EVE Search - Question to CSM candidates: Titan Warfare?

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Question to CSM candidates: Titan Warfare?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 03:31:00 - [1] large scale AoEs need to be removed from the game completely. Anyone espousing a different opinion is of one of two minds. Either they do not understand what large scale AoEs do to games like this, or they want the game to be a blob-fest pushing out small scale combat all together and in general hate fights that won't crash the node. Its very simple, large scale AoEs force people to blob and in serious amounts. If you like, i can explain in great depth, but its going to take a long time, so for now i am going to leave it at that. I am appalled but not surprised that Jade actually wants to buff titans. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 07:30:00 - [2] Originally by: Sariyah Hehe... a goon wanting to remove titans, what a surprise. It is an anti-blob weapon... I don't see how removing titans would actually promote small scale combat but it makes sense for Goon to promote ideas like this... It is not an anti-blob weapon. It is an anti-fight weapon. They are very similar to tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in that regard. You can't fight small so you either don't fight at all, or you blob to a huge amount. Also, we now have three titans and we won't be slowing down our production any time soon. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 10:07:00 - [3] Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 10:07:08 Originally by: Sariyah Small gangs were never supposed to do strategic things. Titans have now the possibility to reduce gangs (pay attention and align, or die) a bit to make it all more playable... ;) wait. So let me get this straight. Small gangs aren't supposed to be able to do strategic things. Titans are designed to make gangs smaller Everyone flies small gangs or gets killed by titans No one does anything. ... Yea, that is a recipe for success! Oh, and also, its just as easy to DD a small gang as it is to DD a larger one. A lot easier actually since they are less likely to be able to get you held down than a larger one is. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 10:39:00 - [4] Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Small gangs are really fun though, and at least can be handled by the server well. They are, but you do not get more small gangs by implementing a system by where the haves can bring as much as they want and the have nots cannot. And when two haves fight each other their options are "bring really freaking super-omg ridiculous huge" amounts of forces or don't fight at all. You make more small gang warfare by removing large scale AoEs and giving small gangs goals that they can accomplish. You can read more of this in my manifesto, ask me a question about it in my thread, or ask me to explain here. I would be happy to do any. But titans in their current iteration do not make small gangs more viable. They make them less so. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 12:53:00 - [5] Originally by: Kelsin Goumindong[snip for space] Yes and a whole lot of no. Titans are not solely responsible for blobbing. POS are also responsible for blobbing. But POS are not responsible for blobbing because they are centralized. Only because they require so many resources to take down[at least well set up ones do, loads of people are putting up POS which can be brought down by small BS gangs, and we have the killmails to prove it] But doomsdays do make it worse and make it a lot worse. Jade is wrong in wanting to decentralize Sov warfare. That will only make it harder for small forces to compete[since large forces get larger forces at each area] and creates even more balance problems[typically either making attack stupidly easy or making defense stupidly easy]. You must centralize sov warfare otherwise smaller forces will be unable to concentrate their forces to take space where defenders are weak. Now there are things you can do to get fights off the same grid[make dreads able to shoot at capitals/towers from off-grid], but at its heart it needs to be at a single objective. Defenders win if the POS is repped. Attackers win if the POS is destroyed. Cyno jammers do not create blobbing and have actually prevented it to the largest extent from any currently implemented game mechanic. Before cyno jammers, sov warfare consisted of moving your capitals up to a system and then blobbing the ** out of it until the system was taken. Now sov warfare means carving a path in and out for your capitals. More fights, often less intensive[since they aren't all for stations]. That isn't to say there isn't a problem with cyno jammers. But its not with the design itself and only with the difficulty involved in taking them down. Quote:** To me what I hear is upsetting to players facing Titans is that this very effective anti-fleet weapon was introduced without also introducing alternatives to fielding a large fleet. Absolutely not. Titans are just as effective against small fleets as they are against large ones. And so are doomsdays. So are all AoEs[even "bouncing AoE" as you can simply game them by bringing a lot of your own forces]. Without removing the AoE that will not change. Even if you had decentralized targets optimal play strategy would be to bring titans and DD the other side. This makes it less likely that people will want to fight. It being less likely that people will fight is bad for the game. On the titan side a few things need to happen. The AoE needs to be removed It needs to be replaced with either an AoE ewar[strong, but won't wipe out a fleet], or single target ultra high alpha-blast.[which makes titans vulnerable to themselves and sets them up as capital killers, but vulnerable to small ships]. The answer is absolutely not making titans stronger against capitals without severely limiting their abilities against smaller ships. Alpha classes are bad for the game and titans are just that and with jades changes would be even more so. There are other things that need to be done to give smaller gangs roles. But that has little to do with titans and more to do with not having enough stuff for people to do that has a quantifiable effect on an alliance[which means there is very little impetus for defenders getting out to defend NOW rather than getting out to defend later when they have a huge force superiority, of course, this target also has to be not so material that it cannot be left for obvious reasons]. And if there were any reason to not do stuff like that would be because of the current ability of small ships to run away. But not a reason to do this because of or in spite of titans. If you want to get into how exactly how and why you can fix sov warfare and why its separate from titans i would be happy to oblige, but i do not have the time or the space at this present time Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 13:11:00 - [6] Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 13:15:48 Originally by: Kelsin Well although the DD is obviously as effective in a single engagement against a small force as it is a large force (since the damage is not distributed), what you have to compare it to is not a single engagement but multiple small engagements vs a single large one. The Doomsday is not as effective against 10 10-man gangs attacking objectives in different grids and systems as it is against a single 100-man fleet attacking a single centralized target, since it can only take out of those 10 gangs. the 10 10 man gangs die to the titans support fleet... Or die to 10 different titans. The point is that the answer is always "titan" and always "as many titans as possible". Especially with what jade wants to do, making them an alpha class where the guy who has the titans wins. edit: Its almost as if you two are playing a single player game where you want to see cool scripted events. It just doesn't work like that you have to take into account how people will play and what they will do. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 13:17:00 - [7] Originally by: Kelsin EDIT: Oh also, in the book Ender's Game the humans have a weapon called the Little Doctor (I think) that set off a chain reaction when it hit a target that grew more and more destructive the more enemies were grouped together. Something like that is interesting in that it could be made to do less damage per ship to a small number of ships than it would do to a large number of ships - i.e. the damage of the AOE is calculated based on the number of targets within the blast. As stated earlier, you game the system and put more cheap targets in the area. If they attack with a force strong enough to do anything, you pop your AoE and wipe their fleet. If they don't you've got 100 rifters on a gate killing their small gang. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 13:56:00 - [8] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong the 10 10 man gangs die to the titans support fleet... Or die to 10 different titans. The point is that the answer is always "titan" and always "as many titans as possible". Especially with what jade wants to do, making them an alpha class where the guy who has the titans wins. Well first, you're mistaken about what Jade has posted above - it doesn't say anything like that. Second, let's stay within the realm of sensible counter-examples please. No, it does say that, it just doesn't seem like it because Jade dressed it up in pretty words and other bull. A titan that is not only capable of blowing an grid clearing AoE DD but also a concentrated volley damage that can be a threat to caps is ridiculous. Its an alpha class that will destroy the game especially as more are created. It not only provides perfect defensive force against smaller opponents but provides offense against capitals. At least right now, a titan or two is vulnerable to concentrated capital forces[pointed/bubbled by a HICTOR, dropped by dreads], and Jade wants to make them actually good at killing the only thing they are vulnerable to!! Jade has this problem a lot where he promises wild and vague "greatness" but fails to see how incomprehensibly stupid the suggestions are when actually put into practice. They simply do not do what Jade says they will do. I mean, if i said i had this great idea for sov warfare and the idea was to move cyno jammers and guns inside POS shields because that people can use capitals at all is a terrible thing for the game. You would certainly not agree with me regarding this point, you would say "that will not have the effect you want it to". And so it is the case with pretty much everything he says and claims. Destroying stations will not be a boon to small alliances. It will mean that super-alliances won't have to rely on pets to hold space because they can reduce the effective amount of space by destroying infrastructure. Giving them greater mobility and concentration of capital forces with less need for defense[because if anyone puts anything up they can just go back later and blow it up, then leave again]. Distributing sov contesting mechanics will either make defending impossible or make attacking impossible. Removing jump bridges, cyno jammers, and[or limiting their deployment range to stations] other strategic POS modules will not make combat more dynamic it will return POS sieges to the era of jv1v and 9-9 and the rest of the war in the east[I use these, because its two fights i fought in, including the majority of the LV campaign after Scalding Pass fell(and a bit on the other side before it did), so its easier to describe and define] where you move your capitals up and then blob a system to death ignoring everything else to be taken down later. And large scale AoEs will not fix blobbing, but only make it worse. Here is how i would defend any system under Jades system x titans + y motherships + Z dictors/hictors. Where x and y are as many titans or motherships as you can supply to the field and z is everyone else. If you had more titans and motherships you would win. You would RR blob the motherships/titans while volleying dreads. When enemy capitals are dead the gang would align out set off some DDs then warp 60 seconds later. Only way to beat it? More titans and motherships than the other guy. Welcome to super-caps online. If the enemy has no caps its even easier, you just blow your load on half the titans, clear the field, then clean up. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 16:11:00 - [9] Originally by: Kelsin ... Besides what Pezzle said. Lets talk global thermo nuclear war, and after we get the Mathew Broderick jokes out of the way we can look at... "How not to get attacked" There are two ways to not get attacked. Would Iraq please stand up? [Iraq stands up, explodes] That is not how to not get attacked. Would North Korea please stand up? [crickets] Good. That is how to not get attacked. You do one of two things. A: You have a defensive force so strong that anyone who attacks you will fail. B: You have a deterrent force so strong that anyone who attacks you will die. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate non-weapon in the world. They come in two manners. Strategic[the big ones], and tactical[the small ones]. Strategic nuclear weapons are what is called a deterrent weapon. I.E. a weapon that doesn't stop an opponent from attacking, but a weapon that punishes him for doing so. Strategic nuclear weapons have no comparable module in eve. What we have is tactical nuclear weapons with a few modification. Tactical weapons are defensive weapons, in that they are used to kill an attacking force and not punish someone from attacking you. The combination of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons[as well as conventional deterrents] have successfully prevented large scale conflicts in Taiwan, Korea, Eastern Europe, and probably a bunch of others that i am forgetting. Tactical nuclear weapons work by increasing the cost of attacking. If China attempted to invade taiwan, the U.S. would launch a tactical nuclear weapon into the Taiwan sea, and wipe out all of the Chinese forces in a single swipe. So if China wants to attack Taiwan and force it back into union, they need as many armies to attack as the U.S. can launch tactical nuclear weapons at plus 1 extra army. Now, one of the things about nuclear weapons is that they cannot be used offensively. Because doing so destroys the value of what you are attacking. Doomsdays in eve have no such limitations. As such they are not limited to being defensive weapons. Because of this you have the same problem China has attacking Taiwan on offense and defense. If you want to attack and don't have a titan you need as many fleets as the opponent has titans plus 1. If you bring a weaker fleet they just kill you and don't waste the DD. If you want to defend and don't have a titan you need to bring as many fleets as the opponents has titans plus 1. If you bring a weaker fleet they just kill you and don't waste the DD. If you have a Titan and your opponent doesn't you get this massive benefit that they do not. If you have a Titan and your opponent does then you both need massive fleets to get the job done and in the end its likely that your sub-capital ships simply don't get to have any fun. For examples of this. See BoB/LV before remote DDs were removed. Their conventional fleet dwindled because it didn't do anything, it just sat around containing the other fleet until it could get remote DD'd. You might want to say "oh no, it totally prevents blobs". And I am going to say, "no, it prevents fights and if it did not, you personally would in all likelihood be dead right now due to a nuclear war that the world would have waged" Quote: So you say fielding as many Titans and Motherships as possible is advantageous? The question is not "should it be advantageous?" the question is "how advantageous should it be?" Quote: Recognizing the core of the problem, he suggests solutions that bring the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the ship more in line with the role it's meant to have. That's just good reasoning and sound judgement. Except that Jade isn't recognizing the core of the problem, he is making it worse. That is ****ty reasoning and terrible judgment. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 16:59:00 - [10] Originally by: Jade Constantine You can't PREVENT blobbing you can present disincentive to Blobbing No you cannot you can only present a disincentive to fighting, this law is absolute and axiomatic in cooperative games Quote: You achieve this best in the current environment by taking sovereignty warfare away from fixed and timed reinforcement battles at POS in favor of more distributed goals separated in space and opportunity and allowing some genuine tactics to enter the equation of force disposition and deployment. This method promotes blobbing in one way or another and screws over players with assets because eve is not a job and no one should be forced to be online at all times to defend their assets. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 17:13:00 - [11] Originally by: Sariyah Let me get this straight, you want to remove titans (or render them useless). You also want to remove nano ships, or render them useless. Use a nano ship, then you can potentially run away from a dd... No. I want to do neither of those things. I want to remove large scale AoEs. And i want to bring nano-ships back in line. If you would bother to read what i write, or ask me a question in my thread i would be happy to explain in further detail. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 17:42:00 - [12] Originally by: Kelsin Trying to balance the game solely around 1 on 1 matchups with total destruction of the enemy force as the goal is folly. I am not. You are making and error when assuming I am defining victory by that value. Everything I am saying holds true with asymmetrical goals as long as you assume reasonable goals to each side. Hell, with asymmetrical goals the heavy gang always loses to the nano-gang period since in order to win they must limit the nano-gangs ability to move through their space and engage smaller gangs and any gang except nano-gangs are unable to do this. The titan defending wins even if the BS blob doesn't attack. The titan attacking wins if the BS blob doesn't defend. If it does come to blows then the same problems exists as already explained above since the attackers will be unable to complete their objectives without multiple fleets. Quote: Introduce distributed goals and stop hinging the fate of an entire conflict on a single battle and you take away the power of a weapon like the DDD because the circumstances in which it can be decisive can be bypassed. If you handle these sorts of issues that way, you can avoid the one-dimensional and unimaginative nerfing/counter-nerfing slog. No. You cannot. For two reasons. 1 You cannot bypass it. 2. distributed simultaneous goals promote blobbing. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 18:31:00 - [13] Originally by: Kelsin Who says that a heavy gatecamps goal is to prevent the nano-gang from doing anything? They may simply be camping the gate for fun and profit - and if the nano-gang can't stop them from doing that, it's a win. No, its a tie. Because their goal is to get kills and they have not. Quote: Likewise, why is a sub-capital gang attacking or defending anything? They're out in enemy territory killing ratters and mining ops. Is the Titan really defending lone ratters in belts? Are you seriously asking why sub-capital gangs should be attacking or defending anything? Seriously? Quote: First - the point of the statement was that the solution is to create alternate paths so that the large single battle is not the only option. So yes, if that solution was employed you could bypass it. Second - how on earth do distributed goals promote blobbing? Can I ask what doesn't promote blobbing in your mind? No, unless you assume you can't defend objectives. Distributed simultaneous goals promote blobbing because optimal play will have one side split up by necessity while the other does not. pretty much the only thing that doesn't promote blobbing is personal rewards that decline as more people are added in excess of the reduced risk. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 18:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Kelsin I'm asking why they are in your example. Your examples continually assume that each side must destroy the other side to achieve success. There are many matchups where this is just not the case. There are not really any meaningful encounters where something isn't getting blown up, moved past, put up, or stolen. Quote: Splittng up is the opposite of blobbing. Consider a regional sovereignty whereby there are 9 points distributed throughout a region. Sov is given to whoever controls 5 of 9 points. Where is blobbing the optimal strategy in either taking OR holding the region? You send feelers out to the 9 points then blob the ** out of one of the points that is capped. Leave a feeler at that point and blob the ** out of the next one. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 19:09:00 - [15] Originally by: Kelsin Your opponent would send 1/9 of his forces to every point, and while your blob is hitting one or two points he'd capture the other 7 or 8. If you only need to hold the point for that long then its impossible to defend, since you defend 1/9 and they blob 5/9 giving them a 9/5 advantage. I.E. a blob. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 21:01:00 - [16] If you split 5/9 your opponent just blobs 1 and you lose. And yea, it is "blobbing". Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 21:58:00 - [17] Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 22:00:53 Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 21:59:16 Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong If you split 5/9 your opponent just blobs 1 and you lose. And yea, it is "blobbing". If one side puts all their forces on one point, they leave the other 8 unattended and lose. Why? They have prevented the opponent in securing the necessary space. Originally by: Kelsin Yeah Joseph, it totally depends on making the objectives truly distributed and parallel. If you can hit them in series then yes, it is possible and optimal to blob. you can only do that with instancing. Originally by: Kelsin Blobbing would be a suboptimal strategy when you need to achieve multiple simultaneous objectives No, blobbing only becomes sub-optimal for one side. It becomes even better for the other. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 22:14:00 - [18] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong No, blobbing only becomes sub-optimal for one side. It becomes even better for the other. You're assuming only one side has to achieve multiple objectives. Territory can also go neutral if no one controls a majority. Neutral is the same thing as winning in this case. Ergo only one side has to achieve multiple objectives. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 22:24:00 - [19] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong Neutral is the same thing as winning in this case. Ergo only one side has to achieve multiple objectives. That's not really so. Side A can take control, Side B can take control, or neither can succeed in taking/retaining control. Those are three distinct results. Not regional control as you describe unless you want to tie the sov in all systems into a single engagement... And that isn't even getting into the problems with making these points and scaling them down to system level. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.15 22:45:00 - [20] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong Not regional control as you describe unless you want to tie the sov in all systems into a single engagement... And that isn't even getting into the problems with making these points and scaling them down to system level. Well, we're doing thought experiments about re-imagining territorial warfare, so the only restriction is our imaginations. My suggestion can be seen in the link above. The only limitation in your imagination is your imagination. There are a lot more if you want to actually be useful. Please don't be useless. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.18 21:42:00 - [21] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Jade Constantine Actual battle-reports of a 3 Titan "blob" on the live-server. Interesting background reading for candidates expressing an opinion in this thread. Maybe "goon" Titan's don't need a "nerf" You're suggesting that Titans are balanced because every so often one dies to the lag/desynch wildcard? No, he is suggesting Titans should be boosted and made into capital killers as well as whole fleet killers because every so often one dies to the lag/desynch wildcard. 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.