EVE Search - Capital Ships in High Sec

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Capital Ships in High Sec

» 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)
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 192	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:07:13 - [1] - Quote Please allow. Do not allow cynos in high sec. Do not allow sieging, triage, or industrial core activation in high sec. Do not allow super capitals in high sec. Make adjustments to carriers to prevent their combat abilities from being used without some kind of siege mode (that won't be allowed in high sec). With this in place, let us move our caps around via gate travel in high sec.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14324	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:15:51 - [2] - Quote If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 193	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:22:59 - [3] - Quote baltec1 wrote: If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Nothing would be nerfed except the carriers, which need nerfing completely apart from any issue of high sec. The concept of unbridled firepower outside of a siege mode is the realm of the super cap. That carriers have monstrous power without a siege is fundamentally unbalanced anyway. It's why I have been on tower repping ops with the carriers boot fit. I think carriers should be given an extra high slot and be allowed to fit siege modules and require that the module be active in order to use drone cone control units and get drone number bonuses from the racial carrier skill. Dreads wouldn't be nerfed at all. Rorqs wouldn't be nerfed at all.
Catherine Laartii Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF 441	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:23:00 - [4] - Quote baltec1 wrote: If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Aside from the bit about the carriers, at no point did he ever say anything about nerfing them. Carriers aren't that OP anyway so it would be fine to allow them to field their fighters, I think.
Eldwinn SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel 227	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:24:32 - [5] - Quote Lol
Catherine Laartii Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF 441	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:25:48 - [6] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: baltec1 wrote: If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Nothing would be nerfed except the carriers, which need nerfing completely apart from any issue of high sec. The concept of unbridled firepower outside of a siege mode is the realm of the super cap. That carriers have monstrous power without a siege is fundamentally unbalanced anyway. It's why I have been on tower repping ops with the carriers boot fit. I think carriers should be given an extra high slot and be allowed to fit siege modules and require that the module be active in order to use drone cone control units and get drone number bonuses from the racial carrier skill. Dreads wouldn't be nerfed at all. Rorqs wouldn't be nerfed at all. Carriers are NOT overpowered. Fighter drones can be taken down like any other drones and are easy enough to tackle and avoid. Their dps isn't anything to write home about compared to a few cruisers. They also have the weakest tank in relation to other capitals, especially the minmatar and gallente ones.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14325	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:27:19 - [7] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: baltec1 wrote: If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Aside from the bit about the carriers, at no point did he ever say anything about nerfing them. Carriers aren't that OP anyway so it would be fine to allow them to field their fighters, I think. "Do not allow sieging, triage, or industrial core activation in high sec." Thats a big nerf to all capital classes. My point stands. Catherine Laartii wrote: Carriers are NOT overpowered. Fighter drones can be taken down like any other drones and are easy enough to tackle and avoid. Their dps isn't anything to write home about compared to a few cruisers. They also have the weakest tank in relation to other capitals, especially the minmatar and gallente ones. Clearly you have never faced a boot fleet. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 194	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:31:52 - [8] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: baltec1 wrote: If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Nothing would be nerfed except the carriers, which need nerfing completely apart from any issue of high sec. The concept of unbridled firepower outside of a siege mode is the realm of the super cap. That carriers have monstrous power without a siege is fundamentally unbalanced anyway. It's why I have been on tower repping ops with the carriers boot fit. I think carriers should be given an extra high slot and be allowed to fit siege modules and require that the module be active in order to use drone cone control units and get drone number bonuses from the racial carrier skill. Dreads wouldn't be nerfed at all. Rorqs wouldn't be nerfed at all. Carriers are NOT overpowered. Fighter drones can be taken down like any other drones and are easy enough to tackle and avoid. Their dps isn't anything to write home about compared to a few cruisers. They also have the weakest tank in relation to other capitals, especially the minmatar and gallente ones. Fighters aren't the problem. Sentries are. The brunt of the carrier obscenity was taken care of with Phoebe, since they can't be everywhere instantly. However, requiring that they siege is to me a good idea. If it's not to you, fine. That's not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is that caps should be allowed to move through highs secbut not be allowed to utilize their distinctive there. There could still be misuse. A dread outside of siege does DPS like a BS but would still have an amazing tank and could be used as a ratter (with insanely expensive ammo - would not be popular). But overall, my point is to lets caps in highest but clip their wings in highest. So they can be used as transport and be transported in high sec.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3627	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:35:53 - [9] - Quote Do you manufacture drones in high-sec by any chance, OP? Oh god.
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:36:14 - [10] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Catherine Laartii wrote: baltec1 wrote: If you have to savagely nerf them to allow them into high sec then they don't belong there in the first place. Aside from the bit about the carriers, at no point did he ever say anything about nerfing them. Carriers aren't that OP anyway so it would be fine to allow them to field their fighters, I think. "Do not allow sieging, triage, or industrial core activation in high sec." Thats a big nerf to all capital classes. My point stands. How is it a nerf? Caps cannot siege in high sec currently. Because they cannot go there. Allowing them to go there but not siege isn't a new. they are keeping their current inability to siege, lol. Just that they are able to relocate through high.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out 6881	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:36:52 - [11] - Quote 1. Do a search. This topic is redundant. 2. Really crunch the numbers behind capital ships. A dred without seige is useless (it deal battleship dps). A carrier using remote reps in any way will be overpowered (and without RR it is basically a heavily tanked drone battleship). Both ships using their capital local reps will be able to actively tank small fleets (even wothout Siege/Triage), and capital HP in general makes them unreasonably hard to gank (making the Bowhead and frieghter obsolete). If you want to use and move "special toys" then pay the penalty and be limited to certain areas of space. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. "How did you veterans start?"
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:38:02 - [12] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Do you manufacture drones in high-sec by any chance, OP? Not anymore. And when I did I just sold them in Jita. I just don't like 17 jump trips through low sec just to reposition my dread and I don't like having a dread in every region. And I'd like to use my carrier to haul my fitted ships. Screw the bowhead.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3627	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:40:00 - [13] - Quote Well if you still manufactured drones, you could also use your carrier to transport massive amounts of drones at no risk of being ganked, so that's another positive benefit to your idea. Oh god.
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:41:35 - [14] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Well if you still manufactured drones, you could also use your carrier to transport massive amounts of drones at no risk of being ganked, so that's another positive benefit to your idea. Well that would just break the game, wouldn't it. Drone builders would be so boss the Mitten would have to unsub.
Antillie Sa'Kan Forging Industries Silent Infinity 845	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:44:54 - [15] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Do not allow sieging, triage, or industrial core activation in high sec... Dreads wouldn't be nerfed at all. Oh man you are funny. Now go away.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14325	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:45:21 - [16] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: How is it a nerf? Caps cannot siege in high sec currently. Because they cannot go there. Allowing them to go there but not siege isn't a new. they are keeping their current inability to siege, lol. Just that they are able to relocate through high. Dreadnought goes from 10k DPS to 1700 and repping power is reduced by fivefold when it enters high sec. Thats a nerf. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Antillie Sa'Kan Forging Industries Silent Infinity 845	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:48:45 - [17] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Carriers are NOT overpowered. Fighter drones can be taken down like any other drones and are easy enough to tackle and avoid. Their dps isn't anything to write home about compared to a few cruisers. They also have the weakest tank in relation to other capitals, especially the minmatar and gallente ones. You really have no idea what fighters can do to subcaps do you?
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:50:23 - [18] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: How is it a nerf? Caps cannot siege in high sec currently. Because they cannot go there. Allowing them to go there but not siege isn't a new. they are keeping their current inability to siege, lol. Just that they are able to relocate through high. Dreadnought goes from 10k DPS to 1700 and repping power is reduced by fivefold when it enters high sec. Thats a nerf. As others have pointed out, caps would still be nigh ungankable. The point of letting them into high sec is to allow them to move through it. They should not be able to use their abilities in high sec. They are not being nerved. Currently a dread's DPS in high sec is zero. It can't go there.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3628	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:53:10 - [19] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: they can be used as transport and be transported in high sec. Paynus Maiassus wrote: caps would still be nigh ungankable Oh god.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14327	Posted - 2014.12.22 21:55:14 - [20] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: baltec1 wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: How is it a nerf? Caps cannot siege in high sec currently. Because they cannot go there. Allowing them to go there but not siege isn't a new. they are keeping their current inability to siege, lol. Just that they are able to relocate through high. Dreadnought goes from 10k DPS to 1700 and repping power is reduced by fivefold when it enters high sec. Thats a nerf. As others have pointed out, caps would still be nigh ungankable. The point of letting them into high sec is to allow them to move through it. They should not be able to use their abilities in high sec. They are not being nerfed. Currently a dread's DPS in high sec is zero. It can't go there. What part of a 80 to 90% decrease in firepower are you not getting here? You want to let them into high sec but you are having to savagly nerf them to do so. That alone shows they do not belong there. Christ, you even just admitted they would be ungankable, this alone breaks the balance in high sec transportation. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:03:03 - [21] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: baltec1 wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: How is it a nerf? Caps cannot siege in high sec currently. Because they cannot go there. Allowing them to go there but not siege isn't a new. they are keeping their current inability to siege, lol. Just that they are able to relocate through high. Dreadnought goes from 10k DPS to 1700 and repping power is reduced by fivefold when it enters high sec. Thats a nerf. As others have pointed out, caps would still be nigh ungankable. The point of letting them into high sec is to allow them to move through it. They should not be able to use their abilities in high sec. They are not being nerfed. Currently a dread's DPS in high sec is zero. It can't go there. What part of a 80 to 90% decrease in firepower are you not getting here? You want to let them into high sec but you are having to savagly nerf them to do so. That alone shows they do not belong there. Christ, you even just admitted they would be ungankable, this alone breaks the balance in high sec transportation. Alright I'm done trying to get through to you. In low and null they still function exactly as they do now. Therefore, they are not being nerfed. They would be getting an increased capability to move and transport through high sec. The Rorq would boost lousier than an Orca but would be an excellent ore hauler. Carriers would replace the Bowhead unless the Bowhead were made considerably cheaper or be given substantially more cargo capacity or be given a substantial warp speed increase or something to make them preferable to a carrier. Nerfing a cap in HIGH SEC does not mean nerfing a cap. It can still do everything it does now plus the ability to move through high. This is not a nerf. Marmites would be camping Jita in carriers because 5 fighters is still pretty nasty. Some individuals would still do sites in dreads because 1700 DPS is pretty impressive for high sec. Also, caps could be staged from high to cyno into low. All of these INCREASES in capability are the things that keep people from allowing caps in high. The trick is to reduce their capabilities in high enough to allow them there without unbalancing high. But ok, multiple posts to you have not gotten through so this is my last response to you.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14329	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:11:10 - [22] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Alright I'm done trying to get through to you. In low and null they still function exactly as they do now. Therefore, they are not being nerfed. You are reducing their firepower to the level of a battleship when in high sec. That's a REDUCTION, thus you have nerfed them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3629	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:12:06 - [23] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: The trick is to reduce their capabilities in high enough to allow them there without unbalancing high. You still have to explain how this is going to be possible. Oh god.
Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:16:08 - [24] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Marmites would be camping Jita in carriers because 5 fighters is still pretty nasty. 5 fighters realyy? that much you know about carriers?
Paranoid Loyd 3206	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:17:15 - [25] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You even just admitted they would be ungankable, this alone breaks the balance in high sec transportation. This is reason enough to not allow them. /Thread "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:17:28 - [26] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: The trick is to reduce their capabilities in high enough to allow them there without unbalancing high. You still have to explain how this is going to be possible. Well, the ideas in my OP are a start. Perhaps prevent them from activating any active module would do the trick.
Tragot Gomndor Three Sword Inc 62	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:17:55 - [27] - Quote NO... unless highsec caps are auto-suspect on jump in (sorry chribba) but better no... NONONONONONO TO CAPS IN HIGHSEC NO
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:18:50 - [28] - Quote Atomeon wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Marmites would be camping Jita in carriers because 5 fighters is still pretty nasty. 5 fighters realyy? that much you know about carriers? You didn't read my OP for the proposed carrier changes. I've encountered more stupidity in this thread than I have in a long time. ISD please lock.
Paranoid Loyd 3206	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:20:46 - [29] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: I've encountered more stupidity in this thread than I have in a long time. ISD please lock. Interesting, we were all thinking the same about your idea. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Paynus Maiassus UNITAS. Brave Collective 195	Posted - 2014.12.22 22:28:37 - [30] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: I've encountered more stupidity in this thread than I have in a long time. ISD please lock. Interesting, we were all thinking the same about your idea. Well if he's just going to assume I mentioned 5 fighters because I don't know that carriers can fit more than 5 fighters as they are now, he obviously didn't read my OP, which means he's stupid. Or worse, he read my OP but did not remember or did not understand it, which means he's even more stupid. So again, ISD, please lock the thread. After being told that allowing caps to move through high with reduced capabilities means they are being nerfed and then being accused of not knowing that carriers can launch more than 5 fighters there's obviously some serious deficits in comprehension here and the theme of the thread will not come to fore. I sometimes forget that most Eve players have not retained what they learned in 6th Grade English and are therefore unable to analyze a text for its meaning. So there's no point in continuing. Save me ISD.

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

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,04s, ref 20251004/1618
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.