happy to explain further if you have any questions. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.05 23:44:00 - [3] Originally by: An Anarchyyt I'm pretty sure Goumindong is the worst poster in all of Goonswarm. I was pretty sure it was hydrosan, but look at him be useful in the 20 page Titan thread in Game Dev. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.06 00:18:00 - [4] Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: An Anarchyyt I'm pretty sure Goumindong is the worst poster in all of Goonswarm. It's not that he is the worst poster, but his logic seems to be perpendicular with most other people. There's just no reasoning with a guy like that. If CCP Prism has read anything from the 40 page "nerf nanos" thread, he should know not to take Goumindong seriously. Most peoples logic is personal attacks and arguments to authority. That "my logic" is not that is something i take pride in and something that everyone should strive towards when making decisions and evaluating a game. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.06 02:00:00 - [5] Originally by: Segge Bolled "The only winning move, is not to play"? How about a game of tic-tac-toe? fake edit: but really there was a lot of work done on strategic and tactical nukes before coming to that conclusion. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.06 02:17:00 - [6] Originally by: Segge Bolled I'd have suggested a nice game of Chess, actually Yea, but i figured no one would actually remember the exact next line. I guess i have underestimated the Eve's Mathew Broderick knowledge base. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.06 04:22:00 - [7] Originally by: Grarr Dexx I like chess actually. Urge to spoil the joke rising. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.06 13:42:00 - [8] Edited by: Goumindong on 06/05/2008 13:43:52 Originally by: Sergeant Spot IF... CCP want to keep the anti-blob effect of the Titan.... But also wants to avoid the "insta kill Capital Fleets" effect of multiple Titans.... Then... Simply have a Grid wide Cooldown when ANY Doomsday weapon is fired. Maybe a few minutes. For those who just have to have "game science" explination, say that the same "sub atomic quantum suess effects" that allow the Doomsday weapon to work, are put in flux in an area where a Doomsday is used, and have to settle down before another Doomsday can function. Problem solved, rapid repeat Doomsday in a Grid becomes impossible. There are a few good ideas floating out there. The "single target million damage blast" is one of them. The "DD is now ewar instead of Damage"(So Amarr would have a grid wide neutralizing effect, Minmatar would have a grid wide web effect, Gallente would have a grid wide damp or warp scramble effect, and Caldari would have a super-massive ECM burst(that prevented lock for a reasonable amount of time)[i would be happy to expand on any questions regarding how these might work in my thread here) But i don't think the "cooldown per grid" is a good idea. Since then you can "prep" an attack by doomsdaying yourself and once you had reached a titan critical mass you could essentially chain those DD's[say at a friendly POS] making sure an enemy couldn't ever DD your fleet. I think it would be much better to have a "big cool thing that can swing the fight in your favor" rather than "big cool thing that wins the fight" edit: Oh, and large scale AoE's are not "anti-blob" weapons. They are "anti-fight" weapons. They don't stop blobs they increase the barriers to entry and increases risk, which means fewer fights and larger fights[to offset the increased risk you've got to bring more folks] Vote Goumindong for CSM

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.