Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 70 post(s) |
EnderCapitalG
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:23:00 -
[121] - Quote
Basically this shows that a Leviathan with perfect support against the target still does worse than a turret titan. |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:27:00 -
[122] - Quote
edit: these forums apparently can't process their own BB code.
Reposting this here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=963662#post963662
CynoNet Two wrote: Fully agree with your assessment of the situation. The core of the problem lies deep in the current signature / targeting / tracking mechanics, and there is no solution that allows Titans to keep using turrets without rethinking these in detail.
Although on the other hand, your suggested 'fix' is so far from being balanced I'm surprised the forums haven't tipped over. We're way past the point where Supercap fleets can't be effectively neuted without some form of new AoE neut weapon (or a real boost to Void Bombs). Even if halved, a typical supercap fleet is going to contain over 5 million cap in addition to the additional energy generated from insured 'waterboy' triage carriers (that are effectively disposable). Even in an optimistic case, a fleet of 50 neuting BS will barely manage to cap out a single supercap before being wiped out by the rest if this is the extent of your proposed nerf.
As the devs have indicated that any short-term nerf to titans would involve a minimum of work - so a role repurpose is off the table - here are my suggestions (take some or all of them to preference):
1) Keep the current proposed nerfs in place, but allow Electronic Attack Ships (and possibly Recon cruisers) to bypass supercap ewar immunity. The current changes make it all but impossible for supercaps to fend off these tiny ships without support, provides a role for those frigates outside of alliance tournaments, and brings tracking disruptors and sensor damps to centre stage for ewar. Titans will find it hard to keep up with their little painting/webbing teams with the sensor boosters negated, or weapon range reduced to nearly nothing.
2) If the Titan is intended to be a real anti-capital platform, make it one: Keep the current nerfs, but amend them like so: a) All capital class ships (and large structures intended to be shot by capitals) have their sig radius increased heavily. This allows titans to lock them in a reasonable amount of time. b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
Titans are now able to do a similar amount of DPS against capital-class targets as before, and have more flexbility to deal with DD-tanked vessels. They still have XL weapons, but that capabilty is reduced making the issues with tracking less of an issue until Titans can recieve a new role.
3) More ewar options to counter the lazy balancing that is supercap ewar immunity: Increase the range of void and lockbreaker bombs, reduce the damage they do to themselves so more can be fired at once. Allow lockbreaker bombs to affect supercaps. Allow Remote ECM Bursts to fit a focus script that jams a supercap for XX seconds. Allow regular ECM Bursts affect supercaps.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1019
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:27:00 -
[123] - Quote
Kyle Myr wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Kyle Myr wrote:Ok, I understand the context of your post, but warping in and out isn't necessary mechanically against Titan missiles currently. The damage formula alone means that small, fast ships with low signature radii are able to speed tank their weaponry. Yup. However, it is likely to be a primary reason why nobody's bothered to set up blapleviathans with TP/web support (aside from the fact that you'd need either lots of officer webs or a paper-thin recon to actually pull it off, rather than just slapping a TPII in a mid), which was the discussion we were having. Again, yay for context. I think we agree, but because of the fact that your posts are necessarily short, I'll break it down: The damage formula for missiles scales very well with target size and velocity, such that capital missiles from Titans (which get a bonus to damage normally, unlike Dreadnought's sieged damage bonuses, which are balanced by the drawbacks of siege) do minimal damage to small signature targets moving quickly. This is fine, as 'mass Leviathans' are unable to kill all sub capital ships without support, as they do not do exponentially stacking damage as amassed. Your suggestion, for a 'blapping Leviathan' would involve the use of Target Painters and Webs, which are currently unnecessary for Turret based Titans to do large amounts of damage to sub-capitals, due to the fact signature radius on Turrets is not as significant as explosion signature on capital missiles, and because Angular Velocity is relative, as opposed to the absolute nature of linear velocity, so that for a larger group of spread out Titans (which is the issue, not solo Titans), angular velocity approaches 0 for one of these turret titans, and thus this numerical factor in the damage formula approaches 1 (which is to say, it is not possible to decrease damage this way). To do the equivalent of this using webs and target painters would not be unreasonable, but it would require a significant support fleet of Target Painting carriers (which has already been proposed as the 'counter' to the since scrapped signature radius change) or a large amount of Carriers or Huginns using faction webs (as mentioned, Rapiers are paper thin, and while Huginns are far from invulnerable even with carrier reps, they at least can be tanked). Even still, with stacking penalties, ship velocity would not be reduced to 0, and this mechanical setup still requires a support fleet, something which current turret titans are perfectly fine operating without. As far as I can tell, the 'goal' of these changes is to give Titans a role while operating with a support fleet, and as an anti-capital platform. Reducing tracking and the number of targets they are capable of locking goes part of the way towards this, but the underlying problem deals with the relative angular velocity of anything versus a spread out blob of turret titans (0), versus the absolute velocity of any ship versus a missile (not 0). This is evident in all the killmails of sub capitals killed by Titans.
I realize this is a surprise to a lot of people, but I do actually understand how turret and missile damage work I said "we're worried people will just add TPs and carry on as usual". Someone-or-other said "if target-painting made sig radius a non-issue, people would already be flying blapleviathans". My counterpoint was that missile flight time makes blapleviathans a non-starter in many (but not all, point taken about the confusion of fleet fights) situations before you even start to think about signature radius. Then we had this whole derail into "OMG Y U NO UNDERSTAND EXPLOSION VELOCITY" which was kinda pointless. |
|
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
930
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:30:00 -
[124] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:As OP as titans are, can we not all just admit it's the fact tracking is broken with turrets in general?
The tracking equation is such that if transversal drops to zero, one half the equation solves to zero regardless, and then the only effecting attributes are optimal and falloff; signature radius is removed.
With a tracking speed of 0.000000000000000000000001 and a weapon signature radius of 40,000km a Titan will still hit a frigate heading in a direct line to it for full damage, whereas missiles in the same scenario would apply a fraction of their potential.
You simply need to input the signature radius of guns onto both sides of the equation.
Yeah, this is a lot of work (a lot of things will need re-balancing) but the current system of a 50% nerf will just mean there are fewer targets to shoot at any one time; Titans spread about the grid will still blap targets with a low enough transversal.
In the context of my OP here, a much better fix to Titans blapping small ships IMHO is to lower their alpha damage and up their ROF to compensate.
The reasons Titans blap a target in one hit is because you're taking the unusual case (the guns actually hitting) combining it with a high alpha, and the result is death. If you gave them low alpha and very high ROF they would achieve the same DPS, but random hits won't one shot a target, giving logi time to lock on and rep. The applied DPS against smaller targets would then be low enough to make it completely pointless to point a Titan's guns at a logi ship.
The proper fix is to work on tracking in general, but this would be a half measure that meant it would always be preferable to be applying the guns to a target you can track, rather than shooting at targets with low transversal and hoping the RNG pops it for you. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:32:00 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:My counterpoint was that missile flight time makes blapleviathans a non-starter in many (but not all, point taken about the confusion of fleet fights) situations before you even start to think about signature radius. Then we had this whole derail into "OMG Y U NO UNDERSTAND EXPLOSION VELOCITY" which was kinda pointless.
We understood your point. It's still wrong.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1019
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:33:00 -
[126] - Quote
EnderCapitalG wrote:Basically this shows that a Leviathan with perfect support against the target still does worse than a turret titan.
Yup, but it is reliably doing ~200k EHP damage every single volley, which ought to be plenty enough to one-hit most battleships. |
|
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:33:00 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Greyscale, could you please comment on the idea of removing XL turrets from Titans and giving them just a higher cycling DD? You wouldn't have to rework XL turrets and this could also create more room for new capital ships in the future. |
Saints12
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:35:00 -
[128] - Quote
New bucket please!!!!!! |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
543
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:35:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: I realize this is a surprise to a lot of people, but I do actually understand how turret and missile damage work
I think their point was more that you aren't aware of the methods people use min/max and abuse the limits of these respective systems. Sure you may know the forumulae involved, but being aware of the combinations of ships/fittings deployed daily to stretch these limits is another matter.
Also please read my hugeass post above. I'm a good poster don't you know. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1019
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:35:00 -
[130] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:edit: these forums apparently can't process their own BB code. Reposting this here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=963662#post963662CynoNet Two wrote: Fully agree with your assessment of the situation. The core of the problem lies deep in the current signature / targeting / tracking mechanics, and there is no solution that allows Titans to keep using turrets without rethinking these in detail.
Although on the other hand, your suggested 'fix' is so far from being balanced I'm surprised the forums haven't tipped over. We're way past the point where Supercap fleets can't be effectively neuted without some form of new AoE neut weapon (or a real boost to Void Bombs). Even if halved, a typical supercap fleet is going to contain over 5 million cap in addition to the additional energy generated from insured 'waterboy' triage carriers (that are effectively disposable). Even in an optimistic case, a fleet of 50 neuting BS will barely manage to cap out a single supercap before being wiped out by the rest if this is the extent of your proposed nerf.
As the devs have indicated that any short-term nerf to titans would involve a minimum of work - so a role repurpose is off the table - here are my suggestions (take some or all of them to preference):
1) Keep the current proposed nerfs in place, but allow Electronic Attack Ships (and possibly Recon cruisers) to bypass supercap ewar immunity. The current changes make it all but impossible for supercaps to fend off these tiny ships without support, provides a role for those frigates outside of alliance tournaments, and brings tracking disruptors and sensor damps to centre stage for ewar. Titans will find it hard to keep up with their little painting/webbing teams with the sensor boosters negated, or weapon range reduced to nearly nothing.
2) If the Titan is intended to be a real anti-capital platform, make it one: Keep the current nerfs, but amend them like so: a) All capital class ships (and large structures intended to be shot by capitals) have their sig radius increased heavily. This allows titans to lock them in a reasonable amount of time. b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
Titans are now able to do a similar amount of DPS against capital-class targets as before, and have more flexbility to deal with DD-tanked vessels. They still have XL weapons, but that capabilty is reduced making the issues with tracking less of an issue until Titans can recieve a new role.
3) More ewar options to counter the lazy balancing that is supercap ewar immunity: Increase the range of void and lockbreaker bombs, reduce the damage they do to themselves so more can be fired at once. Allow lockbreaker bombs to affect supercaps. Allow Remote ECM Bursts to fit a focus script that jams a supercap for XX seconds. Allow regular ECM Bursts affect supercaps.
This has a decent chance of being a good long-term fix (we'd have to think about it some more), but it's too large in scope for this release, unfortunately. |
|
|
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:37:00 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Kyle Myr wrote:[quote=CCP Greyscale][quote=Kyle Myr]words. I realize this is a surprise to a lot of people, but I do actually understand how turret and missile damage work I said "we're worried people will just add TPs and carry on as usual". Someone-or-other said "if target-painting made sig radius a non-issue, people would already be flying blapleviathans". My counterpoint was that missile flight time makes blapleviathans a non-starter in many (but not all, point taken about the confusion of fleet fights) situations before you even start to think about signature radius. Then we had this whole derail into "OMG Y U NO UNDERSTAND EXPLOSION VELOCITY" which was kinda pointless.
we are concerned that you are expressing to us your fears that people will just add TPs and webs and continue blapping like normal yet are still making no indication that you arent just going to go ahead as planned.
I am concerned that you dont realize that right now everyone except PL does "lazy" titan blapping ie. without webs and TPs and to make your whole change moot they just need to make abit of effort.
if thats what you want, titans to just expend 5% more effort to completely negate your change then why do it? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:37:00 -
[132] - Quote
What about simply putting in the "can't target subcaps" until the long-term fix is in? It's a hamhanded fix, yes, but there's wide agreement that they simply should not be blapping subcaps, and it allows a firm barrier to titans doing so until a more elegant solution can be implemented? |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:38:00 -
[133] - Quote
There needs to be a capital ship that can 'blap' subcaps. It just can't have 30 million EHP. . |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:39:00 -
[134] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There needs to be a capital ship that can 'blap' subcaps. It just can't have 30 million EHP. . There is, a carrier. The issue is a supercap doing it. |
Styrling
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:41:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:EnderCapitalG wrote:Basically this shows that a Leviathan with perfect support against the target still does worse than a turret titan. Yup, but it is reliably doing ~200k EHP damage every single volley, which ought to be plenty enough to one-hit most battleships.
Why would I not just turn off my MWD when I see a levi shooting at me? Given TiDi there is a ton of opportunity to cycle it off before anything hits and then the damage is back to being nothing. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3168
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:41:00 -
[136] - Quote
pmchem wrote:Greyscale, Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours.
What a sensible proposal Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
544
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote: b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
This has a decent chance of being a good long-term fix (we'd have to think about it some more), but it's too large in scope for this release, unfortunately.
What about just these points? I'm p sure that's 10mins work. Maybe five if you're quick at typing. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
1019
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:43:00 -
[138] - Quote
CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:CynoNet Two wrote: b) Reduce the number of XL turret/launcher slots on all titans to 4. c) Reduce Doomsday base damage to 1 million, reduce fuel use by 75%, reduce cap use by 75%. d) Change Doomsday Operation to reduce DD cooldown by 5% per level (to 7.5 mins at level V). e) Allow the racial Titan skill to online 1 additional Doomsday module per level.
This has a decent chance of being a good long-term fix (we'd have to think about it some more), but it's too large in scope for this release, unfortunately. What about just these points? I'm p sure that's 10mins work. Maybe five if you're quick at typing.
None of it's hugely hard to implement - the work goes into a) determining that we're happy with the resulting balance and b) getting it tested to make sure I didn't fat-finger something. |
|
Kyle Myr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
193
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:46:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:...
Also, can you guys please stop +1ing - if you're under the impression that we're doing balance work based on how many posts there are in a thread you're barking up the wrong forest never mind the wrong tree. I'd hate to have to get someone to come in and clean the thread. If you do not respect that your subscribers believe a design idea has merit (hence their +1 support), then why even bother putting up a dev blog forum thread to which players can reply? If by "clean up" you mean remove subscriber input, then your lack of respect for your customer base is the same as it has been for the past several years. Your hubris is evidence that CCP's old guard is still set in its pre-2011 layoff ways and that does not bode well for EVE's or CCP's future. A good idea is a good idea and stands on its own. All +1ing - and particularly the kind of high-volume +1ing that we were seeing earlier in this thread, and I'm sure it was entirely a coincidence that a whole bunch of Goon/Test pilots dived into the thread within minutes to +1 it - does is make the thread harder to read, and more likely that a good idea gets lost in the deluge of posts.
This isn't a top down thing. We communicate with each other using out of game channels because our ~Space Guildes~ are heavily socially based, so news and ideas spread fast simply by virtue of chatter. The reason attention is being brought here is because of concern that good ideas might be overlooked. If this has the opposite effect, sorry. I will continue to post because I believe I'm doing an adequate job of expressing the relevant mechanics as clearly as I possibly can, to supplement the graphs supplied by others. All we want is civil discussion and careful balance changes.
So far, a few ideas have been put forth:
- Adjustment to the damage formula of XL turrets to take into account signature radius in its ability to hit sub capital ships. *** This is put forth as a solution that uses mild balance with existing mechanics to bring turret Titans in line with the Leviathan, which is currently incapable of doing significant damage to sub capitals, even with theoretical support, which it isn't fielded with, because Turret Titans work so much better with sub-capitals that it's a non-issue. This is proposed as a fairly simple math fix.
- Removal of all Titan weapons save for a improved Doomsday to function as a more capable weapon to be used versus capital ships *** This change is put forth as a more heavy handed change which accomplishes the fix of the problem by simply removing it, and using another mechanic which is currently something of a gimmick to replace the intended role of weapons on Titans. Given that all slots on a Titan after such a change would be used for tank or possible utility, and that the Doomsday would require careful changes so as to not be overpowered or underpowered as a main attack weapon (possibly give it damage/cycle times based on what a current rack of Titan guns would do? Give it a shorter time preventing jumping based on this?), this fix might require more effort, but it would be sure to give what is stated as the intended goal.
I'd be willing to suggest a 3rd solution, though it's possibly more significant as far as changes go. It would also use in game mechanics to 'fix' this issue
- Remove Titan electronic warfare immunity, and give them a high amount of innate sensor strength and warp core stabilizers *** This change would put the fix to Titan tracking in the hands of electronic warfare ships and normal tacklers. It would enable coordinated efforts to counter Titans, as well as fixing the issue of tackling Titans in low sec. While this would remove some of the specialized role of hictors/dictors, these ships already have tremendous utility in combat in all areas (save dictors outside of 0.0), and their infinite points and bubbles would still be very useful for tackling anything.
There are plenty of options to consider which work within the current game mechanics. These are simply a few. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
295
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:48:00 -
[140] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:There needs to be a capital ship that can 'blap' subcaps. It just can't have 30 million EHP. . There is, a carrier. The issue is a supercap doing it.
Carriers are more Swiss army knife support then specifically anti- subcap. |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:49:00 -
[141] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:There needs to be a capital ship that can 'blap' subcaps. It just can't have 30 million EHP. . There is, a carrier. The issue is a supercap doing it. Carriers are more Swiss army knife support then specifically anti- subcap. Sure but that's also because they're incredibly outclassed in their anti-subcap role. But yes, they are not pure anti-subcap blappers. |
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:51:00 -
[142] - Quote
Kyle Myr wrote:[quote=CCP Greyscale][quote=Hakaru Ishiwara][quote=CCP Greyscale]...
- Remove Titan electronic warfare immunity, and give them a high amount of innate sensor strength and warp core stabilizers *** This change would put the fix to Titan tracking in the hands of electronic warfare ships and normal tacklers. It would enable coordinated efforts to counter Titans, as well as fixing the issue of tackling Titans in low sec. While this would remove some of the specialized role of hictors/dictors, these ships already have tremendous utility in combat in all areas (save dictors outside of 0.0), and their infinite points and bubbles would still be very useful for tackling anything.
There are plenty of options to consider which work within the current game mechanics. These are simply a few.
they already have very high sensor strength and just 1 eccm (again screwing over shield titans) almost doubles that
and in the end you have just glossed over the problem, should you not be able to correctly put some ewar strat into action youve still lost your fleet to something broken, just now you have some half cocked reason as a glossy excuse. |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:53:00 -
[143] - Quote
Greyscale, you have yourself said that CCP has moved away from the idea of Titans as subcapital killers. So why not take the consequence of that and remove all turrets and missile slots, and rebalance the DD so at Titan can dish out approximately the same damage as before? And then you also adjust it so that a DD can hit structures (with reduced damage, roughly equvalent to old turret DPS). Problem solved.
Personally I think Titans belong in EVE. An Epic game needs Epic battles, Epic ships and Epic losses. If you dont want supercaps to kill subcaps, I am also fine with that. But logically, if titans isnt able to touch subcaps, subcaps should ideally NOT be able to touch (as in damage) titans. Right now however, there is just too few options for a true combined arms capital battlefield for this to be practical. The capital lineup is far too simplistic and offer too few options compared to the subcap lineup. What I cannot understand is why CCP insist on further bandaiding what the CSM last year called the "sucking chestwound" of EVE Online instead of just bite the bitter apple and do a complete revamp of capital warfare? EVE is 9 years old. It has currently about 11.000 active players with more than 100 million skillpoints. Its GREAT that you make the game more accessible for newer players. But vets WILL leave (dont trust your statisics departement on this) if you dont start to understand that you have to cater for this player segment as well. |
Styrling
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:53:00 -
[144] - Quote
Another benefit to moving away from the Turret/Launcher Titan to a DD only Titan is that now we have dread fleets required to Hit POS' again.
We want reasons to use others ships too. |
Styrling
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:54:00 -
[145] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:Greyscale, you have yourself said that CCP has moved away from the idea of Titans as subcapital killers. So why not take the consequence of that and remove all turrets and missile slots, and rebalance the DD so at Titan can dish out approximately the same damage as before? And then you also adjust it so that a DD can hit structures (with reduced damage, roughly equvalent to old turret DPS). Problem solved.
Personally I think Titans belong in EVE. An Epic game needs Epic battles, Epic ships and Epic losses. If you dont want supercaps to kill subcaps, I am also fine with that. But logically, if titans isnt able to touch subcaps, subcaps should ideally NOT be able to touch (as in damage) titans. Right now however, there is just too few options for a true combined arms capital battlefield for this to be practical. The capital lineup is far too simplistic and offer too few options compared to the subcap lineup. What I cannot understand is why CCP insist on further bandaiding what the CSM last year called the "sucking chestwound" of EVE Online instead of just bite the bitter apple and do a complete revamp of capital warfare? EVE is 9 years old. It has currently about 11.000 active players with more than 100 million skillpoints. Its GREAT that you make the game more accessible for newer players. But vets WILL leave (dont trust your statisics departement on this) if you dont start to understand that you have to cater for this player segment as well.
No no no no no structures, give dreads a role. |
Kyle Myr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
195
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:56:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: lots of good discussion ...
None of it's hugely hard to implement - the work goes into a) determining that we're happy with the resulting balance and b) getting it tested to make sure I didn't fat-finger something.
Fair point. As long as you continue to iterate balance on Titans, this is what everyone is asking for. I know we'd all prefer solutions sooner rather than later, but provided the changes make EVE a better game, that's what everyone should want.
I didn't mean to come off implying you did not understand game mechanics. I posted to clarify how ships are being currently used on the battlefield. Given the somewhat heated nature of this issue at times, I can see how this might come off poorly, and I do not mean for that.
I am trying to stick to proposing changes which do not require the addition of new modules or ship roles, in line with the current changes and the reversed change (which is to say, direct adjustments to tracking numbers, max targets, and the removed scan resolution change). The only reason I delved into the Leviathan discussion was because it seems to function with the desired role currently. |
Gnaw LF
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
Ivana Twinkle wrote:Gnaw LF wrote:If you are going to do this then you will also need to split off the XL gun into a category used by Dreadnaughts and Titans. Otherwise the Dreads will be inadvertently nerfed. Currently dreads cant hit the broad side of a barn anyway.
Correction, the dreads can't hit the broad side of a barn by themselves. However, paired up with some webbing support ships the Dreads are a great weapon. I understand that such support might not be feasible or practical in null sec but in w-space the Dreads have an important role. Nerfing them to fix Titans will inadvertently impact the game play of many w-space residents. |
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:58:00 -
[148] - Quote
Styrling wrote:Another benefit to moving away from the Turret/Launcher Titan to a DD only Titan is that now we have dread fleets required to Hit POS' again.
We want reasons to use others ships too.
so this
|
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:00:00 -
[149] - Quote
Styrling wrote: No no no no no structures, give dreads a role.
Titans today allready shoot structures. A modified DD would just compensate for the gun removal. But yes, I am all for a capital revamp. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:00:00 -
[150] - Quote
when are you going to fix the titan bridge bug |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |