Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Keine Arvok
Semper Fidelis Foedero
5
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 05:26:53 -
[1] - Quote
I am very excited by the idea of flying Capitals in high sec. I realize however, how much of a disadvantage its would but other players in who solo or prefer small organizations. I belive there is a way to get the "cake" (Capitals) and "eat" (Destroy) it too.
I have heard that Worm Hole systems have buffs and nerfs to ship and POS attributes, aswell as SOV in null. It would be no strech of the imagination to have High Sec nerfs to Capital ships. I dont have the smarts to come of with "fair" nerfs in exact % figures to specific traits of Capitals, but I will type up a ruff example of explaining the trait nerfs. I also think that the nerfs should be perportionate to the Security Level of the system, 0.5 the lowest level of Nerf to Captial Traits - 1.0 the highest level of Nerf to Capital Ships. Some attributes may be nerfed at the same value thru all High Sec such as removing ship role bonus while in high sec, not allowing Triage or Seige modes, or a signifigantly larger need of fuel for less duration. Cyno Jumping may also still be jammed. Nerfs can also include Maximum ammount of drones allowed to be deployed from -5 from the bonus to -15 considering Drone control units, Done in such a way at the worst, it can force the carrier pilot to fit their high slots with Drone Control units just to deploy 5 drones to offset the carriers ability to fit Remote Repair. All attributes are up for consideration including but not limited to, Fitting capacitor, CPU, Power need. Cycle time, Tracking, Range, Warfare Bonus ammount. Sensor Strength, Agility, Warp Speed Fleet Hangar m3.
0.5 security is where I would expect to see the heaviest concentration of Capital ships as it would be the least Nerfed in comparison to higer security space.
For Examle: Carrier (Attribute Nerfs may not simply be a steady increase to each Attribute nerf, but also random attribute per sec) 0.5 - 10% reduction to Drone Damage, 20% reduction to HP, 5% reduction to each resistance
0.6 - 10% reduction to Drone Damage, 20% reduction to HP, 5% reduction to each resistance, 10% reduction to Repair amount
0.7 - 15% reduction to Drone Damage, 25% reduction to HP, 10% reduction to each resistance, 15% reduction to Repair amount
0.8 - Maximum Drones Deployed 10, 5% reduction to Drone Damage, 30% reduction to HP, 15% reduction to each resistance, 20% reduction to Repair amount
0.9 - Maximum Drones Deployed 5, 50% reduction to Drone Damage, 50% reduction to HP, 20% reduction to each resistace, 20% reduction to Repair amount, 5% increase to Repair Cycle time. 75% reduction to Remote repair amount
1.0 - Maximum Drones Deployed 5, 75% reduction to Drone Damage, 50% reduction to HP, 25% reduction ot each resistance, 10% reduction to Repair amount, 10% increase to Repair Cycle time, 100% Reduction to Remote repair ammout, 100% increase to Capacitor need for Remote Repair, 100% reduction to Capacitor transfer amount.
In the end, if a 2.5 billion isk capital ship can be overwhelmed by 1-3 T1 battleship(s) in High Security space then the "Risk vs Reward" would allow players to fly Capitals in High security and Discourage them from abusing what power they may be granted, thoes who whould abuse them could lose them at great personal cost, And perhapse the volume of capitals in High Security space would not be overbearing as some players may fear. This type of "Balancing" may also keep the risk of traveling thru High sec as dangerous as low for a Capital that may face gankers who have taken out Freighters in high sec.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
9051
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 06:05:57 -
[2] - Quote
A few things...
- If you have to nerf any ship in rather significant ways just to be "balanced" in a certain areas of space... what is really the point in letting them be there in the first place?
- The power of capitals (which pretty much includes all the things you have nerfed and then some) is rather the point behind having a capital. Otherwise, you should use a battleship.
- None of what you proposed deals with the problems of... ------- Carriers (and soon Dreds) outclassing or even obsoleting Bowheads and Jump Freighters. Even with your proposed nerfs, carriers/dreds will still be VASTLY more tanky and unreasonably safe in high-sec for people to move ships and supplies. ------- Large groups using high-sec as a secure and unassailable "storage" and "launching point" for their capital fleets. At least around low-sec stations there are risks (however slim).
tldr; go out into more hostile areas of the game if you want to play with the "big boy" toys.
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
655
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 08:53:57 -
[3] - Quote
Why not just simply fly a Nestor? |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1070
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 09:27:33 -
[4] - Quote
Eh? If you are going to allow them, allow them. If not, don't.
I think the best way to curb this would be to make capital ships the property of the corporation, and if you are in an NPC corp you have to have high standing to be able to undock in one of their capitals.
Then make security trend to neutral on it's own, and require constant upkeep through a variety of means.
Thus you either need to work at keeping authorization to fly the capital you gave the NPC corp when you transferred to them owning one (perhaps with a one time bonus to standing for such a generous gift), or you need to keep your capitals in a player corp that is vulnerable to wardecs.
Thus capitals that come into highsec will disappear from the game one way or another unless well supported, and that problem will sort itself. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid Decayed Orbit
1051
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 12:07:55 -
[5] - Quote
If you want the toys move to the space where you can use them.
Its a lot simpler and all it takes is the will to make the jump.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
25427
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 12:17:32 -
[6] - Quote
But what's the point? The point! I'm looking for it, but there is none!
If the point is "I want capitals in highsec" then no, that's not a point. That's what you want. And you want to change a lot of things, just so you can have it there. But what is the point?
What would you do with it?
It should not be allowed in missions. It should not be allowed in incursions.
Why? Because it's nonsensical to do so, as it's a win-button that can hardly be ganked by anyone.
The solution to the "capitals in highsec" issue seems to be to move to lowsec, which is much less complicated and doesn't even add any work for the devs. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
713
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 12:21:55 -
[7] - Quote
The only compelling reason to allow it and amusingly you've not mentioned it is "because XL citadels" but that's confirmed as being already considered and rejected. |
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
396
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 12:56:04 -
[8] - Quote
Personally I'd like to have caps in highsec, but purely for being able to find and hunt down carebears and scrubs that fly them without having even the faintest clue on how to use them.
Other than that, yes, taking down XL citadels is high on my list, but to be fair, there won't be "THAT" many of them in highsec due to the exorbitant cost. Smaller groups won't be able to attack them due to lack of numbers, but that's kind of the point of the things. Mediums are easy enough to nuke, larges, I dunno, haven't bothered to do the math on that yet.
As for the rest. There have been very valid counter arguments raised by the people here, I won't repeat them.
So, tl;dr. I personally would love capitals in highsec, but for completely different reasons. However, I also realize that having them in highsec would be extremely unbalancing and for the greater good of the game, it's best they stay out of it. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1324
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 14:56:34 -
[9] - Quote
The moment caps ate let into high sec is the moment ccp starts to balance them for high sec and that will be a bad day
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2874
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 18:01:12 -
[10] - Quote
i honestly hope they dont allow XL citadels or caps in hi-sec.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
396
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 18:15:12 -
[11] - Quote
Well, XL citadels will be allowed in highsec. They've confirmed this already. |
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
714
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 18:27:20 -
[12] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:i honestly hope they dont allow XL citadels or caps in hi-sec.
Yeah me too. I was sad to hear they'll be allowed in and their rationale for allowing them was that the DPS cap means battleships can do it in a reasonable timeframe.
Except that suggests the defenses will be either terrible, or that you'll need a stupid number of BS to actually do it. |
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
396
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 19:03:46 -
[13] - Quote
Here are the damage numbers you'll need. (from the latest dev blog on it, link included)
M L XL
Damage mitigation 4,000 DPS 12,000 DPS 60,000 DPS
Number of Frigates to reach damage mitigation 10-20 30-60 150-300
Number of Cruisers to reach damage mitigation 10-20 30-60 150-300
Number of Battleships to reach damage mitigation 5-15 15-45 75-225
Number of Dreadnoughts* to reach damage mitigation 1 2-4 10-20
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/ |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2121
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 20:43:40 -
[14] - Quote
And these numbers are not unreasonable. Every Incursion HQ fleet can get 100+ people in BS. The damage mitigation limit also does not mean that you need that many ships to get the Citadel damaged, it only means that you should not bring more. That said, the numbers are no reason for capitals in High sec. At all.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
714
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 21:39:34 -
[15] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:And these numbers are not unreasonable. Every Incursion HQ fleet can get 100+ people in BS. The damage mitigation limit also does not mean that you need that many ships to get the Citadel damaged, it only means that you should not bring more. That said, the numbers are no reason for capitals in High sec. At all.
You're forgetting the defences. If they're not able to blap battleships, they'll be a joke in the rest of space. It's something of a paradox (probably. Details depending)
But no, no high sec caps. I'd rather not highsec xl either. |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 00:16:27 -
[16] - Quote
It could be fun that the only nerf on capitals at high sec is to not be able to target another capital (friend or enemy)....
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2745
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 00:46:55 -
[17] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:And these numbers are not unreasonable. Every Incursion HQ fleet can get 100+ people in BS. The damage mitigation limit also does not mean that you need that many ships to get the Citadel damaged, it only means that you should not bring more. That said, the numbers are no reason for capitals in High sec. At all. Try 30 people in BS for an HQ fleet. Though those numbers are also to do it in the minimum time. Once it has started you can just keep shooting and it won't go invulnerable unless you stop shooting. However Capitals in Highsec either are totally unrestricted same as every other ship, or not allowed at all. |
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
169
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 09:54:49 -
[18] - Quote
- Only thing I would want for combat capitals to do in Hi-sec is travel
- To enter hi-sec they have to be flown by an player in an NPC Corp. (prevents use in war) - They cannot use their weapons/combat abilities (They would have to withstand any player attacks, but as the player is in an NPC Corp concord would defend them from everything but bumping) - They could dock only at Trade Hub stations. (This limits the locations to a handful of dockable stations.) - If flown by a player in a player Corp - they get Jumped to the closest low-sec.
This allows players to trade combat capitals in hi-sec. Travel with the feeling of being safe. Prevents the use of their weapons. And allows players who bought them a way out.
A few more things could be added - like ISK fees for gate use or low-sec jump from Concord NPC
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
218
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 10:25:12 -
[19] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:- Only thing I would want for combat capitals to do in Hi-sec is travel
- To enter hi-sec they have to be flown by an player in an NPC Corp. (prevents use in war) - They cannot use their weapons/combat abilities (They would have to withstand any player attacks, but as the player is in an NPC Corp concord would defend them from everything but bumping) - They could dock only at Trade Hub stations. (This limits the locations to a handful of dockable stations.) - If flown by a player in a player Corp - they get Jumped to the closest low-sec.
This allows players to trade combat capitals in hi-sec. Travel with the feeling of being safe. Prevents the use of their weapons. And allows players who bought them a way out.
A few more things could be added - like ISK fees for gate use or low-sec jump from Concord NPC
NO NO and again NO, it is a bad idea and that is exactly why they are not allowed in high sec
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2121
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 11:49:07 -
[20] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:- Only thing I would want for combat capitals to do in Hi-sec is travel
- To enter hi-sec they have to be flown by an player in an NPC Corp. (prevents use in war) - They cannot use their weapons/combat abilities (They would have to withstand any player attacks, but as the player is in an NPC Corp concord would defend them from everything but bumping) - They could dock only at Trade Hub stations. (This limits the locations to a handful of dockable stations.) - If flown by a player in a player Corp - they get Jumped to the closest low-sec.
This allows players to trade combat capitals in hi-sec. Travel with the feeling of being safe. Prevents the use of their weapons. And allows players who bought them a way out.
A few more things could be added - like ISK fees for gate use or low-sec jump from Concord NPC And they are all utter rubbish. If you need to resort to this kind of extreme restrictions and limitations, there is no use for them to be in this heavily restricted space at all. There is also no point in allowing them to be traded in High sec, they are already 100% securely, safely and reliably tradable in Low sec.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
Tragot Gomndor
Vision Inc Hole Control
67
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 14:51:25 -
[21] - Quote
I dont even read anything of this thread, i just point to my signature...
NONONONONONO
TO
CAPS IN HIGHSEC
NO
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
671
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 16:24:58 -
[22] - Quote
I think the "big boys toys" reason is the best for denying the use of caps in high sec, you want to play with them go to where the big boys play with their toys.
Why do I think caps are bad in high sec?
The whole nearly 100% safe use of high sec as a means of storing and transporting the tools / materials of war.
Then there is the issue raised with how to balance them. If significant nerf's or restrictions are required to balance them for use high sec then they do not belong there to start with.
But an even bigger on to me is the hassles with larger corps declaring war on the smaller corps. I grant as fact that very few high sec corps actually fight back but having to fight capital ships would be a guarantee that none of them would. |
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
214
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 04:07:42 -
[23] - Quote
The only way I can see it working is if CCP added a new line of ships that are somewhere between a battleship and a dreadnaught/carrier. It'd have to have more beef and damage than a BS, but be too small to be considered a real capital. Also, it can only be built in POS.
However, if CCP were to add a new line of ships, I'd prefer attack-style battleships that can fit XL guns for pew-pewing bigger ships.
I can has blogging skills!
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3692
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:58:11 -
[24] - Quote
Pretty sure highsec capitals would largely be balanced by the fact they'd have to use gates, which would be terrible.
The real concern is the near invulnerability that capitals flown by NPC corp characters would have. Multi-million HP ships that can't be shot at by anyone without CONCORD intervention and can carry large amounts of cargo would be fairly questionable. |
Tabyll Altol
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
137
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 09:42:48 -
[25] - Quote
Allow them, but take away their concord protection, so everybody can agress/ attack without getting concorded.
Sound stupid ? Yes but i thought this was the idea behind this post.
-1 |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1642
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 12:05:40 -
[26] - Quote
So if me and 8 corpmates sit on the Jita undock in carriers and rep random folks... What are the odds we could de-agress before we get popped? Probably pretty good.
My general rule of thumb is that carriers in HS are for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. A risk averse player has trained up to capital ships, but is afraid to leave HS due to the risk involved.
2. Large null groups are trying to take risk free shortcuts through HS instead of dying in Aridia and what not.
There really aren't any other viable reasons for capitals in HS. The above reasons, though viable are quite bad ideas. There are not any good reasons for capitals in HS. I'm kind of a hardass, but I'd get bowheads and jump freighters out of HS too. (Yeah yeah I know - eve would end w/ in 2 weeks if we did that)
|
Keine Arvok
Semper Fidelis Foedero
5
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 16:47:37 -
[27] - Quote
"Play with the big boys"? I prefer to distance myself from Spewing Cesspits of Conceited Egos.
I just wana keep to myself in a small pocket of space and left alone to my devices. With a full time job and depression I can only get around to Eve once a month or so. I keep the accounts active to train, but I can go 6-9 months before remembering to log in again. Eve drama doesnt appeal to me much. API keys keep me out of null, I might return to low in 2017. In the mean time. I'll wait and see how this game plays itself out for 2016, you guys have given me a pretty good idea of what to expect. Thank You. |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
9615
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 16:51:33 -
[28] - Quote
Can I fly my Archon in Apanake when I face off the Bloody Raiders at their blockade, then?
If so, cool!
If not, make it so
Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m!
Bumble's Space Log
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13007
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 18:23:43 -
[29] - Quote
Keine Arvok wrote:"Play with the big boys"? I prefer to distance myself from Spewing Cesspits of Conceited Egos.
I just wana keep to myself in a small pocket of space and left alone to my devices. With a full time job and depression I can only get around to Eve once a month or so. I keep the accounts active to train, but I can go 6-9 months before remembering to log in again. Eve drama doesnt appeal to me much. API keys keep me out of null, I might return to low in 2017. In the mean time. I'll wait and see how this game plays itself out for 2016, you guys have given me a pretty good idea of what to expect. Thank You. Why play a multiplayer game at that point then?
Particularly one about kicking peoples sand castles over, that happens to be saturated with predators, and then aspire to become "big game", while refusing the basic requirement for entry into a herd
I can empathise with your issues ,really I can (bar the api thing, I think you're really losing out because of that) but no one gets to be left alone to their own devices here, that's one of the definitive aspects of eve and has been from day one.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Benjen Nahaaris
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 06:35:13 -
[30] - Quote
The best idea is to allow them, but make aggression mechanics work like MTUs. Aggressors only get a suspect flag, not a criminal flag. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |