Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
tk givens
Dave's Tax Shelter Federal United Battalion of Armed Renegades
0
|
Posted - 2016.07.08 22:19:35 -
[1] - Quote
The following is a proposal to allow capital ships(carriers,dreads,etc) access to high security space with certain restrictions that can make it a win win for both sides CCP and For Capsuleers. I propose to allow cap ships to enter high security space for ease of access to other systems,thus allowing unrestricted movement through the eve universe. since capital ships can now use jump gates it is viable to allow them to enter high security space without using a cyno field, however just like bombers the capital ships should have limitations to avoid corps/players from wreaking havoc and getting away with it. for example: Make it to where capitals can only be used for defensive purposes, IE defending player assets, such as citadels during a wardec, i do not propose to allow capital ships to be used offensively in high sec(except for use against criminals who are flagged Red/yellow, ) this is to prevent rich players/corps from declaring war on smaller corps just to grief them. In order to achieve this i would recommend making it to where Capital ships cannot target other player ships that are not criminal, and not at war within (a certain distance) of Player assets IE citadels, pos's, etc. i believe that capital ships should be able to kill pirate NPC's within high security space, just not be used offensively against Player ships that are not criminaly flagged, as mentioned above. if this were allowed or somehow implemented i believe it would freshen up the gameplay, draw more players, and get older players to re subscribe to eve. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4520
|
Posted - 2016.07.08 22:50:48 -
[2] - Quote
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a group of four FAX in triage repping a citadel. Hell. please tell me how you would deal with ONE of the near infinite cap booster FAX in highsec.
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a carrier gang defending thier citadel.
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would deal with a HAW dread gang defending said citadels.
Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?
Please explain why, after all the nerfs we had to a capital ship's ability to traverse the galaxy, you feel that caps should have unrestricted movement through highsec. |
tk givens
Dave's Tax Shelter Federal United Battalion of Armed Renegades
0
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 00:00:42 -
[3] - Quote
for one, it makes no sense to limit capital access to high sec anymore, eve has came along way from when it needed to restrict such movements, as for your statement "Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?" i never said to allow gate camps, i said "In order to achieve this i would recommend making it to where Capital ships cannot target other player ships that are not criminal, and not at war within (a certain distance) of Player assets IE citadels, pos's, etc." i never said to allow gatecamps, that was never in my post to begin with.
As for breaking through a capital defense, i didnt say it would be easy, in fact it would be damn near impossible which is why people should not declare war unless they know they can destroy a target.
As stated this is a proposal which is obviously open for input.
|
slumbers
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 00:20:53 -
[4] - Quote
Allowing caps in high sec is a possibility, but then you would have to restrict their use severely, so as not to disrupt high sec environment. And restricting a class isn't really fun.
For starters you could allow the Dreadnought class ONLY (no carriers - sorry) but without angular weapons. The use of a Dread in high sec would be in the strict sense of the class, just hit structures, be it pos's, citadels or pocos. Extra limitations on guns so that you wouldn't be able to track a battleship even with 10 webs on it.
Unfortunately that really distorts the essence of Capitals, there is no point in doing that. The argument of "supers can now fire dd in low sec but were meant for null sec only" doesnt really fly with use of Capitals in high sec. There will be abuse from big wealthy entities. Essentially Capitals will turn high sec into low sec.
Even though I understand why people would like to see Capitals in high sec, the cons currently exceed the pros for such a move. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1298
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 01:25:56 -
[5] - Quote
slumbers wrote:Allowing caps in high sec is a possibility, but then you would have to restrict their use severely, so as not to disrupt high sec environment. And restricting a class isn't really fun...
I don't know about that but if we need those kind of restrictions, it might not be a good idea after all?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
tk givens
Dave's Tax Shelter Federal United Battalion of Armed Renegades
0
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 01:35:28 -
[6] - Quote
heres an example of the type of restriction, just like stealth bombers you cant activate a bomb launcher in high sec, so on caps the only thing that would need restricted is when you can/cant activate your weapons on another ship/player in space, IE make it so you can attack all players that have criminal status, and then only allow activation on members of a war dec when defending your citadels or any other structures you have in high security space. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
959
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 02:33:40 -
[7] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:slumbers wrote:Allowing caps in high sec is a possibility, but then you would have to restrict their use severely, so as not to disrupt high sec environment. And restricting a class isn't really fun... I don't know about that but if we need those kind of restrictions, it might not be a good idea after all?
Probably why it hasn't been done. Go figure.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
JohnPaulJones
Valhalla Naval Corp
4
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 05:55:38 -
[8] - Quote
Let them in. The foundation is laid what with restrictions to their modules,CONCORD insta kill and Citadel incoming damage limit (the wave of the future). Some of you give these big fat things entirely too much credit. The abuse spoken of however is very real because there is a slight chance had I an Avatar I'd park the front of it right at Jita 4-4 undock and bunt all traffic back into the docking bay.I'd get bored fast and likely GM'd to doomheim but I wouldn't be alone. No citadels in trade hubs and no capitals either...least not the supers.
An afterthought proposed by my cousin to negate bumping,supers hit a wall X km from NPC stations and bounce ,a pos bubble effect in essence. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2641
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 06:53:15 -
[9] - Quote
No, captitals should not be allowed in high sec for any purpose and under any sort of restrictions. They are one of the few remaining factors that differentiate high sec from other areas of space and thus drawing people out of High sec into more dangerous areas of space.
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.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
792
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 10:34:17 -
[10] - Quote
Absolutely not.
If Capitals were able to access hisec, alliances would store them in hisec for safekeeping until they need them, thereby removing all risk in owning them.
Also capitals pack a huge punch to anything that dares mess with them, and after the release of Citadel-expansion, carriers obliterate almost anything larger than a BC.
Dreads themselves got too much dps for hisec, if they were allowed to enter hisec, it shouldn't be possible for them to either use Siege or HAW, which removes the point in using them.
That, and all capitals have too much tank for the average hisec dweller. It would also make it so people in lowsec and nullsec have advandage in hisec since capitals cannot be built in hisec, nor should one be able to build them in hisec. Lowsec, null and wh alliances would have an advandage over players who don't live anywhere else than hisec, people who can't get their hands on capitals over their own. |
|
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Unkindness Incorporated Who Dares Wins.
61
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 10:48:07 -
[11] - Quote
I will just autopilot through high sec with nano buffer (insert cap name here) bye bye freighters.
Make a newbro foundation started @ here
Let us help those newbros that can not PLEX themselves.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
12523
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 11:04:47 -
[12] - Quote
I vote to allow paragraphs into the OP's post
Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Bumble's Space Log
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4521
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 12:02:13 -
[13] - Quote
tk givens wrote:for one, it makes no sense to limit capital access to high sec anymore, eve has came along way from when it needed to restrict such movements, as for your statement "Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?" i never said to allow gate camps, i said "In order to achieve this i would recommend making it to where Capital ships cannot target other player ships that are not criminal, and not at war within (a certain distance) of Player assets IE citadels, pos's, etc." i never said to allow gatecamps, that was never in my post to begin with.
As for breaking through a capital defense, i didnt say it would be easy, in fact it would be damn near impossible which is why people should not declare war unless they know they can destroy a target.
As stated this is a proposal which is obviously open for input.
So if you can't shoot war targets who are on grid with your citadel, what can you shoot?
Please define citadel defence for me. Can you only shoot things in range of your citadel's guns? Or can you only shoot war targets who have already shot you?
Why do you feel it should be utterly impossible to take down a highsec citadel if the defenders have access to a couple of cheap FAX?
And why, given the nerfs to capital mobility, should capitals be able to move through highwsec unhindered? |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3374
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 13:53:45 -
[14] - Quote
Caps, in particular supers, have sucked the fun out of much of the game (honestly the most fun to be had is where caps cannot go). Let them into hi-sec and people will mission run with dreads, and where everyone uses proteus, battleships and vindis for wardecs there will be carriers and fax logi. It will suck hairy balls.
So nerf them in hi-sec? Great. Floating hulks that can do **** all. Thats fun. They'd be right up there with stealth bombers and command dessies for hi-sec fleet comps.
All this is about is making short cuts for null blocs. Nope. Projection through hi-sec is still projection.
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
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
908
|
Posted - 2016.07.09 15:14:26 -
[15] - Quote
NO Caps in high sec has always been a bad idea and it will always be a bad idea. Caps do not need a way to work around the jump range and jump fatigue limits and that is essentially what this is. |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
284
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 00:07:55 -
[16] - Quote
Number's Danika...superior numbers against your carriers will always defeat them. |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2962
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 02:07:50 -
[17] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
If Capitals were able to access hisec, alliances would store them in hisec for safekeeping until they need them, thereby removing all risk in owning them.
You do realize people already do that in 100% safe low-sec NPC stations right?
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
10214
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 03:11:34 -
[18] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Celthric Kanerian wrote:
If Capitals were able to access hisec, alliances would store them in hisec for safekeeping until they need them, thereby removing all risk in owning them.
You do realize people already do that in 100% safe low-sec NPC stations right? Except the "rules of engagement" are open-ended enough that there is always a possibility for someone to make a mistake.
In high-sec... the only ways to engage someone are through war declarations or aggression shenanigans... both of which can be worked around (see: avoided) with extreme ease.
And Suicide Ganking isn't a reasonable possibility given Dred/Carrier+ tanks.
How did you Veterans start?
The Mustache and Beard Thread
|
Roenok Baalnorn
Sadistically Sinister
173
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 04:49:46 -
[19] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a group of four FAX in triage repping a citadel. Hell. please tell me how you would deal with ONE of the near infinite cap booster FAX in highsec.
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a carrier gang defending thier citadel.
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would deal with a HAW dread gang defending said citadels.
Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?
Please explain why, after all the nerfs we had to a capital ship's ability to traverse the galaxy, you feel that caps should have unrestricted movement through highsec.
While i get your point and dont even disagree with it, you do know that caps are not required to kill other caps right? Caps are actually quite squishy.
OP: if caps were allowed in high sec it would have to be an all or none to keep the game balanced. IE: If caps are allowed in to defend citadels, then caps are allowed in to destroy citadels.
If i were going to allow caps into high sec, i wouldnt allow cynos still and you would be charged 50 mil isk fee per gate as a concord fee( much like an "oversized load" permit here in the US). If you need to go 6 jumps from low sec to defend a citadel and you are taking two fax its going to cost you 600 mil to get those fax there. Taking 4 dreads the same 6 jumps to blow up the citadel will cost you 1.2 bil isk in fees. |
Iain Cariaba
3152
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 05:17:21 -
[20] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:Number's Danika...superior numbers against your carriers will always defeat them. Let's apply some logic and reasoning to this. Go figure the "superior numbers' needed to gank a 2 million EHP brick tanked carrier in highsec using only sub-caps. Once you do that, come ask us if that number is anywhere near reasonable.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4527
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 06:48:55 -
[21] - Quote
Roenok Baalnorn wrote:
While i get your point and dont even disagree with it, you do know that caps are not required to kill other caps right? Caps are actually quite squishy.
OP: if caps were allowed in high sec it would have to be an all or none to keep the game balanced. IE: If caps are allowed in to defend citadels, then caps are allowed in to destroy citadels.
If i were going to allow caps into high sec, i wouldnt allow cynos still and you would be charged 50 mil isk fee per gate as a concord fee( much like an "oversized load" permit here in the US). If you need to go 6 jumps from low sec to defend a citadel and you are taking two fax its going to cost you 600 mil to get those fax there. Taking 4 dreads the same 6 jumps to blow up the citadel will cost you 1.2 bil isk in fees.
A 1.7 million EHP FAX that tanks 20,000 DPS indefinitely is not exactly what I would call squishy. And that's just what I threw together in EFT in five minutes, with a T2 fit. |
darkneko
Black Cat mining Inc.
25
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 08:04:40 -
[22] - Quote
While I do not agree with OP as a side note: you cannot rep citadels and they have drones so why do you need a carrier? |
Anthar Thebess
1614
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 08:06:30 -
[23] - Quote
Higsec don't need capitals.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
912
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 13:27:44 -
[24] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:DrysonBennington wrote:Number's Danika...superior numbers against your carriers will always defeat them. Let's apply some logic and reasoning to this. Go figure the "superior numbers' needed to gank a 2 million EHP brick tanked carrier in highsec using only sub-caps. Once you do that, come ask us if that number is anywhere near reasonable. Not Dryson but I will take the bait just so the information is here for all too see.
Assuming that the carrier fit has a thermal or kinetic resist hole and using a reasonably achievable 1450 DPS Rattlesnake fit we get these.
1,380 ships firing together to alpha. 14 ships just to break through the tank plus however many more you want to deal with whatever structure or armor may be left.
So based on this just say no to caps in high sec. |
Roenok Baalnorn
Sadistically Sinister
177
|
Posted - 2016.07.11 13:32:47 -
[25] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Roenok Baalnorn wrote:
While i get your point and dont even disagree with it, you do know that caps are not required to kill other caps right? Caps are actually quite squishy.
OP: if caps were allowed in high sec it would have to be an all or none to keep the game balanced. IE: If caps are allowed in to defend citadels, then caps are allowed in to destroy citadels.
If i were going to allow caps into high sec, i wouldnt allow cynos still and you would be charged 50 mil isk fee per gate as a concord fee( much like an "oversized load" permit here in the US). If you need to go 6 jumps from low sec to defend a citadel and you are taking two fax its going to cost you 600 mil to get those fax there. Taking 4 dreads the same 6 jumps to blow up the citadel will cost you 1.2 bil isk in fees.
A 1.7 million EHP FAX that tanks 20,000 DPS indefinitely is not exactly what I would call squishy. And that's just what I threw together in EFT in five minutes, with a T2 fit.
While i could argue points with you all day,it would be pointless. Since i really dont disagree with your original point. The defenders should not get such an advantage over the attackers. Thats why i said all or none.
Im perfectly fine with the way things are. If you want to play with cap warfare, leave high sec. Staying in high sec, especially when you have the SP to fly caps,should have more disadvantages than advantages.
Also, if you cannot defend a citadel with the resources available to you without having "special" circumstances that give you a major defensive advantage, then you probably shouldnt own a citadel. |
Kujo Minowara
Solitary Ground
19
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 00:43:35 -
[26] - Quote
From a design perspective, just shutting the door to more player agency possibilities (the ability for players to do stuff) is never a good thing. However, EVE is a complex system with complex balancing. Introducing capitals in highsec would be a tremendous change for some of these balances, so the question must be: how can Capital ships be introduced to highsec so that the imbalance they bring would be a resource for player entertainment more than an hindrance?
To all those that asked "how would you brake a capital fleet in high sec?" I simply ask: wouldn't another capital fleet do the trick? If capital ships are allowed in highsec they should be allowed both for offence that for defence.
Roenok Baalnorn wrote:If i were going to allow caps into high sec, i wouldnt allow cynos still and you would be charged 50 mil isk fee per gate as a concord fee( much like an "oversized load" permit here in the US. If you need to go 6 jumps from low sec to defend a citadel and you are taking two fax its going to cost you 600 mil to get those fax there. Taking 4 dreads the same 6 jumps to blow up the citadel will cost you 1.2 bil isk in fees.
+1 to this
So, let's ask this: what would capitals in highsec change for the overall playerbase? Of course, if unrestricted, big wealthy alliances could build more easily such ships, and then have fun wardecing each other, or the smaller highsec corporations. This is a potentially disastrous outcome, as it would effectively turn highsec in a somewhat similar thing than 0.0, where big alliances would de-facto "rule" certain areas. This is unacceptable from both a player perspective (having a small corporation out of that big alliance system would be incredibly difficult if not impossible) than a lore perspective (the Empires would never allow other entities to effectively rule their space, even if this might be a non-issue as capsuleers in the game only interact with each other). So, what kind of restrictions might be applied to mitigate these effects? For example, capitals might be only deployed nearby Citadels, and be allowed to warp to Citadels or Stargates. In this way, Capital use in highsec would only be related to attack or defence of Citadels, so that capitals may not be used to farm missions, to protect or attack mininers, to camp gates etc. This system might be achieved by giving a timer to capitals that jump through gates, for example, preventing them to stay nearby the gate for much more than the time to align and warp to the next gate/target citadel. If they linger too long... (hold your breadth....) ... Empire Capitals or CONCORD Capitals may appear so that capital ships can be CONCORDED (anyone that wants to see CONCORD capitals: thumbs up). Or maybe cyno fields may be activated nearby Citadels, allowing capitals to appear on the scene. Even Titans could pass by... but then if a Titan lingers on a stargate for too long, AN EMPIRE IAPETAN TITAN APPEARS AND ONE-SHOTS IT (geez, I really want to see a Iapetan titan).
Allowing capitals in highsec shouldn't be a taboo, but it would mean that all EVE play could scale up a notch. But this has happened before: once upon a time Battleships were very rare. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
917
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 13:31:17 -
[27] - Quote
Kujo Minowara wrote:From a design perspective, just shutting the door to more player agency possibilities (the ability for players to do stuff) is never a good thing. However, EVE is a complex system with complex balancing. Introducing capitals in highsec would be a tremendous change for some of these balances, so the question must be: how can Capital ships be introduced to highsec so that the imbalance they bring would be a resource for player entertainment more than an hindrance? Cap restrictions in high sec has always been about balancing the entirety of the high sec environment and about a carrot used to lure players out of high sec and into low, nul and worm holes. But I will bite on this bait. What are these player interaction possibilities that adding cap ships to high sec would bring?
And while you are at it explain why you NEED cap ships to add those player interactions?
And you can also explain why these interactions cannot be added with the ships that are already allowed into high sec.
As others have stated currently if you want to play with cap ships you have to leave high sec to do it and that alone is a valid reason to keep cap ships out of high sec. I am essentially a high sec dweller because that best suits my personal needs / wants and because it best fits what I need to support others in the game but I agree with them on this point, if you want to fly or kill cap ships then move to low, nul or worm hole and leave the relative safety of high sec in your rear view mirrors. |
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
208
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 19:50:23 -
[28] - Quote
I giggle at the prospect of tricking a titan into CONCORDokken.
/amused Gadget
Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist
|
Kujo Minowara
Solitary Ground
19
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 19:52:33 -
[29] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Kujo Minowara wrote:From a design perspective, just shutting the door to more player agency possibilities (the ability for players to do stuff) is never a good thing. However, EVE is a complex system with complex balancing. Introducing capitals in highsec would be a tremendous change for some of these balances, so the question must be: how can Capital ships be introduced to highsec so that the imbalance they bring would be a resource for player entertainment more than an hindrance? Cap restrictions in high sec has always been about balancing the entirety of the high sec environment and about a carrot used to lure players out of high sec and into low, nul and worm holes. But I will bite on this bait. What are these player interaction possibilities that adding cap ships to high sec would bring? And while you are at it explain why you NEED cap ships to add those player interactions? And you can also explain why these interactions cannot be added with the ships that are already allowed into high sec. As others have stated currently if you want to play with cap ships you have to leave high sec to do it and that alone is a valid reason to keep cap ships out of high sec. I am essentially a high sec dweller because that best suits my personal needs / wants and because it best fits what I need to support others in the game but I agree with them on this point, if you want to fly or kill cap ships then move to low, nul or worm hole and leave the relative safety of high sec in your rear view mirrors.
Thank you for engaging in a discussion =)
Well, I of course see your point, and as I said before allowing capital ships use in highsec would obviously change many things all across EVE. And I have to agree that I can't see how introducing capital ships to high sec would actually bring much difference in player interaction in highsec, if done with the limitations I mentioned before, while is clear how it might bring too much unbalance if such limitations (or similar) are not introduced.
So, overall, probably allowing capital ships to highsec isn't worth it. It would risk to change highsec game to a mocking of nullsec, to draw back people from nullsec to highsec, or to not have much overall impact if not in "scaling up" the war games in high sec. |
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
38
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 21:06:41 -
[30] - Quote
Since the original excuse for allowing them in HS is to transfer them to the other side of Null quicker, just make all cap modules blocked. That means you still keep an insane buffer, but no cap weapons, reps, or siege modules. This would make them pretty useless in HS other than to move. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |