EVE Search - Why not allow cap ships like carriers and dreads in Empire space?

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Why not allow cap ships like carriers and dreads in Empire 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)
Renfus 0DAMN 0	Posted - 2011.11.18 00:09:00 - [1] - Quote Disable all aoe weapons in empire... I think it would bring alot more to empire wars and make navigating them thought the reigons much easier. I may be missing something but I don't see what it would hurt..
Sigras Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N 48	Posted - 2011.11.18 01:07:00 - [2] - Quote carriers + assault ships + level 4 missions = win
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 167	Posted - 2011.11.18 01:14:00 - [3] - Quote Hey! No! Are you mentally handicapped? Just curious! Consider biomassing yourself! Have a nice day!
Zirse Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 153	Posted - 2011.11.18 01:49:00 - [4] - Quote Emperor Salazar wrote: Hey! No! Are you mentally handicapped? Just curious! Consider biomassing yourself! Have a nice day!
Nezumiiro Noneko Alternative Enterprises 14	Posted - 2011.11.18 02:05:00 - [5] - Quote caps are in empire. You see them on sale in the sell forum once in a while. Got the isk...you too can have a carrier in empire.
Xandralkus Morior Invictus. Velocitas Eradico 2	Posted - 2011.11.18 10:11:00 - [6] - Quote Yes, let's turn the insanely, horrendously overpowered drone ships (carriers and supercarriers) loose in empire space too. You know...the ones with MILLIONS of EHP? And THOUSANDS of DPS? This is empire space. Battleships, battlecruisers, and capital ships are not the norm. Fleets of hundreds of ships (or other capitals) cannot be fielded to effectively counter even a small enemy capital fleet. However, in the spirit of diminishing returns, I'd like to see an Eve where there is no massive gap between battleship and dread DPS and tank. Or dreads and carriers. Or carriers and supercarriers. Or supercarriers and titans. THEN it makes sense to allow them in empire space. What would it take to put capital ships in empire space? Reduce fighter speed, DPS, and tank to approximately that of T1 frigates (they can already spawn what amounts to an instant frigate fleet at the press of a button), and reduce SC EHP to ~750,000 EHP. Turn dreads into competent gun platforms against capital ships outside of siege mode, with the capacity to enter siege mode to engage POS's.
Jace Errata Cobalt Valkyrie Industries The Ambivalent 31	Posted - 2011.11.18 10:48:00 - [7] - Quote It's amazing how many people don't realise that caps used to be allowed in highsec, but were then banned, presumably for a good reason (I'm not sure precisely what, but it's probably in a dev blog somewhere). Let's...just assume there's some kind of signature here, 'k? ... ... OH WAIT. Jace Errata on Twitter
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 17	Posted - 2011.11.18 12:25:00 - [8] - Quote Because it's a terminally stupid idea, and some of us don't want to be playing capitals online.
Miss CEO Eternum Noctem 8	Posted - 2011.11.18 13:22:00 - [9] - Quote As far as I know caps were never supposed to be in High-sec, though there were few built in high-sec due to a bug / oversight in station factory feature. As for the OP: You can use your capital ships in empire space all you want. you simply can not jump them into High-sec. Low-sec space is empire too.
De'Veldrin Element 27 Intrepid Crossing 90	Posted - 2011.11.18 13:46:00 - [10] - Quote Miss CEO wrote: As far as I know caps were never supposed to be in High-sec, though there were few built in high-sec due to a bug / oversight in station factory feature. As for the OP: You can use your capital ships in empire space all you want. you simply can not jump them into High-sec. Low-sec space is empire too. Actually capitals used to be allowed in highsec - you could light a cyno and jump them right in. Then CCP realized that was a bad idea for a variety of reasons. So they booted them all out, and took the mod slots off of freighters so they couldn't slip back in packaged up. At the OP: No. Unsub or don't.-á I don't care what your reasons are, and neither does anyone else.-á Just click the button and go away - or don't.
Garnoo Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2011.11.18 13:49:00 - [11] - Quote i have strange feeling hisec pubbies wants better afk-isk-printing ship as tengus isnt enough for them... and its cool to have a capital (but its impossible when you if you dont have balls to live in low/null)
Draconus Lofwyr CryoTech Engineering Silent Requiem 7	Posted - 2011.11.18 18:39:00 - [12] - Quote capitals were allowed in high sec before supers were released. They were removed because at the time, they could out tank concord and station guns. I would not see an issue with caps and supers in highsec with the understanding that they could not use their weapons. titans could not use the DD or the main guns, carriers could not use triage or deploy fighters and super carriers could not deploy fighters and dreads could not siege or use their guns. and the rorqual could not use its industrial core. All missions would have to change to be accessible by accel gates to keep capitals out. I don't see it happening due to the logistics needed to make it balanced. Now cov ops cyno's and black ops jumps in high sec does need to be allowed.
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.11.18 22:41:00 - [13] - Quote Few ideas about how a cap can move into high sec - supers still not allowed into high sec - you cannot drive them and stay into an npc corp - If you get concorded you never receive the insurance payout - you still unable to use gate - you still unable to light up cyno - they move around with an npc owned jump bridges network; this network give access based on standing so if you don't have +10 you can't enter a 1.0 system, and you need at last +5 to use an npc bridge, also you need to pay a fee for each jump lets say 100M to a max distance jump. - triage,siege and industrial modules, if used into a system >= 0.5 not only consume the normsl fuel but also they need an autorization that work in the same way of the certificates used for hig sec pos.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 170	Posted - 2011.11.18 23:43:00 - [14] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: Few ideas about how a cap can move into high sec - supers still not allowed into high sec - you cannot drive them and stay into an npc corp - If you get concorded you never receive the insurance payout - you still unable to use gate - you still unable to light up cyno - they move around with an npc owned jump bridges network; this network give access based on standing so if you don't have +10 you can't enter a 1.0 system, and you need at last +5 to use an npc bridge, also you need to pay a fee for each jump lets say 100M to a max distance jump. - triage,siege and industrial modules, if used into a system >= 0.5 not only consume the normsl fuel but also they need an autorization that work in the same way of the certificates used for hig sec pos. No?
Korg Tronix Heretic Army 9	Posted - 2011.11.18 23:48:00 - [15] - Quote Zirse wrote: Emperor Salazar wrote: Hey! No! Are you mentally handicapped? Just curious! Consider biomassing yourself! Have a nice day!
Alexa Coates The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2011.11.19 06:53:00 - [16] - Quote I personally don't see a problem with it. On sisi, you can fly caps in high. If you shoot someone, concord instapops you no matter what you're in. The only caps that should be allowed are dreads, as they are severely crippled without their drones. Carriers can stay in null, they'll just kill errthang.
Esunisen Les Tueurs de Killer Une Pour Tous 0	Posted - 2011.11.19 10:05:00 - [17] - Quote 100 caps at Jita 4-4, yeah, sure, go ahead... Can we haz Arkonor in 1.0 systems too ? Please ? [EXIT]
Duchess Starbuckington Starbuckington Manor 19	Posted - 2011.11.19 10:31:00 - [18] - Quote Quote: I personally don't see a problem with it Then you're really not looking hard enough. Quote: On sisi, you can fly caps in high. If you shoot someone, concord instapops you no matter what you're in. If you think CONCORD is the only potential problem of allowing capitals in highsec, then you're a tool.
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2011.11.19 13:57:00 - [19] - Quote Emperor Salazar wrote: Roger Soros wrote: Few ideas about how a cap can move into high sec - supers still not allowed into high sec - you cannot drive them and stay into an npc corp - If you get concorded you never receive the insurance payout - you still unable to use gate - you still unable to light up cyno - they move around with an npc owned jump bridges network; this network give access based on standing so if you don't have +10 you can't enter a 1.0 system, and you need at last +5 to use an npc bridge, also you need to pay a fee for each jump lets say 100M to a max distance jump. - triage,siege and industrial modules, if used into a system >= 0.5 not only consume the normsl fuel but also they need an autorization that work in the same way of the certificates used for hig sec pos. No? why no? I don't see the problem about carriers, dreads and rorqual entering high sec. with my ideas
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 170	Posted - 2011.11.19 16:08:00 - [20] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: why no? I don't see the problem about carriers, dreads and rorqual entering high sec. with my ideas Because it would make high sec warfare utterly terrible? (more so than it already is). You want high end ships? Stop being scared and leave high sec.
Aessaya Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings 13	Posted - 2011.11.20 00:50:00 - [21] - Quote How about NO? It helps to keep defined borderlines between different security systems. hisec concord, subcaps-only lowsec no concord. capitals nullsec player sov, bombs and bubbles wh space no stations, no local, no supers, no gates, sleepers Ah, you seek meaning?-áThen listen to the music, not the song.
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.11.20 09:27:00 - [22] - Quote Honestly can you explain why no? Currently the only thing that become more easy if you allow caps into high sec is pos bashing, and somewhat mining op; but if you balance this advantage with a concrete cost you can de facto limit their use.
Keras Authion Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 22	Posted - 2011.11.20 12:18:00 - [23] - Quote Carrier repairs? (Neutral) logistics give enough trouble today for a typical high sec wardec. How about a carrier or a few? Practically 100% safe trading in a jump-capable carrier. How many battleships do you need to gank one? Set fighters to assist L4 missions. LP prices drop even further thanks to faster mission completion speed. Just carriers are able to make anything new players can try useless. Add the ability to swat POSes easily with dreads and further mining improvements with the rorqual and the following mineral price crash thanks to more supply and we have a very new player-unfriendly system in place. You'd practically have to own a capital if you wanted to do anything more than minimum wage work.
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.11.20 12:51:00 - [24] - Quote Keras Authion wrote: Carrier repairs? (Neutral) logistics give enough trouble today for a typical high sec wardec. How about a carrier or a few? Practically 100% safe trading in a jump-capable carrier. How many battleships do you need to gank one? Set fighters to assist L4 missions. LP prices drop even further thanks to faster mission completion speed. Just carriers are able to make anything new players can try useless. Add the ability to swat POSes easily with dreads and further mining improvements with the rorqual and the following mineral price crash thanks to more supply and we have a very new player-unfriendly system in place. You'd practically have to own a capital if you wanted to do anything more than minimum wage work. neutral remote repair is clearly a bug this should never be allowed to begin with and if i remember correctly they fix it in crucible safe trading? if they move stuff in a carrier you gank them in dread, carrier aren't mom you can wd them, beside they pay alot more and move way less stuff than today. are you sure that fighters can warp inside a mission with acceleration gate? if yes this is another bug and need to be addressed. mining in high sec is not that profitable even today, due to the fact that the precious mineral is only in null or WH, beside if you use a rorqual and use the industrial core into an high sec it not only consume fuel but it need a certificate like authorization that make it more costly. high sec pos are just to secure today, you ever tried to take down a large faction pos decently fitted with only bs? It take ages and beside the fact that dreads make it more easy you pay alot to move and use them.
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate 91	Posted - 2011.11.20 13:28:00 - [25] - Quote Allow them in, if anyone can shoot at them for any time for any reason - Always red and blinky.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 1565	Posted - 2011.11.20 13:33:00 - [26] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: neutral remote repair is clearly a bug this should never be allowed to begin with and if i remember correctly they fix it in crucible No, it's not a bug and it's not getting fixed, and the problem remains: capital reps make it far too easy to have anything stay alive in the highsec environment. Quote: safe trading? if they move stuff in a carrier you gank them in dread YeahGÇª no, you just explained why it's a bad idea and why it makes trading far too safe. Also, no dreads don't actually deliver the kind of damage required for your idea to work. Quote: are you sure that fighters can warp inside a mission with acceleration gate? if yes this is another bug and need to be addressed. It's not a bug. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of reasoning GÇö labelling stuff as bugs that are working as intended GÇö just because you want to do something, kind of shows that your idea isn't a good one. Quote: mining in high sec is not that profitable even today GÇªand that's how it should stay. The ability to make use of a Rorq is one other means to entice people to go elsewhere (not to mention that the Rorq itself generates all the previously mentioned problem). Quote: high sec pos are just to secure today, you ever tried to take down a large faction pos decently fitted with only bs? Yes. It's very easyGÇª or at least it was until CCP wrecked the wardec mechanic and made all POSes safe, but that's nothing that can be helped by letting capships in. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.11.20 15:12:00 - [27] - Quote neutral remote rep is an workaround used to prevent aggro mechanic and concord punishment, the fact that this not adressed don't mean that is "working as intended" so basically why gank an hauler should be easy? i only see this as an escalation that make hauling valuable stuff/gank hauler with valuable stuff in their cargo more costly acceleration gate are here to prevent some ships to enter a mission and make it too easy, if a carrier is not allowed inside a mission how the main weapon can? mining remain not profitable because the advantage to use the rorqual is balanced by the incresed cost of running one on empire Again caps in high sec just only mean that there is an escalation on the warfare it's nothing to be afraid Sincerely i always find it hilarious how everytime someone propose an idea that put some risk on living or running business in the little high sec garden, there is so much hate.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 176	Posted - 2011.11.20 15:30:00 - [28] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: Honestly can you explain why no? Currently the only thing that become more easy if you allow caps into high sec is pos bashing, and somewhat mining op; but if you balance this advantage with a concrete cost you can de facto limit their use. Cost is not a balance you moron. See supercarriers/titans as a prime example.
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.11.20 15:46:00 - [29] - Quote Cost is a balance factor, in the case of supers and titans it simply wasn't keeped in line with the increase of income that the sov changes have done.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 176	Posted - 2011.11.20 15:53:00 - [30] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: Cost is a balance factor, in the case of supers and titans it simply wasn't keeped in line with the increase of income that the sov changes have done. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. CCP themselves have said that cost as a balance factor is a stupid idea.
Jack Carrigan Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order 237	Posted - 2011.11.20 16:12:00 - [31] - Quote **ty idea is a *ty idea. "War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives."*
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 1568	Posted - 2011.11.20 20:10:00 - [32] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: neutral remote rep is an workaround used to prevent aggro mechanic and concord punishment, the fact that this not adressed don't mean that is "working as intended" No, the fact that it is working as intended means it is working as intended. The use of of neutral reps is a way to keep support ships from being immediately detected and intercepted before they can be put into play. They don't avoid any aggro or CONCORD mechanics that affect non-neutral reps. Quote: so basically why gank an hauler should be easy? It's only easy if the hauler pilot is stupid, and it most certainly doesn't need to be made easier to be that stupid. Quote: acceleration gate are here to prevent some ships to enter a mission and make it too easy GÇªand bringing in fighters does not change that. The addition they offer isn't much more helpful than if you simply had a second ship of the type allowed by the gate. It's a bit easier to manage when dual-boxing, that is all. Bringing the whole carrier is a completely different matter. Again, you are arbitrarily labelling things as bugs that are not GÇö they are direct consequences of you wanting to add something that is not good for the game, as shown by the fact that you feel that need to label these consequences as bugs. Quote: mining remain not profitable because the advantage to use the rorqual is balanced by the incresed cost of running one on empire Since there is no increased cost, no, it's not. Quote: Again caps in high sec just only mean that there is an escalation on the warfare GÇªwhich is not needed to begin with, and which is, more importantly, utterly false. It means an escalation of the safety from non-warfare and that level is already far too high. There is absolutely no need whatsoever in highsec for any of the capabilities caps offer, and only tons of problems (which you try to solve by incorrectly labelling them as bugs). What is truly hilarious is how you manage to fool yourself into believing that what you're proposing will in any way increase the risks involved when it so obviously does the exact opposite (which is why it's such a horribly bad idea). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 1568	Posted - 2011.11.20 20:11:00 - [33] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: Cost is a balance factor No, it is not. Cost is a consequence of abilities, and is utterly useless as any kind of of rationalisation for capabilities. In fact, as soon as you hear the argument GÇ£it should do X because it is so expensiveGÇ¥, you can be 100% certain that it most definitely should never be allowed to do X. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Vaako Horizon Casual Slackers Daily Operations 23	Posted - 2011.11.20 22:47:00 - [34] - Quote I too think capitals should be allowed in highsec, but with some restrictions. Like a fee for every gate jump, remote repair abilitys disabled etc etc There are several ways to do it...
Aessaya Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings 13	Posted - 2011.11.20 23:15:00 - [35] - Quote One sidenote: as far as I remember, assigned fighters will not follow you into a deadspace mission (deadspace missions may or may not have gates, but if you cannot warp around it and always land at the same location upon warping in from outside - it's a deadspace. Acceleration gates in mission do not guarantee the mission is a deadspace - i have encountered a few non-deadspace missions with accel. gates. I will test this thing tomorrow and report the findings, but i'm pretty sure none of the mechanics involved have been changed recently. Otherwise i'd be doing L4s in a shuttle/inty with fighters assigned to it. Ah, you seek meaning?-áThen listen to the music, not the song.
Roger Soros Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.11.21 11:09:00 - [36] - Quote Tippia wrote: snip I think that i'm not explain myself well, i too think that if caps were introduced without some enforced iron rules they simply become another layer of protection for the High Sec but as i have stated in my first post if you introduce them in the right manner you can open the empire to a whole new type of warfare or an escalation; I think that one the main reason because so many fellows remain in high sec is the lack of caps warfare if you change that in the right way i think that alot of peoples will move into null. On the last not for me cost is a balance factor when you ear "its so rare because it cost so much, and because its so rare its powerfull"
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 1584	Posted - 2011.11.21 11:26:00 - [37] - Quote Roger Soros wrote: Tippia wrote: snip I think that i'm not explain myself well, i too think that if caps were introduced without some enforced iron rules they simply become another layer of protection for the High Sec but as i have stated in my first post if you introduce them in the right manner you can open the empire to a whole new type of warfare or an escalation; I think that one the main reason because so many fellows remain in high sec is the lack of caps warfare if you change that in the right way i think that alot of peoples will move into null. On the last not for me cost is a balance factor when you ear "its so rare because it cost so much, and because its so rare its powerfull" One of those iron rules would have to be GÇ£HP and capacitor divided by 50", another is GÇ£no actively targeted, AoE or passive remote support modules." Otherwise, they become too safe. This also instantly kills you idea of using them as GÇ£escalation" (which is not new in any way, nor is it needed). Still interested? The simple fact is this: caps have no place and no role in highsec and would have to completely redesigned to fit there. This would remove all the allure they have for the people who want them but can't have them, and ruin them for everyone else. Want a capship? Move to lowsec GÇö they have been balanced to be used there. And no,cost is not a balancng factor since, as every attempt in that direction has shown, people will pay that extra cost. Cost was tried as a factor to limit Titans to maybe 3GÇô4 in the game. That worked out wellGÇª GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.