EVE Search - [Proposal] Restrict supercapital ships to 0.0 space

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Restrict supercapital ships to 0.0 space

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2010.04.26 21:34:00 - [1] I often hear people complaining about the increasingly frequent and casual deployment of supercapital ships in low sec. This is not a problem with the supercaps themselves, except in that there are more and more of them around these days. I feel that EVE would be better off if lowsec offered players a refuge from the more excessive hotdrops that of which dominant 0.0 powers are capable.* It could almost be said that lowsec has become the playground of supercap pilots. Most of the tools needed to trap them are restricted to 0.0, leaving only HICs with focus scripts to take up the burden. This combined with ewar immunity and massively boosted HP strikes me as a clear imbalance of risk vs. reward. I do not believe anyone envisaged supercaps becoming so widely and so lightly used when they were first introduced several years ago. I therefore propose the following: Create a new supercapital cynosural field generator or script(i.e. with jump harmonics 3, following on from the covert cyno) Restrict the use of this new cyno to 0.0 space. Restrict supercap jump drives so that they can only jump to the new type of cyno. There are several balancing possibilities relating to the exact choice of game mechanics here - it could be done by adding scripts for cynos, allowing people to use the same module in 0.0 or in lowsec, or by adding a new module altogether, and forcing people to choose which one to fit. * Although some people will doubtless point out that I have a vested interest in seeing people build more supercaps, I would be even happier if people could only use them in 0.0 and consequently lost more of them. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression
AlexK100	Posted - 2010.04.26 21:45:00 - [2] Generally that is right and I agree but I will create incredible logistic troubles if you need say to move from one pleace in 0.0 to another. Imagine moving titan from venal to GW for example?
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.04.26 22:18:00 - [3] It is not super-capitals but capitals in general that has a disrupting effect on life in low-sec. The handful of hulls a typical low-sec corporation can field is dwarfed by 50-100+ that 0.0 drops represent. Making all jumps to low-sec systems expensive in both ISK and time would do a lot more to limit bored 0.0 entities from "interfering" in low-sec life. Add system security as a modifier to fuel consumption for all jump activities and a majority of on-a-whim hotdrops become a thing of the past for everyone but actual low-sec citizens who have arranged fuel depots within their sphere of influence.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.04.26 22:22:00 - [4] This seems completely unnecessary and rather ill-advised. Lowsec supercaps haven't been invulnerable since 2007, and Doomsdays don't work in lowsec. But if you want to bridge people around, or use them for their basic combat power, why not? They don't change the dynamics of lowsec appreciably. Not supported.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.04.26 22:44:00 - [5] Oh jeez, another clueless nub wanting to nerf low sec.
Teinyhr Minmatar Nor'akho Matar	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:09:00 - [6] Personally I don't see the point of having capital ships in low sec at all, save from POS bashing which is mainly the job of Dreads or plenty of BS's anyway. As for the guy who said "nubs nerfing low sec" - I'd say its more of smurfing low sec if dropping capitals there would be banned altogether, from a battle waged in FW today - and number of other times - it seems that low-sec battles seem to have more and more of an issue of which side can field more capitals, regardless if they're the normal or supercap variety. Personally that is not to my liking, but hey, maybe it's just me. ------------------- This is Sig. Launch every Sig. For Great Justice.
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:26:00 - [7] So answer me this. If Super Capitals was banned from low sec, then how the hell are they supposed to move from place to place then?. Would be a really really big pain in the ass to move the ships via 0.0 space if you have to move the super capitals to the other side of the galaxy.
Gandar Kimokanen Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:30:00 - [8] horrible idea..
Teinyhr Minmatar Nor'akho Matar	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:38:00 - [9] Originally by: NightmareX So answer me this. If Super Capitals was banned from low sec, then how the hell are they supposed to move from place to place then?. Well as the 0.0 heroes tend to say to just about anyone not interested in 0.0, "EVE is tough, deal with it." They still have 0.0 to rump around in, and 0.0 is most of the systems of the game I believe. I'm fairly certain they were not meant to be tools to dominate low-sec systems with originally. I also cannot see any reason for them to really sneak through low sec, aside from some cowardly sneak attack. If you can give me a reason why they should be able to, then I might reconsider. ------------------- This is Sig. Launch every Sig. For Great Justice.
Cheekything Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:44:00 - [10] Worse idea ever...

Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:56:00 - [11] To quote myself: Here, let's see if I can spell this out clearly: - Supercarriers are a supercap - There are four counters to a supercap in 0.0 - There are megablobs and massive napfests in 0.0 - There is exactly one counter to a supercap in low sec. - Supercarriers are fully functional in low sec => Supercarriers are more powerful in low sec - which is a place singularly ill suited to doing anything about them. There are two reasonable solutions to a glaring game imbalance here: - Ban all supercaps from low sec - Supercaps lose ewar immunity + fighter bombers in low sec I personally prefer losing ewar immunity+fighter bombers, because I do not want to contemplate having to move supercaps around if they can't enter lowsec at all. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.26 23:56:00 - [12] Edited by: NightmareX on 26/04/2010 23:57:50 So just to see how stupid this idea is, then can someone let me know how many cyno jumps it takes for a super carrier to jump from 7BX-6F to X-7OMU via 0.0 space ONLY for example?. EDIT: Liang. The ban of SC's in Low sec wont happen ever. Because it makes billion more problems than it fixes.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:09:00 - [13] Originally by: NightmareX EDIT: Liang. The ban of SC's in Low sec wont happen ever. Because it makes billion more problems than it fixes. Right, so get on with removing fighter bombers and ewar immunity already. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
NightmareX Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:11:00 - [14] Edited by: NightmareX on 27/04/2010 00:15:02 Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: NightmareX EDIT: Liang. The ban of SC's in Low sec wont happen ever. Because it makes billion more problems than it fixes. Right, so get on with removing fighter bombers and ewar immunity already. -Liang I don't really think that will be a good idea to be really honest. Because a Super Capital can as easily be hotdropped in low sec as it can be in 0.0 space, so it needs it defence against other ships. It's really easy to kill a Super Capital in low sec as long your willing to use your brain a bit. Well a suprise attack from a SC is ofc a suprise attack because you didn't really know about it. But if you know that there is a super capital around in low sec where you live and if you really want to kill it, it's not going to be that hard to do that.
Foxxy Lady Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:14:00 - [15] Edited by: Foxxy Lady on 27/04/2010 00:16:24 You get these safety by moving to high sec. Also I do not support this proposal. "Well as the 0.0 heroes tend to say to just about anyone not interested in 0.0, "EVE is tough, deal with it."" ^Applies to the OP also.
Sooshie Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:17:00 - [16] Wont happen. And SC's are killed all the time in low sec because people in SC's get a dumb false sense of security in low sec so think of super capitals and low sec as an opportunity for fat loot.
King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:40:00 - [17] The low sec DD bug was a real problem but the presence of super caps in low sec itself isn't really an issue. If any changes are made, I'd ban the jump portal on titans. Even that's iffy though, it's only one douche bag alliance that's exploiting the hell out of it and I suspect they'll go bankrupt from fuel costs long before any nerf could be implemented. As for super carriers, I've seen one fielded. My fleet knocked it into about 75% structure before it was able to limp back inside it's POS shields. Pretty sure we wiped out his fighter-bombers too. I do agree that the lack of tackling options and general low sec corp/alliance size makes them far more potent than in null sec but this isn't too big of an issue. What I would like to see is an "empire jumping fee" that is charged to any capital jumping into a low sec system. A 10M isk fee per jump to any 0.1 to 0.4 sec system would be enough to stop casual hotdroppers. I would exclude black ops BS's from this fee. Not sure about jump freighters but I'm leaning towards them needing a hefty tax. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
Teinyhr Minmatar Nor'akho Matar	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:54:00 - [18] ^ Make it 100 million and you'd be onto something. 10 million should be pennies for anyone who can actually get their hands on a supercapital or capitals in general. Jump freighters would be the only capitals exempt for this fee. ------------------- This is Sig. Launch every Sig. For Great Justice.
Ares Esper	Posted - 2010.04.27 02:10:00 - [19] Dont like Super Caps in Low Sec easy move to high sec problem solved no balancing required. The thought of banning them or nerfing them in low sec is totally ridiculous.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.27 02:17:00 - [20] People said the same thing when there were no counters at all for supercarriers. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire

Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.04.27 03:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Liang Nuren People said the same thing when there were no counters at all for supercarriers. -Liang And now there are. Shouldn't you be happy?
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.27 03:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto And now there are. Shouldn't you be happy? Perhaps if they all worked or there wasn't an incentive to use Supercarriers in in low sec... as it stands supercarriers are overpowered in low sec both because of the political landscape and because of game mechanics. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.04.27 03:55:00 - [23] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto And now there are. Shouldn't you be happy? Perhaps if they all worked or there wasn't an incentive to use Supercarriers in in low sec... as it stands supercarriers are overpowered in low sec both because of the political landscape and because of game mechanics. -Liang The counter to a big, stationary object is a large number of dreadnoughts. Those work in lowsec. You also need to make sure that the ship doesn't get away, so you use a heavy interdictor with a script. Those work in lowsec too. They'll probably target the hictor with their fighters to get away, so you remote rep the hictor. For that you use carriers or logistics ships, both of which work in lowsec. What precisely are you asking for here? If you need a bigger gang to take down a mom, the recruitment forum is right there on the front page of these boards.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.27 04:33:00 - [24] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto What precisely are you asking for here? If you need a bigger gang to take down a mom, the recruitment forum is right there on the front page of these boards. For supercarriers to not be MORE powerful in low sec than in 0.0 by virtue of having fewer options available for tackling them. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2010.04.27 05:46:00 - [25] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto What precisely are you asking for here? If you need a bigger gang to take down a mom, the recruitment forum is right there on the front page of these boards. If you want to trap anything else, you can use generic equipment that can be carried by virtually any ship. That gives you many more options. Lowsec is free from bubbles, however, and I think it should stay that way. I appreciate the point that people are making about logistics, but how often do supercaps typically have to deploy from one side of the galaxy to the other? I would generally agree with the argument in favour of following on from lowsec use of Titans and restricting the use of fighter-bombers. The 'lowsec entry fee' might be interesting, but balancing anything around cost is never very easy. A better counter to hot-drops, without too great an impact on logistics, would be a short delay- maybe about 30 seconds - while 'waiting for clearance to jump into empire space'. I appreciate the time people have taken to spell out the arguments against this proposal - it's been interesting to read, and I now have a slightly better understanding of some of the issues. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.27 06:30:00 - [26] Horrible idea is so horrible... Vote me for CSM5!
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.04.27 06:46:00 - [27] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro If you want to trap anything else, you can use generic equipment that can be carried by virtually any ship. That gives you many more options. Lowsec is free from bubbles, however, and I think it should stay that way. If you lose anything else, you're out a few hundred million, possibly as much as a couple billion if you pimp it out a whole lot. If you lose a supercapital, you're generally out 20-80 billion. Yeah, I think that should take a bit of special equipment to pull off.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.27 07:50:00 - [28] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro The 'lowsec entry fee' might be interesting, but balancing anything around cost is never very easy. A better counter to hot-drops, without too great an impact on logistics, would be a short delay- maybe about 30 seconds - while 'waiting for clearance to jump into empire space'. This would be interesting in any case for any capital ship. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
steave435 Caldari Final Agony B A N E	Posted - 2010.04.27 11:25:00 - [29] Quote: You get these safety by moving to high sec. Also I do not support this proposal. That's the thing, that's pretty bad scaling. Currently it looks like this: High sec: No capitals Low sec: Capitals and super capitals fully functional, except Titan loose DD 0.0: All capitals and super capitals are fully functional To me, it would make more sense looking like this: High sec: No capitals Low sec: Normal capitals fully functional, super capitals can enter in order to move trough the area but are limited in functionality by not being able to DD or deploy fighter bombers. 0.0: All capitals and super capitals are fully functional This would create a scenario where high sec is relatively safe with no caps at all, suited for people just starting out, then you have low sec for people that are a bit more experienced and want to live in more dangerous space, and it gives an introduction to capital warfare, and it's also suitable for older players tired of the blobs in 0.0 that want to be a part of smaller entities that do not have to blob up to counter super caps and finally 0.0 where everything is allowed. Super caps will still be useful in low sec, titans being able to bridge and give gang bonuses while super carriers can still rep/do twice the damage of a normal carrier but with huge ehp and ewar immunity, but while useful, they're limited enough to give the owners an incentive to focus more on 0.0 where they belong.
Teinyhr Nor'akho Matar	Posted - 2010.04.27 12:11:00 - [30] Originally by: steave435 Quote: You get these safety by moving to high sec. Also I do not support this proposal. That's the thing, that's pretty bad scaling. Currently it looks like this: High sec: No capitals Low sec: Capitals and super capitals fully functional, except Titan loose DD 0.0: All capitals and super capitals are fully functional To me, it would make more sense looking like this: High sec: No capitals Low sec: Normal capitals fully functional, super capitals can enter in order to move trough the area but are limited in functionality by not being able to DD or deploy fighter bombers. 0.0: All capitals and super capitals are fully functional This would create a scenario where high sec is relatively safe with no caps at all, suited for people just starting out, then you have low sec for people that are a bit more experienced and want to live in more dangerous space, and it gives an introduction to capital warfare, and it's also suitable for older players tired of the blobs in 0.0 that want to be a part of smaller entities that do not have to blob up to counter super caps and finally 0.0 where everything is allowed. Super caps will still be useful in low sec, titans being able to bridge and give gang bonuses while super carriers can still rep/do twice the damage of a normal carrier but with huge ehp and ewar immunity, but while useful, they're limited enough to give the owners an incentive to focus more on 0.0 where they belong. Well said. Never thought I'd agree with a BANE member. ------------------- This is Sig. Launch every Sig. For Great Justice.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.