James 315 on How to Fix Supercaps

Avatar
In true James 315 fashion, a 6 pages article. Time to grab my glasses.
Avatar
And yet I read it. Damn that charming man.
Avatar
Normally CCP run on the assumption that if we nerf your thing and you've lost isk then tough luck (although when they removed some skillbooks from the game they gave a full refund at npc sell order price for them) but with the hundred trillion or so sunk in supers cutting the build cost by 80% or so is going to be an issue that needs resolution. You cannot simply say "make them cheaper" without addressing the issue of compensating those who have them.
Avatar
Sure I can: Announce the change sufficiently in advance for people to make a deliberate choice (build time + 3 months, for instance). Then, people can either build it now, at the old prices, or wait for the change and build it a lot cheaper. After the change, everybody before it had the advantage of having a supercap that was overpowered for however long they possessed it; and everybody else has the advantage of never having paid for that temporary bit of overpoweredness. If you JUST reduced the cost, and nothing else, that would be a problem - if the cost reduction goes in hand with a reduction in effectiveness, it remains fair.
Avatar
If people want subcaps to be a significant threat to Titans and titans to be 'killable' then Titans need to pose a threat to those same subcaps, while being killable, in other words undo the gun nerf to titans so I can go back to killing sub caps with my titans and I actually see 0 problem with most of this article.
Avatar
I agree with this article on most parts, tin terms of gameplay design, I dont like the whole Cyno thing that much either, popping in soe much firepower right into 1 spotI'd like to see cyno beacons act like wormholes, having limited mass and also allowing limiting the number of cynos you can light in 1 system at a time (with some wear)This creates interesting CHOISES, you are forced to select what type / number of ship you wanna put through the cynoAllow only a battlecruiser class ship to cyno in supercapitals, and make this ship unable to jump itself through a cyno
Avatar
James 315 is a funny name for The Mittani
Avatar
"Supercarriers could have roughly the same EHP as carriers, and titans roughly the same EHP as dreadnoughts."NOPE. Especially considering that in lowsec a dread already does as much DPS as a Titan.
Avatar
So many words..The fix can be summed up into one sentence..Remove them and refund SP
Avatar
The tl;dr version:1) Nerf Supercap EHP2) Introduce a Sub-Cap for EWAR against Supers (so that Subcaps are the paper for the super-rock)3) Reduce Supercap cost so they are actually loseable3b) Make Supers dockable at Stationsdid I miss anything?
Avatar
"You won't drain a titan's capacitor"Welpfleet? Herocats?
Avatar
As a 4 year super pilot (haven't lost it yet). I completely agree that they should be made easier to kill and easier to replace. Everyone can see that this would increase their use and make it more fun for everyone.What I would like to also see however, is that their initial price would still be as high as it is now. This would still keep their numbers somewhat limited and this would also mean that current owners (of whom some spend an immense time to get one) would not feel like receiving an arrow to the knee once this change hits. Also, this would keep a lot of industrialists from losing their profitable supercap production bussiness and this would still make it a big loss to lose a CSAA with a ship in build in it.Upon losing your initial hull, you would have your destroyed hull delivered somewhere of your liking (POS or station w/e) where it could be rebuild/salvaged with an amount of minerals that is equivalent to the amount required for 3-5 normal caps. Another option would be to receive a permit that allows building of a supercap at a reduced cost. Another positive side effect of this would be that lost supercap fleets cannot be immediately replaced without high cost (initial fees)In addition to the proposed nerfs in this article, it would be nice to see some buffs that do not directly affect their combat capabilities. This could include but is not limited to:- Docking in stations (as proposed here). So they can finally use their SMAs in an easy way- They could serve as a mobile POS / starbase where things like invention and or manufacturing are possible.I would sign for these changes any day. I've had these ideas for quite a while and thought I should share them here.
Avatar
6 pages of drivel by some high sec dweller telling people in Null what is wrong with their game. This would be better on that other news site with the rest of the garbage articles.
Avatar
Titans are currently used mostly as a logistics tool for moving fleets around, and only secondarily as a combat vessel when the risk of destruction to the titan is considered almost non-existant. I don't see that these changes would necessarily make people take more risks with such an amazing logistical tool than they already do.It's a similar to Black Ops BS which can more easily be reimbursed (though they are not cheap either), but are still rarely used in actual combat unless there's minimal risk of destruction because the value/risk gained from using them as just a logistics tool is so much greater.
Avatar
Can only speak about the Black Ops BS, kind of agree there. 90% of blops drops is just bridging in the gank squadYou can do funky stuff with Redeemers, T3s and Triage carriers but nothing that can scale well, (EHP.) it is in essence a poor mans Titan bridge.
Avatar
And add drones back to the supercarriers.
Avatar
I always thought it would be cool if titans were like a mobile starbase that had to use stargates. The jump bridge could be changed so that ships can jump back and forth from a titan to a jump bridge so that a titan could be a mobile beachhead in enemy space. It's combat abilities would have to be tweaked so that it could survive on it's own but without the mobility of jump drives this wouldn't be OP.
Avatar
When they nerfed the drone regions all ships became more expensive. Should we all have had to pay the difference? No. Because there are no reparations. You paid your billions to fly a broken ship. If you didn't have fun with it, too bad.
Avatar
As a super cap pilot I will have to disagree with you sir: I totally agree with your opinions!Good ideas, good read! +1
Avatar
how about this... we introduce bigger ships like super^2 capsor wait.... T2 capitals!
Avatar
If you reduce the cost and EHP of a supercarrier, they just become a dreadnought that can spidertank and isn't stuck in siege to do their DPS.This will just lead to a new imbalance; dreadnoughts will be irrelevant for any purpose except sieging large towers. The most fun activity in Eve!
Avatar
So that people can field fleets of supers against subcaps ... hmm ... where have I've seen this before? Yea ... totally a good idea. If you are indeed Grath - the dude from PL - then buddy you are pretty damn stupid ... supercaps main role is to kill caps / structures, right? How does that fit into your proposal? Kind of defeats the purpose huh? Doh ...And just to make it easier: if you read (know how to, of course) the article you will notice that this guy is not proposing to make supers super easy to kill, but more like balanced.
Avatar
What about boosting the raw dps / hp of dreads to 20-30-50%
Avatar
Blah blah "the architect of the modern titan", so I suppose I'm the inventor of time dilation. Don't see me writing a six-page back-pat about it though do you?Also, you can still be arrogant even if you're right.Your analysis is spot on though.
Avatar
Why 'lowsec' ? Dreads already commonly outdamage Titans in nullsec, especially since quite often a big chunk of the Doomsday damage will end up wasted due to its target having less than 3 million EHP. In lowsec, a Dreadnought will outdamage a Titan by a factor of 2 to 3.
Avatar
Having recently bought my Super-duper-all-mighty-capital, after grinding anomalys for over a year to get the ISK, and also falling so low as to buying some PLEX at the end because I was sooo boooored running Hubs I could vomit, nerfing the Supers is only fine with me if I am compensated by CCP somehow for all that spent game time and account payments.All that game-time spent on skills, implants, hull, the finest available faction modules etc can not be neglected, as is said in the article many of us get our ISK that way still (we suck at this game - I know, so troll us - but scamming or exploiting other players through alliances/corps etc just is not our style i guess, we're not that type of people neither in-game nor IRL...)Still I agree with the thesis put forward; it's sound by all means! Making more use of supers would be fun!Btw, fixing Supers and Titans without having a look at the sov-mechanics would be a complete waste of time and effort on CCPs part; supers ARE after all mostly used to grind down them structures quickly. It can be done in Caracals or bombers as we've seen, but that.is.so.boring!
Avatar
Nerf the current supers and introduce new faction motherships/titans. It would be like 2008 again \o/
Avatar
Yes, titans and supercarriers need another set of nerfs, I heard some of them are still able to apply some DPS to anything smaller than a large POS, and that some down-enriched people still wants to get in one despite their complete lack of usefulness. This obviously cannot stand.
Avatar
If it took you a year to grind anomalies for a super then buddy I have one piece of good advice for ya: go look for another game, you suck @ EVE ... try farmville or something.About the reimburse in any way for that spent game time and account payments: LOL
Avatar
6 pages; FireFox and "Read Now" FTW :)
Avatar
A lone titan: sure. Once a super fleet reaches critical mass though, good luck my friend.
Avatar
I read the original Titan manifesto when it came out. This was easy in comparison.
Avatar
Mostly great. I would alter the following ways:1.) Allow all ewar against all ships. Only specialized modules would allow ignoring ewar (triage, siege)2.) un-nerf super carrier drone bays and titan guns.3.) EHP of MOMs = 20% > than Carriers. EHP of Titans = 20% more than Dreads.3-A.) Cost = 20% more than the carrier/dread4.) reimburse every super/titan pilot with materials at the ehp/cost nerf value.
Avatar
I'm 99% sure no one would build a super thats 5 times as expensive now as in a few months. As soon as CCP announce a build cost nerf thread, the price will drop like a stone.
Avatar
Garth,One of the major philosophies of EvE is that bigger is not better. I've solo'd Ravens in a Rifter, Vagabonds & old-school Hurricanes in a taranis, and I coudl go on. AHAC's used to shred BS fleets, despite the fact BS's had twice the EHP and twice the on-paper firepower. It's the added difficulty needed to apply that dps that balanced the field. If we gave you back tracking titans, then the next big fleet would be Slowcat Carriers + Titans... which would simply decimate everything, and the only counter would be a bigger fleet of the same design. That's not a sign of good game balance!!!In truth, I think the best way to "balance" supercaps is to extend EWAR immunity to include immunity from remote reps. Let them have 20-40m EHP tanks... but remove their ability to receive remote reps! This is what truly balances dreads and triage carriers.
Avatar
Which is retarded as well since as James actually quoted Fozzie's "a limit won't make it balanced".
Avatar
Introduce a new type of doomsday that can a) only be targeted at supercaps, and b) can only be fitted on T1 frigates.
Avatar
Let them jump through gates only. The biggest ships should be more slowboats than today
Avatar
still doesn't fix the issue with super pilots being incredibly risk averse. allowing them to be shut down easily won't get them out on the field more in order to be lost, it'll just defang them for little balanced reason
Avatar
reimbursements are a bad idea and you should feel bad. injecting trillions of isk and materials into the game is one of the worst ideas in the history of eve. seriously
Avatar
You know you're a retard when you fly with TRIBE!
Avatar
Current Supers would be fixed by makign them not removable from the world. Meaning that alliances would need to both hold and secure space to field super fleets and would leave these fleet depots ope to sneak attack.
Avatar
Today, Titans are far better balanced than both Battleships and Carriers.It's not that I outright dislike any attempt to make sure Supers is not the tactical nuke of the EVE cold war, but giving them the same retard treatment of "balancing" by lowering risk and reward is hardly the way to go. Shaking off any concerns with blanket statements such as "Battleships and Carriers are well balanced" and not opening up that discussion over four pages of drivel is also quite conceited.You can have a Carrier in EVE within a day's work, then you can proceed not to lose it over years of favourable gameplay. It's isk-risk-reward balance is very potent. Battleships are even worse balanced today since they virtually have no isk- or risk factors yet obviously come with the reward of being a quite powerful ship-class in the scope of things.Everything in this game have cause and effect, every change. I think most of us still agree that changing things like AoE DD or nano-stacking dealt with concrete issues in their time and day, but at the same time most of us are aware of the resulting effects and greater implications - when "balancing" them never came with a counter-weight to maintain balance in the greater scope.In that sense I also believe that most us are still open to further changes to Titans (or Supers as a whole) but are weary of CCP's tendency to adopt onesided and imbalanced changes without revisiting the greater picture and leaving cascading issues to fester. The current meta has afterall piggybacked on those changes and if certain ships have become better balanced today, one could argue that the sandbox (the concept of every playstyle interacting in the same space) is much less balanced today because it has resulted in very negative profileration of PvE, small-gang PvP, self-governed newcommers as well as corporation- and alliance-level interaction in the political meta.So you can nerf Titans through some generic EHP-and-ISK drop, but you should also realize that a continued onesided push down on risk-reward will just lead to cementing larger coalitions and less fights in EVE. We will have even more of the J5-stalemate where the same old FC's from the same old groups have to sit and try to agree on (socially-contracted) non-emergent content with meaningless ships/fleets for the sake of creating any content: same as what has happened everywhere else in the game wether you live in lowsec or nullsec and wether you fly solo or in the largest coalition. Almost all of EVE today is social-contract, conscented and non-emergent interaction: Fight us maybe?That's also the problem when you resort to themepark-design (which CCP has), that once you start making people depend on updates they will also unsurprisingly depend alot on updates. They will also specificly ask for updates for their slice of the game. The way CCP have adressed moon-minerals, for example, is very themepark-ish: it's targetted gameplay achieving a short-term effect, then stagnating with the community waiting for the goalposts to shift again. The likely result of the recent changes is that the R64's will be redistributed within the hierarchy similar to any other valuable real estate in recent years and then we'll wait for the next update.A properly balanced solution would entail promoting a properly balanced risk-reward gameplay for subcapitals first and foremost and then simply pushing Supers out of that gameplay (preferrably into the "structure" side of EVE, where you can reinforce their role as mobile infrastructure for non-sovholding groups who want establish a presence or foothold in space instead of creating some awkward and low-stake "SBU").With all that said, what's interesting is not wether Titans are nerfed or not, it's wether the greater scope of things are balanced or not. Simply assuming that you can never have too many ships or that Battleships are perfectly balanced now does not lend much credibility. You could even say that the author skipped that overarching issue to spurt for four pages about the history of Titans. Titans are irrelevant beyond their promotion of risk-reward gameplay. Many Titan-pilots would probably welcome a high risk-reward gameplay in subcapitals instead: the problem is that, that option no longer exist there. Risk-reward in subcapitals has been completely and utterly fucked. Hardly anyone fly high-risk subcapitals anymore, especially not in a high-risk environment. Looking at CCP's current direction (the proposed HAC-changes etc.), that is not likely to change. In fact, you have the same trends there of lowering the risk and reward of flying them.If people don't take risks anymore, there will be no interesting content. If you are not prepared to take any risks, ultimately no one else will do that either. That's the greater implication for a sandbox MMO game like EVE, they were designed around hardcore gameplay: It's economy, it's new-old player balance, it's ability to create stories and it's ability to stay compelling is all based on meaningful risk.Remember that awesome fight with Cruisers? No, you don't - at least not unless it's in an Alliance Tournament with artificial risk-reward in the prize pool.
Avatar
James 315 He is knowingle Self-important and I love it!Disturbingly enough he is also very often .. RIGHT.At the most basic Ships should be either beaten by individual combat ships of equal / Bigger Class or a group of smaller Specialised class ships for just that purpose.(See Battleships/Cruisers and Bombers as a theoretical example)Or y'know... Super duper incredible fluke L33t skilled pilots in smaller ships :)
Avatar
I mean BattleShips/Battlecruisers... not.. cruisers. *facepalm*
Avatar
Yep, I'm banned alright, keep drinking that koolaid buddy.
Avatar
'Fair balance is that if you have something that can hurt my ship, I should be able to hurt you back with mine, thats just simple easy game mechanics.' - not necesarily true ... let's not forget we are talking about a ship class designed to do a specific role (killing caps / structures). In your logic a indy guy may argue that he holds the right to fight back in a damn freighter, right?
Avatar
If your Titan is now at risk from sub caps then the titan doesnt need to be a threat to them too you just need to bring the support with you to threaten them. Its an MMO play together and bring friends.If your rock is being beaten by Paper, bring scissors to help out. In fact this will help supers become part of a fleet instead of a fleet in there own right if they are at risk being flown without support.Only issue I have is that if supers are meant to be a counter to caps and currently the counter to supers is lots of dreads reducing there EHP will only make this easier for Dreads to finish them off so there DPS against other capitals should be slightly increased to if its easier for dreads to kill them its also easier for the titan to remove the dreads first. Want to drop dreads on a titan you will have to bring subcap support as well.
Avatar
I'm noting a conspicuous absence of Grath applying his 'if your ship can hurt mine I should be able to hurt yours back' logic to supercaps ability to murder the shit out of regular caps with relative impunity (IE. Doomsdays, massed fighter-bombers).
Avatar
If we have a way of jamming or disrupting your guns then sure, why not?
Avatar
You don't fix a broken ship by intentionally making a ship OP
Avatar
"80% of a ridiculously large number is still a pretty ridiculously large number."This one made me chuckle hard.
Avatar
Oh noez. Another TRIBE is bad joke. Oh gorsh my feelings are hurt. You sir have some wit about you.
Avatar
A battleship with the role of pointing like a HIC and the upped sized guns like a tier 3 battlecruiser could be a nice answer, hell. give it a siege module too. But make them glassy and vulerable to EWAR, which means they need to be protected?
Avatar
As I said above: "...we suck at this game - I know, so troll us..."I left the door open. And the troll came. They always come. EVE is so full of them.I hope your post made you feel better! I don't mind!I'm off to play Farmville. ;-)
Avatar
Scroll to bottom of page, note 6 pages of text as per, read TLDR in comments, go watch something on twitch. This is advertising revenue genius TMC!
Avatar
"Upon losing your initial hull, you would have your destroyed hull delivered somewhere of your liking (POS or station w/e) where it could be rebuild/salvaged with an amount of minerals that is equivalent to the amount required for 3-5 normal caps."This is a very good idea. Perhaps have the titan crew (50,000 odd people, to my recollection) take over when the ship would be destroyed, forcefully eject the pilot pod, and jump to some home station.
Avatar
I'm sorry if I paid attention to what was going on in the game and vetted an opinion in a comment forum, now get back to your cheetos you rascal...and your mom wants you to cut the lawn...you've told her you'd do it since Saturday...what will the neighbors think...
Avatar
I can't be alone in hating this douche bag...What little I know of him is because of what he is trying to do to highsec miners. After reading this and the titan post its not hard to see that this guy is very arrogant and only reinforces my disgust. Nothing but a bully and a thief!
Avatar
One good thing I'd say about James is that he does explain his point of view very well.
Avatar
Supers should not be omnipotent, rather, they should be superior brawling ships which sit at the top of the food chain, forcing opposition to escalate or lose an engagement.Making it impossible to remote rep supers is literally the dumbest shit I've ever heard.On the topic of tracking, supers should be viable and combat, and with some support doing webbing and painting, should be able to hit AT LEAST battlecruiser and above for 80% of their turret damage before resistsLaughed when I read that Carrier supported Titan fleets are not "a sign of good game balance" -- I'm pretty sure that's the whole idea; to get them out of the POS and onto the field. A BLOO BLOO BLOO YOU NEED A BIGGER FLEET OF THAT TO COUNTER IT, well, surprise, same goes for most fleets, and the goal here is to get supers out into the slugfest, killing and dying in turn.Article is pretty good, though I still think the problem is mostly player culture and not game mechanics; That is to say, titans aren't dying because people are too afraid to lose thier shiney's, on BOTH sides. 50 dreads can easily decimate supers; this is already happening.-Halve the cost and EHP of all supers. -Implement docking. -Introduce more specialized T2 cruisers to Jam/Tracking Disrupt/Damp is a damn fine idea. Focused scripts should have immense effects on subcaps, similar to infinipoint. Having to turn this off to catch remote reps should STAY. -HIC's work because they're expensive to lose and require SRP, anything that can jam supers should NOT be disposable and follow the same mannerisms.-Ewar immunity from general ships is probably the coolest thing CCP ever did.-In no world is it ok for a blackbird to lockdown a super capitalIn closing, you pubs are stupid, Grath is right. Never stop raging, you glorious ball of hatred.
Avatar
That's probably true of most people.
Avatar
James 315 the moron of EvE...
Avatar
Good article and a damn good suggestion.
Avatar
Let me tell from my experience how you take down titan. First you take a bomber frigate, then you will fly very close to the titan surface until you spot thermal exhaust, aim very carefully and release the bombs into this shaft. Then run.
Avatar
Io the Guardian Wisp. Sounds legit.
Avatar
Nice article. I slightly disagree about the docking thing though. Supers are meant for nullsec alliance warfare. Or at least they should be. They shouldn't be able to dock in random NPC stations.I'd rather suggest to change the CSMA, so that super-pilots can savely store their supers there. How? Make it so that nobody can remove/offline the CSMA while a super is inside. Make it so that nobody can take a super that belongs to someone else out of an CSMA. And make it so that the CSMA doesn't offline when the pos gets reinforced.So if super-pilots have their super in a reinforced pos (for example because they weren't home when it was reinforced) they can stil lget it out, if they get past a potential hellcamp. Imho that would be the most stylish way to solve this issue.
Avatar
PRAISE JAMES!
Avatar
All of this is just wrong wrong wrong - the answer is Death Stars. Jump anywhere in low or null, big guns that can delete a supercap from the grid every minute or so, but with really crappy little guns so you have to secure it with a huge fleet to keep it from being blown up by some jerk in a rifter shooting it in the 1 structure point exhaust port. Costs the same as like, oh 10-15 Titans. Hilarity ensues.
Avatar
Hahah thanks for the shoutout, James. Keep on dreaming, son, keep on dreaming.
Avatar
Surely 600 titan owners won't self-destruct on day 89, instantly injecting (~600 titans in-game x ~100M each, very rough estimate) 60 trillion isk into the game from NPC corp Pend Insurance, idle for a month or two til the expansion hits, then be back in the same hull (hell, buy a couple/three now - they're cheap!) at a fraction of the cost and tens/scores of billions of isk richer for their having sat out for a couple months.That money didn't bounce around from player to player compensating eachother for time and effort expended. Pend Insurance waves a wand and that money now magically exists in dude's wallet. Sixty trillion of it divided by the number of titan owners. Instantly.Ship insurance only softens the blow of a loss. Platinum costs something like 33% of the full payout and plenty of ships do end up surviving until the insurance lapses (and is probably then renewed at the cost another 33% of full payout, sinking that much more money out of the economy). A titan pilot right now, if they could insure their hull would have to make 33B disappear out of circulation. Were they to die, they'd be down (one 100B titan hull + 33B insurance cost) and up 100B insurance payout, a net loss of 33B. In your proposed fix, I will lose one 100B isk titan hull and receive 100B isk. In two months when the expansion goes live, I will buy a fresh hull for, let's say 50B* (thanks to the new reduced build costs), and have 50B* in my pocket (or a second titan hull, why not?). 25B/month* to sit out of my titan and maybe bide my time doing subcap things until my new titan is ready. Not bad.Platinum insurance at _no cost_, with build costs known to be cheaper in the near-immediate future all but guarantees most "surplus" titan dudes will strip the hull and have some corpmates blow them up for the 100B windfall. I'm sure a few alliances will persuade a few titan pilots to waive that windfall because they still need bridges.:words:, but tl;dr magically insured titans before the expansion is a terrible idea* obviously made-up numbers only for the sake of illustrating my point; can only speculate what the actual new build costs would be
Avatar
The reality is that until CCP can take the time to turn supers into the power projection platforms they should be rather than the T2 capital ships they are, there is no role for them in the game.
Avatar
i love that neither in the article nor in the comments is it mentioned that sov is needed to build supers. If supers were much cheaper and could dock the super proliferation would be one-sided towards alliances that already hold sov and thus make it even harder for new alliances to get into 0.0.
Avatar
Yea, not only that, but make the boost/bonus' higher than a regular commandship/T3. To give some good reason to have it on the field. That would do crazy things with fleet mobility/reinforcement fleets.Not only that but it would draw enemy fleets to attack and actually fight us, leading to huge battles. Rather than this warp/positioning business
Avatar
That means a system can be essentially cynojammed by one carrier-supported, bricktanked Prophecy (with a few more on standby to immediately light a new cyno if he gets alpha'd). Basically whichever side lights the cyno in the system first is the only one who gets to field capitals.
Avatar
Actually you cant, because void bombs can neut out anything sub-capital with relative ease.
Avatar
I like that he recognizes that they are way over priced... They don't really need to be nerfed, after all the biggest reason they don't die is they don't get fielded very often, and they are the most risk averse pilots in the game... If a super cost 5-7b instead of 20b and a titan cost 15-20b instead of 70b pilots would be more willing to commit them to a fight, but keep the 1 month construction time and the ability to abort them. I've killed supers in battle cruiser fleets and the bigger alliances and coalitions have doctrines specifically for killing caps and supers in their sub-cap arsenal. Its not a matter of their ehp or anything like that its getting them to be on the field. You can go for months without using your super and it can't be killed if its just sitting in a pos... at least not without extraordinary measures...
Avatar
The kid who can't read is insulting the guy who told him to learn to read.Trust me,if you're too dumb to read six simple pages, James honestly gives less than zero shits about your opinion. And certainly doesn't care about your worthless, make-it-dumber editorial comments
Avatar
Wooooosh
Avatar
Easiest. Most Obvious fix. Cost to maintain operational capability. You dont just build, fuel and forget. You have to provide constant upkeep to operate a ship that cannot dock for services. Reduce Super use and proliferation by cost AND add another control to the economy.
Avatar
HA HA HA I should have seen this coming. I was just reading my "greatest hits" from the "nerf blapping titans" thread a couple of years ago, and boy -- you were ALL OVER IT. I see now that you didn't actually GET OVER IT.
Avatar
Yea, because massed dreads aren't a threat to supers right? Because properly fit herds of carriers can't completely neuter Supercarriers ability to put any DPS on target right?
Avatar
I don't know. I don't think titans should be dockable. However, I am totally for supercarriers to be. I did like the idea of the HIC's being RR while bubble up. Would make things a lot more dynamic.
Avatar
you don't get it. cost will never stop proliferation. CCP thought 90b would be so expensive that only 5 titans would ever be built. how many do we have now? 500? it will only become more in the future unless they are actually killable at the same rate they are produced.also how would you make using supercaps expensive to operate without shitting up regular caps? they use the same fuel and the same ammo. not that it would change anything really, because an entity that can afford a fleet of several hundred supercaps surely doesn't care much about how expensive isotopes and stront are. it's the same flawed argument that was based on "nobody can afford them anyways". face it:it was wrong all along.
Avatar
its a dumb answer to everything
Avatar
So goons know the only thing that can beat em atm is a giant blob of super caps and they want to make sure it will be nerfed before that happens did i miss anything.sort of like how they managed to cry enough to ccp to nerf titan tracking to claim the north. last time i checked killing them was no issue. maybe finding more ways to counter giant blobs of anything should be the next move for ccp.
Avatar
Rarely can one write so many words and say absolutely nothing of value. Today, you appear to have achieved that goal ( it had to be a goal, there is no way you accidentally failed to make any sense). Never use the words "theme park " "balance" or "risk/reward" again Neil you know what those words mean, and never comment on another article until you've passed a remedial reading course, provided proof of completion of that course, and then actually thought through 1) what you are typing, and 2) whether it is both logical and relevant to the article you are commenting on.And now I just wasted a lot of words on you . . . Circle of Life?
Avatar
Expert analysis? Hilarious
Avatar
James your idea would lead to an unbalance in the secondary effects titans have. There massive fleet bonuses and their jump bridge ability. We don't need more jump bridging, as it would be turned into a tool for any industrialist, marketer, etc to simple use as a method of reducing risk while moving assets. We also don't need the bonuses of titans to become a standard for fleets, and without them they simply can't compete.Unless those two aspects of titans can be adjusted to make up for the increase numbers your changes would cause, then we need to remove those aspects from titans.
Avatar
I don't see a problem with supers and titans, if anything, they don't have enough utility. There not broken, the people using them are, they are the ultimate mmo gamble, years of saving for them, years of waiting to get one. If people don't want to use them, because they are cowards, then that has nothing to do with ccp, it has to do with people who fly them, the alliances who have them, and fc's for not deploying them. They die, 40 dreads blapping a titan or supers, as seen in the pl loss a few weeks back, and titan and super ganks everywhere. U lads gotta remember, it dose not always take x amount of supers and titans to kill other amounts of titans, all it takes space friends, is some new bro in a cheap 50m dictor to drop a bubble, and 30b super or 100b titan is dead. I keep reading these articles, and keep listening to dickheads whinge and whine about these incredibly expensive ships, ccp has given us the ultimate mmo gamble, no other game can do it, years of time and effort, with the heart thumping, weak kneed feeling that goes with having your titan in harms way, that can be killed with a simple 50m isk ship as the catalyst. ccp has given us the tools, groups of pilots have shown us all the time that these ships are not indestructible, maybe idiots should stop blaming ccp, they have given you guys a choice, its not there fault if 90% of super and titan players want to coward it out.
Avatar
Supercarriers is alrdy nerfed at such a point that unless your PL and willing out escalate/able to save them if they get caught with their pants down(and trust me they regulary get caught) , sending supercaps without support is sucide. and close to noone does that. 98% of eve only deploy supers when the sub cap field is controlled 100%.With the normal dronebay removal on supercaps they left with a lot of hp but is basicly like a gigantic frieghter in space with some remote reps(worse than triage carriers for sure) unable to do damage and with a token "loose your lock within 25km radius "remote ecm burst every 10min. agains any serious fleets(lol 1k dps with fighters that dies within the first 2min of the fight and cost you like 400mill to replace).OP ask for more supercaps to die, jet nerfing them would simply do the opposite. they would become pos token object , only asked to log in after the fights is over.Noone even PL would dare to use them without a massive subcap fight to win the fights and then supers is only gonna be reduced to the structure grinds when the fight is over and system is controlled 100%. I guess goons would love that tho. because thats p much how they alrdy have established their supercap doctrines.If you dont belive me, look at titans nowadays. How ofteen do you see a titan die when not counting Rocket x probing down some titan that is logged off.Simply nerfing something will rarly be a good solution, role changer might turn out bether. Jet they are the scissor in the stone rock sissor, so if you remote the sissor dreads and other caps would prob be even more "Op" as result.As for the stupidiest request I must say docking in station sounds rather dumb, even from a pro/anti nerf perspective and p much says a lot about the OPs experince with supercaps.Hopefully ccp foxie realices that as beeing part of PL for many years.
Avatar
I would suggest Tech II battlecruisers if you want specialist anti super cap ships of death (my Drake will live again).
Avatar
Just gonna add some reasons on why docking supers in stations would be dumb.*Carrier blapping supers on station would be 100% unkillable(good luck killing a super in 1min thats getting remote repped in low sec) as much as I would love to see that I would see how broken it would become. dreads atleast is semi vunerable with their 5min siege timer and 1/30 hp with much worse resist.*It would turn supercarriers into something casual without any commitment with dedicated characters , plex and pos logistic, and where you gotto risk your live jumping around in 0.0 or low sec alike, vunerable to getting ganked for everyjump, tho I guess "I want CS in space" mittani would love to see that. Letting supers dock in station would turn supercap moving fleets into something akind to a JF moving fleet, your unable to do them anything.*you would break 3rd party market and you would remote a lot of the epic scams and fun thats going on in eve, when supercaps just gonna be trown on market with 0.01isk wars like some bestower for sale.
Avatar
Create a subcap kamikaze mode that only works against supers. Damage is some percentage of your own EHP. Does not miss and cannot be disabled unless the super leaves system. Makes the kamikaze ship extra vulnerable during the run (say because everyone can detect this and predict with 100% accuracy where it will be and what orientation it will be in at any moment) Set the damage to some % of EHP calculated such that the number of kamis required equals the value of a super. May require a special fuel/module that is very expensive in order to bring the cost tradeoff in line. So, say a super is worth 15B isk, so it takes 100 Suicide Domis fit for near Domi-hull prices, or 50 Domis with a special kamikaze damage mod that costs 150M, or even 25 Domis with 300M mods attached, etc.
Avatar
Yes, but they weren't unkillable because of the drones. They were unkillable because they had 30 MILLION EHP plus. The size of the drones don't really matter. Fighters and Bombers still hit subcaps if webs and Painters are used.I do think the HP levels James is suggesting is too low. I would say Super carriers in the range of 5-7 Million and Titans 15 Million or so is probably about right. They SHOULD be stronger than a Carrier or a Dread by a degree. After all they ARE super capitals.But Grath is absolutely right. If I am a threat to his Titan(s) (rich bastard :P ). He should be a threat to my ship as well.
Avatar
accually inactivity/booredom is the biggest supercap killer. prob around 50-60% of the supers and titans goes inactive within a year or two. prob half of eve supercaps/titans is unsubbed currently.If that makes ppl feel bether about proliferation
Avatar
The problem I would see then is 5 titans would doomsday a Supercarrier.Approved >:)
Avatar
" Never stop raging, you glorious ball of hatred."Agreed.
Avatar
Well considered arguments. +1
Avatar
I find your lack of game theory knowledge disturbing in the rock, paper, scissors analogy. Ten supercarriers is not an underwhelming number, these are not supposed to be easy kills.Thats what makes them interesting, nerfing them might aswell mean the ban on highsec use should be lifted. It's going to happen sure but it's a tragedy.
Avatar
You mean like.... NOW. Supers are very rarely deployed without a strong support fleet because alone they are incredibly vulnerable.Have you not wondered why PL and NC. aren't helicopter dicking all over the CFC in fountain? It's because they don't have the subcap numbers to protect them from 3 fleets of CFC Megathrons and a tide of Sabres they can do *literally* nothing to on their own. Well that's not true I suppose they can neut and bump them....
Avatar
Default insurance payout is 40% of platinum. Anybody who has lost a titan will tell you that the payout isn't much, so even if you insure it it's far, far from the titan's actual cost
Avatar
Hey you're dumb as shit, please head back to EN24 where you can enlighten the other braindead fucks with your "analyses" of articles.
Avatar
undo the sig resolution nerf, just limit max lock targets.
Avatar
Whooo, James, I love you!!!
Avatar
This is why no one listens to marlona anymore.
Avatar
And concerning the current supercap owners , they could receive the cost difference in the form of the minerals (or even the components themselves ) that makes the difference in build cost between the current and the future versions . Anyway i would love to see titans at 30 bil and SC'a at 10 .
Avatar
James 315 now writing on TMC?Okay so shitstreak over. This makes up for Derrriummm "Tomoko" Johnson's cringe worthy interview.
Avatar
Why not get a new subcap/and or a new kind of gun that does massive damage to suppercaps but nothing else?Compare it to aircraft carriers they can be sunk by just one bomber. Why not have a new type of bomblauncher wich does massive damage to suppercap but still require lets say10 or 20 of them to kill em in a reasonable time.Or just add a new kind of T3 bomber/subcap that can only do damage to suppercaps.
Avatar
While James 315 might be right about Supercaps, one can't help but feel that he's actually just a massive arrogant cock.
Avatar
The reason BLOPs aren't used on the field is they are fragile as hell. When CCP buffs them enough to be worth bringing to a fight people will bring them.
Avatar
I don't know I've always thought freighters and other caps should be able to fit some sort of point defence. Nothing major but enough to fit a modest frigate or cruiser scale set of weapons. The problem is comes when a cap is doing cap scale damage to sub caps.
Avatar
Sub-cap EWAR anti-super specialist? I've got a more fun idea: Capital EWAR anti-super specialist.
Avatar
This, above all things this. Khanid abaddon ftw
Avatar
So you're expecting a 2010 player (me) to know the back-story of supers? I certainly don't, and I've been trying to find out every aspect about the game for at least a year now. I'm sorry that not everyone has played the game for as long as you. Grow some brains.
Avatar
I read the first two paragraphs of this and thought "What is this shit?"
Avatar
Every single lowsec alliance would have titan bridges then. Titans should remain high-price.
Avatar
if titans are scissors then there's no rock...the proper counter is scissors after all
Avatar
I agree with most of what was proposed here, but i would add something for the docking of super capitals. Station games are already bad enough with capitals, so i would add that a super capital takes additional time to dock, say 2 to 5 minutes (The actual time doesn't matter). This would give enough risk that undocking a super capital for the sake of station games would be a real risk.
Avatar
"I'm not egotistical enough to name a law after myself""As the original architect of the modern titan [...]"talk about contradictions
Avatar
Examples of supers being killed with only a handful of people (and no supers present):Some even only have subcaps on them!http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_de...That's 3 minutes of eve-kill trawling; keep whining while actual duders play the game.
Avatar
Yes, please tell us more about supercaps, guy who spends all his time ganking miners in highsec.
Avatar
I've recently been giving the issue of SuperCap proliferation some thought as well, although grounded in more real-world analogues.Why don't navies have hundreds of aircraft carriers? There isn't really a limit on how many could be built; we have sufficient materials and shipyards. It's because the cost of a carrier does not stop when the ship leaves dry dock. Carriers require maintenance, lots of maintenance, as well a substantial crew which needs to be paid. Current EVE supercaps do not have these costs. I think they should.There should be a recurring monthly maintenance cost for supers, one which when unpaid will cause the capabilities of the super to be reduced until it becomes non-functional. This decay is not repairable while the maintenance is unpaid. There should be a ceiling on the max amount of maintenance cost outstanding, something like 1/2 hull cost. The maintenance cost could be simple ISK, but I like the idea of needing built parts, perhaps capital construction components or maybe some new components, but have something that requires additional work to acquire. Maintenance cost continues to accrue, even when the pilot is logged of or unsubscribed.I would additionally create a new state for supers: mothballed. You can put a super into mothballs, which reduces the maintenance cost substantially or even negates it. However, the penalty for doing so is that it takes time for a ship to be reactivated. If you want to take a titan out of mothballs it should take 2 or 3 days. or maybe even longer.The idea here is not to limit the total number of supers that can be in existence, but to have a real cost to owning them. If they are going to cost resources to just own, then you might as well use them. Further, active supercap fleets would be reduced in size strictly due to the cost of fielding them.The idea of maintenance cost could even be extended to all ships, which could be scaled reasonably for sub-caps and additionally sub-caps lifespans are much smaller so a maintenance cost would likely not be onerous.This could, and likely would, be done in addition to balancing changes. It just provides an additional path for managing the issue.
Avatar
I don't always agree with you James, but on this I can't fault anything you've said. I've had 2 supers and sold them both, I will not own another until the changes you've suggested here become a reality on TQ. I hope that's sooner rather than later because cap brawls would be great fun... if they actually happened (on purpose).
Avatar
So after 5 years of watching a failed ideology ineffectively limit supercap production, you want to continue doing that? And then create some complex replacement scheme that doesn't really make any sense at all? Have you considered a career in politics? The drug war needs you!
Avatar
I like overpowered supercaps, and this is coming from someone who has never owned one. I think that the mobile station goal should be revisited, and they should be dockable, as they are certainly large enough for that to be reasonable. Super carrier damage is about right tbh, but titans are too weak in a direct fight. There damage potential should be the same as a sieged dread.In exchange for this buff however, there mobility should be compromised. They should have a significantly increased jump range, but require an hour to spool up there jump drives, before they find a cyno to jump to. This would stop them retreating from an engagement, and allow them to die. Another change I would make would be various systems being targetable, engines, weapons, warp drive and jump drive. These would have significantly lower ehp then the titans hull itself, more like that of a triaged carrier, and require fresh parts to repair.I would also make them vulnerable to ewar, but have stupidly strong sensor strength and the like, so it took many more blackbirds to jam one out, and many more points to stop one warping. This would be a compromise.Finally, I would consider something much like the pos reinforce mechanic for the super itself. Rather then quickly crumbling in structure, it would gain resists of 99% in each for a time. This would make super battles last longer, and give a real benefit to holding the field, or attempting to retake it.Option: Make these immobilized supers board-able. I know the dust bunnies shouldn't be given much trust, but the ability to storm a titan would be fantastic wouldn't it.
Avatar
the rock papir scissor is : support. normal caps and supercaps.
Avatar
Good stuff!
Avatar
hurf durf remove goons from the game
Avatar
Another Option would be to also make a Tier 3 Battleship like the Tier 3 Battlecruisers such that the Battleships could fit Capitol weapons. Also make it such that only Super-caps can be attacked with the weapon upgrade if you are worried about the BSs eating Caps and SuperCaps.
Avatar
Actually don't make them Dock-able what should happen is they are a mobile base so add a method like achoring or siege mode where they become a PoS like structure that does not need to be placed on a mood grid like normal PoSs.
Avatar
Well, plenty of people have covert bridges as it were, it would only help expansion with alliances, or help dominate... which are both options even today.
Avatar
I've entertained the idea that when the "door closes" the ship was the one following through. (the bridging ship, same should apply to BO).
Avatar
Imagine all the Amarr ships neuting and nos'ing like crazy.Or wait... a new need for T3s and their tank!
Avatar
In a discussion about super caps and titans....
Avatar
I'm not a 2010 created pilot and I thoroughly enjoyed the read. I also enjoyed sifting through the links he posted.So, I guess... +1 and -1 eh? Sorry to see you go.
Avatar
Longer cooldown then.
Avatar
Are you kidding me, Cost will never stop proliferation?....ever hear of Russia being outspent by America on Defense?....What bugs me about this game is that we have applicable real-world ships in navies that can teach us how to make eve better. Know how much it costs to operate a Supercarrier in the US Navy vs. a Guided Missile Frigate?....About 200 Million vs 10 Million.http://www.globalsecurity.org/... \These are 1996 numbers, but it costs a metric-shitton to operate these ships...the same can and should be implemented in EVE.There IS a breaking point to all things. The Operability cost has much merit as since these ships cannot dock, they cannot get standardized Station services.Say for instance you have a Subcap...it can use the station and its services are paid for buy the monthly rent etc of any sov holding alliance. But a specialized ship that cannot dock?....you need fuel and repair ships, ships to move the supplies etc...all to an undocked ship...Make the cost 1 Billion per month for a Super, 5 Bil for a Titan...you'll stop that proliferation soon enough. Ships sitting in docks doing nothing are fine for a Subcap...spending 12 Bil per year just to Maintain your ship?...that adds up. Esp if you blap rats to make your isk and pay your accounts with PLEX.I'd also add yearly down times for "Engine replacement and upgrades" that further keep your ship out of battle and cost you, say, 10% of the ship cost. Just like maintaining a real-world Supercarrier.I think also areas of 0.0 that Only Supers can enter would be interesting as well...think of it like an incursion but only for Supers/Titans. Sansha Supercap Battles anyone?
Avatar
Not even close to the fix we need.By this thinking, we'd be stopping at gas stations in Grand Theft Auto because driving cars is OP.
Avatar
Excellent post James. In a recent player survey I suggested a very similar concept for the supercarriers: tiericide them alongside regular carriers so you have support (logistic) carriers and combat carriers (with fighter bombers). Bottom line is, they can't continue to exist as they are. It's a failed experiment and they need to be cut down to size.
Avatar
I would like to see them make supers more loseable and killable. As to the issues of those that shelled out for them in the first place, I wonder if CCP could grant extant supers a special insurance that refunds them their investment when the ship is lost (Or they could HTFU).
Avatar
Having been (un)fortunate enough to own 4 at one time and called upon to spend countless hours being a ferry pilot to move scores of subcap pilots across vast swaths of space I must admit that I would be just as happy if they removed all supercaps from the game, reimbursed isk and sp's for everything to do with the ships including the titan specific bpo's etc. However I fear that that would completely destroy the balance of what is currently a delicate flower known as eve economics.
Avatar
Hey james, Since you are the architect of the modern Titan could you be the Architect of the Modern Moon and get them all nerfed into oblivion? You fail in this article to equate the proliferation of moon goo with the coinsiding proliferation of Supercaps. The more Moons someone owns the more protection they require. Statistics speak for themselves?It is often suggested that the largest amount of supercaps belong to Goons (kinda like unicorns tho, never realy seen) who coincidently own the largest amount of moons. Followed by N3 and PL and so on and so forth.Get rid of moons and you also get rid of the requirement to own supercaps. Problem(s) solved.
Avatar
This is like saying that Command Ships should be a significant threat to Assault Frigates because Assault Frigates can kill Command Ships. Every ship/fit can be 'countered', but that doesn't mean every ship needs to counter every other ship.

THE HISTORY OF TITAN CHANGES

Supercaps--supercarriers and titans--are no strangers to controversy. Almost from the moment they were introduced, EVE players have complained that these ship classes were game-breakingly overpowered. Over the years, CCP has frequently acknowledged the validity of these complaints by introducing nerfs to both supercarriers and (especially) titans. Although we have come a long way from the days when a titan could remotely detonate an entire enemy fleet with no risk to itself, supercaps continue to be the target of much criticism.

CCP recently announced its intention to give supercaps another overhaul (possibly this year, but more likely next year), a recognition of the persisting balance issues that continue to plague supercarriers and titans. The informed EVE player should be aware that CCP never operates in a vacuum. In fact, nearly all of their past nerfing/rebalancing efforts have been prompted or heavily influenced by player feedback. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of titans. Most famously, in 2007, CCP employees actually printed out and distributed copies of Bein Glorious's essay on titans. A full-blown manifesto, the titan essay for many years held the record for the longest post ever made on the EVE forums.

CCP rejected most of Bein Glorious's suggestions, but they were persuaded by the centerpiece of his manifesto, which called for the removal of the remote doomsday. At the time, doomsdays were an area-of-effect weapon, a giant smartbomb with a 250km radius. Not only was the doomsday capable of evaporating battleships (and anything smaller) on the same grid as the titan, the doomsday could also be fired remotely through a friendly cyno beacon in the same system. Thus, a titan could destroy an enemy fleet without even seeing it. Titans had been using and abusing this power for most of a year when Bein Glorious wrote his manifesto. A few weeks later, the remote doomsday ability was no more. Bein Glorious was given the credit and became a hero to his fellow Goons.

Most of the time, it is not so easy to pinpoint the influence exerted by EVE-O posters. Normally, it takes the form of a consensus--built over time--that something is overpowered or underpowered. Gradually, good (or bad) ideas percolate, rising to the top, and find their way into the developers' ears. EVE players understand this, which is why they become so emotional when posting in threads about potential changes to the game. If an idea is unchallenged and takes root, it may be included in an upcoming expansion.

That is how the other changes to titans occurred. A year after doomsdays lost their remote capability, titans were still greatly overpowered. The proliferation of titans meant that entire sub-capital fleets (i.e. everything smaller than a carrier), including heavily-tanked battleships, could be killed by a handful of titans each activating their smartbomb doomsdays one after the other. Fleet battles were becoming impossible; titans ruled everything. Those who owned titans encouraged CCP to maintain the status quo, while everyone else cried out for a nerf. The trouble was that nobody could figure out a good way of dealing with titan proliferation without imposing some kind of arbitrary limits on titan use or ownership.

That's where I came into the picture. In May 2008, I made a short post on EVE-O about the titan problem. As I explained, the purpose of the thread wasn't to complain, persuade, lobby, or even to speculate, but rather to inform everyone how CCP would change titans in the future. I claimed that I was offering facts, not predictions. This approach was breathtakingly arrogant--or at least, it would've been, had I been wrong. What followed was a description of a series of very specific changes to the titan, all of which were implemented by CCP in the years afterward.

As I said in the post, the changes would appear to be common sense in hindsight. But at the time, they couldn't have been more radical. By transforming the doomsday from an area-of-effect weapon into a single-target "supergun", the titan would have a new role, to kill capital ships (especially spider-tanking carriers), other supercaps, and to help grind structures. Back in the day, titans did everything except those things. I wasn't talking about a role change--I was talking about a complete role reversal.

Needless to say, these ideas weren't adopted overnight. In fact, it would be a year and a half before CCP took the plunge. In December 2009, the Dominion expansion did away with the area-of-effect doomsday and replaced it with the version we see today. Still, it was possible to aim the doomsday at smaller targets. CCP eventually recognized this problem as well, and two years after that, in the November 2011 Crucible expansion, they nerfed the doomsday so that it could only be used against caps and supercaps. With CCP having fully embraced the new titan philosophy, the following spring saw additional nerfs, so that titans' capital guns could no longer track and blap smaller ships so easily. The titan was to be completely focused on its role as an anti-cap, anti-supercap, structure-grinding vessel. Thus, my vision for titans was realized.

For those unfamiliar with my history, it may feel a bit eerie to read what I wrote about titans five years ago. It's interesting to read the replies in the thread, since they provide a time capsule of players' attitudes toward the changes that they didn't realize were coming. Many posters were enthusiastic, and they ultimately got their way. But others were equally passionate about maintaining the status quo, reasoning that any ship as expensive as a titan should be incredibly powerful.

Skeptics also complained that I was advocating a nerf solely for the purpose of defeating the Band of Brothers alliance, which owned several titans. Similarly, anyone who talks about supercap nerfs today might be accused of trying to undermine Pandemic Legion, which is known for its supercap fleet. Then as now, they're wrong. The principles of game balance aren't subject to alliance tickers; if supercaps are unbalanced, they're unbalanced, no matter who owns them.

Even so, anyone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo for supercaps ought to be worried. (Indeed, PL might be more afraid of CCP than of any in-game entity.) CCP has already said it's going to change supercaps--and that probably doesn't mean they're going to make them more powerful. Since CCP devs assigned to the task are likely to read high-profile proposals and analyses concerning supercaps, anxiety on the part of certain readers is understandable. If you own supercaps and you don't want them to change, now might be a good time to pour yourself a stiff drink.

James 315 has a distinguished history of combat in nullsec, mostly fighting against the Band of Brothers alliance, which was a bad alliance. Recently he has moved to highsec, where he currently serves as Father of the New Order and Saviour of Highsec