Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Once Phoebe hits, the lore/mechanic justification that was in place to prevent capitals/supers from taking gates will be void.
This is now the time to allow supers to dock. I'm not going into a long winded post about why this is a good idea, but here are a few points:
- Super pilots are effectively trapped in their space coffin
- Supers see significantly less combat than subcapitals. When they are deployed, they rarely explode.
- Forcing supers to park in POS really doesn't lead to much more combat, outside of the rare instance of a bumped titan
- Jump fatigue makes it so supers can't bounce between stations to regen capacitor
Having so much EHP would lead to supers being able to undock and play station games, then lose aggression and redock without real risk of dying. In order to prevent this from being abused, docking rights should come with a 10-15 minute timer specifically prohibiting docking for supers, only caused by pvp aggression. If supers aggress on the undock, they would be unable to dock for 10-15 minutes.
Give us more options to engage in PVP rather than locking characters in ships that are stuck in space.
Edit: This has been brought up before, but this is considering new information from the upcoming Phoebe patch, so it is not simply a repeat thread. |
viverxia
Serenity Prime The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote: Having so much EHP would lead to supers being able to undock and play station games, then lose aggression and redock without real risk of dying. In order to prevent this from being abused, docking rights should come with a 10-15 minute timer specifically prohibiting docking for supers, only caused by pvp aggression. If supers aggress on the undock, they would be unable to dock for 10-15 minutes.
To be honest, i see Carriers do this anyway, even without the stupid EHP that their super brethren have, then it's a more general issue that something that has to be focused to supers specifically.
Either way, +1 |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
914
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
An alternate way to solve the undock games would be to only allow supercaps to dock at conquerable 0.0 stations. Note this is not the same thing as a player-built outpost -- conquerable stations are the three stations that are seeded in every conquerable 0.0 region. For example, Deklein's conqs are VFK, 3JN9, and CZD. Currently, these stations are completely useless, having been long-obsoleted by Crius. Giving them the ability to moor supercaps would make them hugely relevant again. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:An alternate way to solve the undock games would be to only allow supercaps to dock at conquerable 0.0 stations. Note this is not the same thing as a player-built outpost -- conquerable stations are the three stations that are seeded in every conquerable 0.0 region. For example, Deklein's conqs are VFK, 3JN9, and CZD. Currently, these stations are completely useless, having been long-obsoleted by Crius. Giving them the ability to moor supercaps would make them hugely relevant again.
I like that idea, and I think it's a good compromise. It also makes those stations conflict drivers, since it gives your enemies a known location to attack, and gives the holding entity a serious incentive to defend them. +1 for this idea. A bitter vet trying to start anew. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4149
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Supercaps can already be stored inside CSMA's (sorry, the are now called XLarge Ship Maintenance Arrays). The requirements for anchoring these structures were reduced years ago, so you don't even need Sov to anchor one anymore.
Why are XLSMA's not sufficient for your purpose?
Is it because you don't want to be the next ALOD article? Is it because you can't figure out how to secure an SMA from corp thieves? Is it because it takes practice to find a swap to the titan location that doesn't result in a titan bumping off the POS structures? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why are XLSMA's not sufficient for your purpose?
A better question would be: Why is there already a badly implemented workaround when every other type of ship can dock?
The reason for the above is that you'd need an alt corp specifically to store your super because of POS roles being garbage. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4149
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 18:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why are XLSMA's not sufficient for your purpose?
A better question would be: Why is there already a badly implemented workaround when every other type of ship can dock? The reason for the above is that you'd need an alt corp specifically to store your super because of POS roles being garbage.
I personally think granting Supers the almost risk-free storage facilities that are Outposts and NPC stations will simply allow players to stockpile supers too easily. I'd much rather CCP improved POS roles instead, which will positively benefit a larger part of EvE's playerbase.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 18:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why are XLSMA's not sufficient for your purpose?
A better question would be: Why is there already a badly implemented workaround when every other type of ship can dock? The reason for the above is that you'd need an alt corp specifically to store your super because of POS roles being garbage. I personally think granting Supers the almost risk-free storage facilities that are Outposts and NPC stations will simply allow players to stockpile supers too easily. I'd much rather CCP improved POS roles instead, which will positively benefit a larger part of EvE's playerbase.
It's been noted by CCP that POS code is beyond repair at this point without a complete overhaul- which won't happen any time soon.
The change with supers is turning a 0 into a 1, adding a suitable aggression dock timer, and ensuring that the ship model doesn't break in station view. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13629
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 18:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why are XLSMA's not sufficient for your purpose?
A better question would be: Why is there already a badly implemented workaround when every other type of ship can dock? The reason for the above is that you'd need an alt corp specifically to store your super because of POS roles being garbage. I personally think granting Supers the almost risk-free storage facilities that are Outposts and NPC stations will simply allow players to stockpile supers too easily. I'd much rather CCP improved POS roles instead, which will positively benefit a larger part of EvE's playerbase.
We already have huge stockpiles of the things. The special status of these ships ended several years ago when we started to deploy fleets of them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
525
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
I support a dry dock option for supers. I'm not looking at this as any future content for myself, simply as an avenue for other players of EVE.
Allow Super Cap players a single Super to be in dry dock at one time. When you put your Super in Dry Dock it must stay there for a minimum of 72 hours and a 6 month timer is set off as to when you can do it again.
They could even add it to sheet like the remap points. Only one dry dock point is ever available at a time, it renews every 6 months, it is used upon dry dock. As ship in Dry dock shows in contract assets, not local assets and must be deployed/ delivers to activate.
They are a player liability at this point in EVE. Nobody is going to keep a Super Cap account active full time unless they are plexed on the back of their alliance. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
|
Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
I always thought that the reason super caps couldn't dock was because of their size. For instance, a titan is as long as most stations are wide. Maybe allow them to couple (as opposed to docking) with the station. That way the ship is connected to the station and the pilot has access to station services, but the ship itself is attached to the outer hull of the station. The ship could still be attacked by other players, but it would count as an aggression towards the station as well as the pilot because attacking a ship that is coupled with the station could damage the station and places the inhabitants of the station at an obvious risk. That way even if the ship coupled with the station is a legal target, the attacking pilots will have to wait for the ship to uncouple unless they want to be attacked by station guns.
Then again, I don't really know anything about super caps, so my idea might sound completely ********. It was just an idea that I pulled out of my ass as an alternative to trying to shove a ship that is half the size of a station into a station. The deer can get it right. What's YOUR problem? |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
The whole "the ship is bigger than the station" argument is not valid, or else how would jita 4-4 CNAP exist? |
Wolf Incaelum
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 19:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:The whole "the ship is bigger than the station" argument is not valid, or else how would jita 4-4 CNAP exist?
I don't know what CNAP is. Lol. I just always thought that the reason super caps couldn't dock at a station was literally because they are too big. Althought, since you mention Jita 4-4, I suppose the argument WOULD be invalid because of the number players allowed to dock at the station. I'm sure the total size of all the ships docked at any given moment is probably pretty close to the size of a super cap, if not more. The deer can get it right. What's YOUR problem? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4149
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 20:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Wolf Incaelum wrote:I always thought that the reason super caps couldn't dock was because of their size. For instance, a titan is as long as most stations are wide. Maybe allow them to couple (as opposed to docking) with the station. That way the ship is connected to the station and the pilot has access to station services, but the ship itself is attached to the outer hull of the station. The ship could still be attacked by other players, but it would count as an aggression towards the station as well as the pilot because attacking a ship that is coupled with the station could damage the station and places the inhabitants of the station at an obvious risk. That way even if the ship coupled with the station is a legal target, the attacking pilots will have to wait for the ship to uncouple unless they want to be attacked by station guns.
Then again, I don't really know anything about super caps, so my idea might sound completely ********. It was just an idea that I pulled out of my ass as an alternative to trying to shove a ship that is half the size of a station into a station.
Nullsec outposts don't have station guns, and it is trivial to tank even deathstar POS's with any sizeable force. Essentially, the "docked supercap"would be a death sentence the moment a hostile noticed the super.
Inside a XLSMA is the optimal solution for "docking" supers. They are still at risk there, as a POS can be destroyed. However, they are protected by the POS FF (as long as the POS is fueled), they require a upkeep charge (you have to fuel the POS), and the assets can still escape an assault on the POS (they can access the SMA while the tower is in RF, and then may log out inside the POS FF (or cyno out if it isn't bubbled).
The only reason it isn't more common practice is because it is hard to make POS assets "safe". Just ask any WH resident. Directors, the CEO, and anyone with the right/wrong access may take the supercap out of the SMA, not to mention anywone with Config Strarbase Equipment may offline the POS making the XLSMA an easy-to-destroy target. Finally, anyone with fuel roles may simply remove the tower's fuel, so it goes offline and exposes the XLSMA to direct fire.
In contrast, there is very little downsides to storing your super inside a station, especially an NPC station. It's essentially 100% safe there: No one can steal it. No one can destroy it. You don't have to worry about upkeep. You can instant travel to it (via jump clones) whenever you want to use it. In station, you could also contract it (for safe sales), trade it, and even insure it. Of course every supercap pilot likes these benefits, especially because they sacrifice NOTHING to gain them.
If CCP wants to continue making owning and operating a supercap difficult and dangerous, then the only compromise is to utilize XLSMA's and update Corporate roles to enhance security on these POS's. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 20:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
Or they can allow supers to dock so that strategically storing your ships actually matter with the jump changes? If you can get the jump on a station with supers docked, you could completely remove them from whatever objective you're trying to accomplish. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2331
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 20:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nope. For all the reasons Gizznitt mentions. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 20:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
When is the last time a super has been killed in a pos CSAA that wasn't being built, or killed in a pos other than being exploit bumped? Especially once the jump changes hit and you can't immediately send a super fleet across the map to kill one? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4152
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 21:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:When is the last time a super has been killed in a pos CSAA that wasn't being built, or killed in a pos other than being exploit bumped? Especially once the jump changes hit and you can't immediately send a super fleet across the map to kill one?
First off, the ONLY way a super can be killed in a CSAA is while it is being built. After the CSAA finishes, it is delivered to a CSMA (aka XLSMA).
Two supers were caught in an XL SMA around 3 weeks ago.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 21:13:00 -
[19] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:When is the last time a super has been killed in a pos CSAA that wasn't being built, or killed in a pos other than being exploit bumped? Especially once the jump changes hit and you can't immediately send a super fleet across the map to kill one? First off, the ONLY way a super can be killed in a CSAA is while it is being built. After the CSAA finishes, it is delivered to a CSMA (aka XLSMA). Two supers were caught in an XL SMA around 3 weeks ago.
Referring to an offline tower that had stuff killed in it is hardly justification for keeping supers in a POS. Elite pvp right there |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4152
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 21:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:When is the last time a super has been killed in a pos CSAA that wasn't being built, or killed in a pos other than being exploit bumped? Especially once the jump changes hit and you can't immediately send a super fleet across the map to kill one? First off, the ONLY way a super can be killed in a CSAA is while it is being built. After the CSAA finishes, it is delivered to a CSMA (aka XLSMA). Two supers were caught in an XL SMA around 3 weeks ago. Referring to an offline tower that had stuff killed in it is hardly justification for keeping supers in a POS. Elite pvp right there
You asked when the last time a super was killed in a POS CSMA. Obviously a super inside a POS storage facility isn't engaged in PvP. Maybe you should frame your question better, and explicitly state what information you are looking for.
How about you explain how docking supers in a station will result in more PvP? How about you explain why super's should gain the enormous list of benefits (direct transport to your stored super by Jump Clones, Insurance, Contracts and Station Trades, 100% safety, etc) that come wiht storing a super in a station, as opposed to a POS.
|
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
47
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 21:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
hmmm, I kinda of like the ideas and i kinda dont....depends on how they mesh together. So i will say this....remember the roadmap...CCP (hopefully really soon) is supposed to be revisiting Corp roles on their roadmap to player stargates. Otherwise, docking supers....saw a nyx undock once in jita..remember that one vets lol. 1.) would free up pilots for use and fun gameplay 2.) would get rid of the necessity of 3rd party sellers (poor Chribba's business meme)
as to the other ideas ive read.....well its a balance debate for allowing them to dock up.
+1 on the idea |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 21:56:00 -
[22] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You asked when the last time a super was killed in a POS CSMA. Obviously a super inside a POS storage facility isn't engaged in PvP. Maybe you should frame your question better, and explicitly state what information you are looking for.
How about you explain how docking supers in a station will result in more PvP? How about you explain why super's should gain the enormous list of benefits (direct transport to your stored super by Jump Clones, Insurance, Contracts and Station Trades, 100% safety, etc) that come wiht storing a super in a station, as opposed to a POS.
Sorry, I should have clarified "killed in an online or sieged POS". It didn't matter that two supers were killed in an offline csma- those could have been any arbitrary assets in the POS that would have been destroyed.
Docking supers in a a station allows those pilots to engage in combat in other ships, when they would have not done so otherwise. Most fights in eve are at the subcap level, so excluding pilots from the majority of fights in the game does not help things explode.
I suggested a drawback (a substantial aggression timer) to accompany the ability to dock. Addressing your concerns specifically: -We can already jump to the station in system with our stored super in the CSMA (if this was a common occurrence). Undock, instawarp interceptor to the POS, board your super. Docking would not change that line of events. -If CCP does not want supers insured, then they could just set the insurance levels low like the old t2 ship insurance. If supers could be insured, they may even be used in combat more and die more often, because there would be less isk loss to the owner. -Supers are one of the few items that can't be contracted and traded already, I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Do you do super scams that you're afraid will no longer be possible? -I don't understand your 100% safety comment. Ships in a station are only 100% safe if they stay docked. With upcoming changes to medical clones and jump drives, people will have to seriously consider where they store their assets. If someone were to attack a territory and keep all of their supers docked in one station, then the defending force could camp that station and control the war as long as a camp is maintained (and vice versa). |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
2331
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 22:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
"Hey guys, I have a great idea. Let's make it easier to own a super."
No. Get rekt. In fact, ALL supers should get rekt. They're a blight on this game, and they always have been. You sir, over there. Yes you. You are a blight. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
2785
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 22:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
See: Malkalen Incident. "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"-á |
Sigras
Conglomo
947
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 23:20:00 -
[25] - Quote
The fact that super caps can only be docked in POSs is the only thing that is going to make the long distance travel nerf interesting.
5 Titans per POS or 10 supercarriers per POS is going to mean very clear staging systems with 3-4 separate moons just for CSMAs If you can dock them, they'll be just like the other 100% safe items in game.
They should be alliance level assets and require alliance level logistics. |
Sigras
Conglomo
948
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 23:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:-I don't understand your 100% safety comment. Ships in a station are only 100% safe if they stay docked. With upcoming changes to medical clones and jump drives, people will have to seriously consider where they store their assets. If someone were to attack a territory and keep all of their supers docked in one station, then the defending force could camp that station and control the war as long as a camp is maintained (and vice versa). the point is that in low sec you cannot camp a station to prevent a cap ship from leaving. It will simply cyno out before its invulnerability timer runs out.
If it required a CSMA then at least you could RF the tower which means you could RF their towers to provoke a necessary response and then attack them elsewhere when their towers come out of RF. This vulnerability does not exist when you can dock super caps.
Also you could theoretically dock an unlimited number of super caps in a station but only 5 titans or 10 super carriers can dock in a POS and then only if the POS is amarr with absolutely no defenses.
This means huge numbers of POSs would be required to maintain multiple super cap caches which is how it should be. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 03:08:00 -
[27] - Quote
No the Titans or Supercarriers docking in stations.
I do support owners being able to reprocess them at 66% efficiency if they don't want them anymore.
|
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
375
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 03:22:00 -
[28] - Quote
But then I wonder which is easier to implement, docking supers or fixing corp roles? For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13632
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 03:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:-I don't understand your 100% safety comment. Ships in a station are only 100% safe if they stay docked. With upcoming changes to medical clones and jump drives, people will have to seriously consider where they store their assets. If someone were to attack a territory and keep all of their supers docked in one station, then the defending force could camp that station and control the war as long as a camp is maintained (and vice versa). the point is that in low sec you cannot camp a station to prevent a cap ship from leaving. It will simply cyno out before its invulnerability timer runs out. If it required a CSMA then at least you could RF the tower which means you could RF their towers to provoke a necessary response and then attack them elsewhere when their towers come out of RF. This vulnerability does not exist when you can dock super caps. Also you could theoretically dock an unlimited number of super caps in a station but only 5 titans or 10 super carriers can dock in a POS and then only if the POS is amarr with absolutely no defenses. This means huge numbers of POSs would be required to maintain multiple super cap caches which is how it should be.
Just to point out.
Sov is changing to an occupational system in the near future which means the CFC will likely be reduced to just holding deklein. There isn't enough room to store all of the supers/titans in a POS network of just 80 systems. There really isn't any reason to not give these ships some sort of station to dock in anymore. They arn't special, they are not rare and we already have huge stockpiles of them. Plus CCP want to make stations destructable. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4157
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 03:32:00 -
[30] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sigras wrote:Mr Omniblivion wrote:-I don't understand your 100% safety comment. Ships in a station are only 100% safe if they stay docked. With upcoming changes to medical clones and jump drives, people will have to seriously consider where they store their assets. If someone were to attack a territory and keep all of their supers docked in one station, then the defending force could camp that station and control the war as long as a camp is maintained (and vice versa). the point is that in low sec you cannot camp a station to prevent a cap ship from leaving. It will simply cyno out before its invulnerability timer runs out. If it required a CSMA then at least you could RF the tower which means you could RF their towers to provoke a necessary response and then attack them elsewhere when their towers come out of RF. This vulnerability does not exist when you can dock super caps. Also you could theoretically dock an unlimited number of super caps in a station but only 5 titans or 10 super carriers can dock in a POS and then only if the POS is amarr with absolutely no defenses. This means huge numbers of POSs would be required to maintain multiple super cap caches which is how it should be. Just to point out. Sov is changing to an occupational system in the near future which means the CFC will likely be reduced to just holding deklein. There isn't enough room to store all of the supers/titans in a POS network of just 80 systems. There really isn't any reason to not give these ships some sort of station to dock in anymore. They arn't special, they are not rare and we already have huge stockpiles of them. Plus CCP want to make stations destructable.
If and when CCP provides destructable stations, then we can talk about docking supercaps in them. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13632
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 04:05:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If and when CCP provides destructable stations, then we can talk about docking supercaps in them.
Or we can just let them dock already. Seriously, what exactly do we gain from forcing them to be permanently in space and manned by a high SP pilot? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
13021
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 08:26:00 -
[32] - Quote
A super is a risky ship the way it currently is handled, a good risk imo. Allowing them to dock, not only do you remove that risk but you also transfer the risk of the ship in essence only to the production of it. Allowing them to dock should in that case also come with the ability to build them risk-free in a station.
Obviously it would also kill the business I'm in, the fact that 3rd partying became a thing is a very neat outcome of the sandbox and the result of supers not being able to dock so that type of profession would be remove/very limited with allowing them to be docked too.
However, I am fine with allowing them to dock (and get insured or whatever) - but in order to keep my profession (and all that amazing ISK obviously! ), preventing supers to be traded, put on market, contracted, stored in hangar divisions etc would allow the pilots to roam around doing things while at the same time still need people like myself to actually get them traded.
That could be an option of interest even to me.
/c
|
|
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
278
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 09:48:00 -
[33] - Quote
I flew a Hel for two months before tiring of the 'space coffin' thing. Having the ship be both super powerful and super gimped does not constitute game balance. If these things are allowed to dock, they'll have to be nerfed a bit too, such as getting rid of total ewar immunity etc. But I wouldn't bother flying one again unless I *could* dock so +1 X |
Vittoria Keen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 10:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
Chribba wrote:A super is a risky ship the way it currently is handled, a good risk imo. Allowing them to dock, not only do you remove that risk but you also transfer the risk of the ship in essence only to the production of it. Allowing them to dock should in that case also come with the ability to build them risk-free in a station. Obviously it would also kill the business I'm in, the fact that 3rd partying became a thing is a very neat outcome of the sandbox and the result of supers not being able to dock so that type of profession would be remove/very limited with allowing them to be docked too. However, I am fine with allowing them to dock (and get insured or whatever) - but in order to keep my profession (and all that amazing ISK obviously! ), preventing supers to be traded, put on market, contracted, stored in hangar divisions etc would allow the pilots to roam around doing things while at the same time still need people like myself to actually get them traded. That could be an option of interest even to me. /c
i agree with this allow them to dock for refitting and things but do not allow them to be traded, insured,sold on market, contracted,
also to make things more intresting only allow them to dock in SOV null, CCP should create a module for ihubs like the one needed to build them for storing them and there should also be a extra module for the station its self allowing them to be stored, however make it so this module means there cannot be other modules installed like medical centres (no JC installing) or offices (no corp hangers) make it so that if people want to use a station to dock there super then that is basically the whole purpose of that station and nothing more, |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 17:29:00 -
[35] - Quote
Vittoria Keen wrote: i agree with this allow them to dock for refitting and things but do not allow them to be traded, insured,sold on market, contracted,
also to make things more intresting only allow them to dock in SOV null, CCP should create a module for ihubs like the one needed to build them for storing them and there should also be a extra module for the station its self allowing them to be stored, however make it so this module means there cannot be other modules installed like medical centres (no JC installing) or offices (no corp hangers) make it so that if people want to use a station to dock there super then that is basically the whole purpose of that station and nothing more,
This is an incredibly amazing idea. The ability to dock could be a sov item that must be online in order to dock or undock the supers. That would cost the alliance isk maintenance, provoke PVP opportunities, and still allow people to own supers without dedicating one highly skilled pilot to the coffin. The vast majority of supers won't be stored in a POS because the roles are so messed up and leaves the corp open to eazy, huge, theft.
I'm fine with not being able to trade them or contract them in a station, as well as not being able to insure them at 100% (although I don't think insurance is a bad idea on them). |
Juan Thang
Old American Syndicate Silent Infinity
31
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:05:00 -
[36] - Quote
Im sorry, but this would require a rework of every station model. So that the titan doesn't engulf the station when undocking. |
Anthar Thebess
772
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:13:00 -
[37] - Quote
No. Those ships will be already overpowered after jump drive nerf. You could easily drop super fleet on every station defensive timer, and repair station, while enemy fleet is shooting you. If you are low on armor, dock, click repair, undock.
This could also raise multiple other issues. Supers will be more than fine after those changes.
New Gate Connections in EVE! Support idea for new gates that will make some more places to thrive. |
Anthar Thebess
773
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:29:00 -
[38] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If and when CCP provides destructable stations, then we can talk about docking supercaps in them.
Or we can just let them dock already. Seriously, what exactly do we gain from forcing them to be permanently in space and manned by a high SP pilot?
Most of the people use holder alts. So you train alt that have 6-7mln sp and if sits in the super while high SP pilot do other stuff.
Now when you have multi character training this is even more easy.
New Gate Connections in EVE! Support idea for new gates that will make some more places to thrive. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
319
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 12:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Querns wrote:An alternate way to solve the undock games would be to only allow supercaps to dock at conquerable 0.0 stations. Note this is not the same thing as a player-built outpost -- conquerable stations are the three stations that are seeded in every conquerable 0.0 region. For example, Deklein's conqs are VFK, 3JN9, and CZD. Currently, these stations are completely useless, having been long-obsoleted by Crius. Giving them the ability to moor supercaps would make them hugely relevant again. I like this idea.
However, I wonder if we should be thinking in terms of regions... In the days I was involved in Sov warfare and so forth, the majority of sov holders were working on a constellation basis (if nothing else it meant you were never more than half a dozen jumps from good fights) with much smaller alliances. Only the really big groups held entire regions. If things head in that direction again (and I hope that they do) then such limited access could lead to coallitions building around those recourses. Far from becoming a conflict driver their rarity could actually limit conflict. I would also suggest that the ability to withdraw such assets from the conflict zone would be important, giving alliances the ability to pull out strategic assets to "fight another day" if null becomes a lot more fluid. I would therefore suggest that NPC stations, perhaps even specific types of NPC station, would also be valuable additions... Perhaps, for outposts, a station service platform could be added which allows "Careening" of Supers (no access to Fitting, Repairshop...etc) at a significant cost to other station services... |
WILLY TROPICAL
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:00:00 -
[40] - Quote
Everything is OP for Anthar Tebess except his ratting carriers. |
|
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
76
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:08:29 -
[41] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Once Phoebe hits, the lore/mechanic justification that was in place to prevent capitals/supers from taking gates will be void. This is now the time to allow supers to dock. I'm not going into a long winded post about why this is a good idea, but here are a few points:
- Super pilots are effectively trapped in their space coffin
- Supers see significantly less combat than subcapitals. When they are deployed, they rarely explode.
- Forcing supers to park in POS really doesn't lead to much more combat, outside of the rare instance of a bumped titan
- Jump fatigue makes it so supers can't bounce between stations to regen capacitor
Having so much EHP would lead to supers being able to undock and play station games, then lose aggression and redock without real risk of dying. In order to prevent this from being abused, docking rights should come with a 10-15 minute timer specifically prohibiting docking for supers, only caused by pvp aggression. If supers aggress on the undock, they would be unable to dock for 10-15 minutes. Give us more options to engage in PVP rather than locking characters in ships that are stuck in space. Edit: This has been brought up before, but this is considering new information from the upcoming Phoebe patch, so it is not simply a repeat thread.
+1
And about the docking it think the idea from HIC therd is good, if ship is pointed by HIC it can't dock. problem solved \o/
and not only supers, all of the ships. |
Anthar Thebess
777
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:40:33 -
[42] - Quote
WILLY TROPICAL wrote:Everything is OP for Anthar Tebess except his ratting carriers. I don't rat in carriers.
New Gate Connections in EVE!
Support idea for new gates that will make some more places to thrive.
|
Anthar Thebess
777
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 13:41:49 -
[43] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:
And about the docking it think the idea from HIC therd is good, if ship is pointed by HIC it can't dock. problem solved \o/
and not only supers, all of the ships.
Remote ECM Burst , 1 jamming ship if something is going bad?
New Gate Connections in EVE!
Support idea for new gates that will make some more places to thrive.
|
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
318
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:02:17 -
[44] - Quote
I have no Qualms with supercarriers being able to dock so long as there is some way to stop this from turning into Null sec undock shenanigans or even low sec. I don't think anyone wants to deal with that so my suggestion would be once a super docks and undocks it can't dock again for I dunno an hour or two maybe even a day. And i did like the suggestion about the conquerable stations only as well so that could work.
Either way no undock games and im chill with it
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:33:09 -
[45] - Quote
Undock games are the explicit reason I suggested to implement a long aggression timer for docking with Supers. A 10-15 minute aggression timer would mean that a super would have to stop all aggression for 10-15 minutes before being able to dock up and do anything. |
Christopher Mabata
Dominion Tenebrarum Reverberation Project
318
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 14:36:40 -
[46] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Undock games are the explicit reason I suggested to implement a long aggression timer for docking with Supers. A 10-15 minute aggression timer would mean that a super would have to stop all aggression for 10-15 minutes before being able to dock up and do anything.
yeah i was just re-iterating my opinion that was virtually the same as yours, just a bit harsher
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
792
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:01:47 -
[47] - Quote
You run into a significant issue of capital seeding. Actually you exasperate it by 1000X.
Currently Supercapitals are regulated by both the number of accounts that can fly them, and by the storage method for them (being more stored by alt players than in pos's). You allow storage of them in stations, then it basically turns into another arms race of storing massive amounts of supercapitals in seeded stations. It is already currently being done with Carriers and Dreadnoughts. You want to add on the ability to seed Supercapitals in strategic stations all over New Eden?
Currently, if the person has 1 account, they can potentially have 3 capitals (one per character), and they run the significant risk of storing extra capitals in a POS (which most people probably will not do in any-type of front-line areas).
You allow docking privileges, you allow the person to double, triple, quadruple, quintuple their super-capital stash with no limit or regulation regarding the amount they could have. You run into multiple problematic scenarios.
1) Every 5 lightyears, in a station, is a stash of multiple super-capitals ready to drop on any location as needed, to be assigned to any pilot as needed, to be used as needed (the limiting factor isn't the jump drive, its now the player jump clone). This pretty much negates and removes the entire purpose of jump fatigue and the Light year range changes.
2) You make some stations completely immune to being taken over (station under attack, undock 50 supercapitals, as each goes down, undock a new supercapital to replace it. Yes this is ridiculously expensive, but people would gladly do it especially if it was a coalition expense).
3) Insurance. You create a method of throwaway supercapitals (we already have throwaway dreads for ganking supers, etc).
Presently, ingame, there is an artificial limit on super-capitals, and it is based on the number of alts a pilot has. They have to have someone to fly/logoff in the thing to make it a secure asset.
You allow them to dock, you blow the only limiting factor on the amount of super-capitals a player can own on both a personal player level and a alliance/coalition level.
Yaay!!!!
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 15:19:43 -
[48] - Quote
You are suggesting that we would stock up an unknown number of supers in stations, but because we currently have to use holding alts, that it's too expensive? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Also, if a coalition is stocking up on trillions of isk worth of supers in multiple stations, that is trillions of isk worth of sunk cash that provides very limited value to the coalition. I would argue that the trillions of isk worth of stockpiled supers would be more valuable distributed as regular SRP to keep all of our tens of thousands of pilots in a combat capable ship across multiple points in the warzone. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
792
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 18:52:49 -
[49] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:You are suggesting that we would stock up an unknown number of supers in stations, but because we currently have to use holding alts, that it's too expensive? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Also, if a coalition is stocking up on trillions of isk worth of supers in multiple stations, that is trillions of isk worth of sunk cash that provides very limited value to the coalition. I would argue that the trillions of isk worth of stockpiled supers would be more valuable distributed as regular SRP to keep all of our tens of thousands of pilots in a combat capable ship across multiple points in the warzone.
I'm suggesting Everybody would stock up on unknown numbers of supers in stations... everywhere.
There would be no limiting factor on the amount of supers one person or one group could control except for the speed of its production (which most are just straight-out bought from producers).
Currently a person or group can only have as many supers as they have pilots, else they risk them by storing them at towers which have their own set of issues (constant fueling, open targets, forgetting to stront, abandoned, theft, roles, etc). Allowing Supers to dock would be removing that controlling check in the game.
If you want to use a legion of holding alts, no one is stopping you, but each of those alts has a holding person behind it, be it a active member, or a director/ceo storage account for backup supers. Is storing supers on alts or in POS's the best option, I don't believe it is.
But neither is storing them in indestructible stations.
Yaay!!!!
|
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
3697
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 19:25:18 -
[50] - Quote
Also consider the size of supers in comparison to stations. **** wouldn't make sense.
I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Demon your parents warned you about.
||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Tug-class Vessel||
|
|
Mharius Skjem
Republic University Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 19:42:50 -
[51] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
If and when CCP provides destructable stations, then we can talk about docking supercaps in them.
Or we can just let them dock already. Seriously, what exactly do we gain from forcing them to be permanently in space and manned by a high SP pilot?
Why don't you just say 'Goons uber alles'
Your such a fan boy.
A recovering btter vet, -áwith a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 20:42:15 -
[52] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:Also consider the size of supers in comparison to stations. **** wouldn't make sense.
Also consider Jita 4-4- there is more stuff in there than anywhere else in the game combined. Where do you think all of the minerals to build supers comes from? |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
38
|
Posted - 2014.10.17 23:27:03 -
[53] - Quote
"Guys I bought this ship and it was expensive so it must be better at all things but it has this downside can you remove this downside so it's even better!"
Maybe after the capital ship rebalance, but not in their current state. Supercarriers and titans are way too powerful right now to remove one of their only real downsides. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 19:54:56 -
[54] - Quote
Bumping the ability to dock/undock supers in conjunction with a sov upgrade or module that coordinates super docking. Disabling it prevents docking (or undocking) of supers. |
Gel Musana
LOL a Sticky Situation
39
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 20:48:56 -
[55] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
- Super pilots are effectively trapped in their space coffin
- Supers see significantly less combat than subcapitals. When they are deployed, they rarely explode.
- Forcing supers to park in POS really doesn't lead to much more combat, outside of the rare instance of a bumped titan
- Jump fatigue makes it so supers can't bounce between stations to regen capacitor
You should have thought about it before getting into it. Any regrets? Super is a choice, a way of EVE life. Why would rule change for you? You don't like it, give me your stuff .
Ideology -ás-h-i-t -álist
https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Gel%20Musana
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1335
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 20:56:25 -
[56] - Quote
I'm not against the idea but I think there should be something put into place to make sure there is no way to amke cache of the things in different part of the galaxy just a clone jump away. Everybody know the price of the things didn't work to keep them rare so thinking that now their cost would prevent people from stockpiling them in more than one forward base is just as silly. The jump drive changes are meant to make capital movement and their location a real strategic decision and being able to just board another ship of the exact same class because it's in another station is a stupid way to work against that.
I know people hate timers/status effect but the history of EVE show us this would be used unless it's it prevented by a hard rule. Something preventing you from boarding a new super unless the previous one was not boarded for X time OR was destroyed for example.
I could remove my request for such limitation only if it gets proven that such usage would be useless. How hard something is to implement is completely irrelevant because we know people will walk 100 miles uphill in the snow while juggling chainsaw in a meteor shower if there is a benefit at the end of it. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 21:00:45 -
[57] - Quote
The Cache/Jump Clone argument really doesn't stick here. Every major coalition is consolidating with this upcoming patch already, and locking up trillions of isk worth of additional assets to stockpile supers is a really bad idea. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
141
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 21:42:51 -
[58] - Quote
While personally i would love beeing able to dock supers, so that i can finally buy one and not feel like wasting a lot of time/character potential balance wise and i do not think it a generally good idea.
Undocking games: With Supers capable of docking, you would get a whole new meta in the docking games, where station games and escape mechanics would be increadibly difficult to manage. Although certain good problem solutions would exist, eg extra long docking timers for supers, the inability to deagress within docking range of a station or infinate points makeing you unable to dock, the save storage of such supers would make the sovereign warfare even more inflexible as it is now. With supers beeing able to be stored inside a station, eg only one day of successfull claiming a station could mean to hundreds of supers beeing stationed in a normally hostile station. Such logoff tactics can potentially ruin the game.
This mechanic however could, be cirumvented with a new, rather unpleasent mechanic for super capitals. Allow supers only to dock in player constructed (conquerable) stations. If the Station is captured, All of the supers inside are captured as well. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |