These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

[Insert patch name here] Capitals in High Sec Allowed or not?

Author
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#21 - 2014-12-04 01:41:53 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
id rather this didnt happen, caps suck the fun out of EVE. But CCP said in a dev blog that they'd like it to, and with no restrictions would you believe.

I believe their exact words were "capitals are still not allowed to enter high-sec... but we might revisit this in the future."

Underlined the important word.

When someone says "might" it is usually a safe bet that they won't do it unless they have a compelling reason to... which there isn't. In fact, there are more compelling reasons to keep capitals OUT of high-sec.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#22 - 2014-12-04 01:55:10 UTC
Quote:
Gate movement

Carriers, dreadnoughts, supercarriers, titans and capital industrials can now use stargates, provided they do not lead into a highsec system.
We want to reduce the usage of jump drives (see below), but we don’t also want to lock ships into particular systems. We also want to encourage more gate-to-gate traffic and allow more ships to use gates!
We’d like to allow capitals into highsec without restriction in the future, but it’s a major change that is for a later time. For now, this maintains the status quo in highsec.


Source

Without restriction may mean just letting them use gates, or it may mean fully operational in hi-sec.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-12-04 01:57:39 UTC
I have been playing EVE with one toon or another since before 2004.

I remember capitals in high-sec, lol :)

Here goes, from a vet that's seen it all, done it all...


Motherships, or what they call supercarriers now a day, and Titans serve no purpose in high sec. Those are 'super' (well they used to be, now its a joke) weapons.

Dreads, i can't see the point of them in high sec.... POS bashing would be too easy, they can't really hit anything small with those capital weapons... leave them out.

Now carriers... those are interesting. Very multi-tasking ships, which have been gathering dust for quite sometime. Allow them in high-sec for logistic runs, force multiplier, etc.
Don't let them use smartbombs, triage and maybe even stop/nerf the usage of remote repairs/boosters.

Carriers would become the favorite ship and expensive cargo mover for high sec to low sec. They are a good force multiplier, and players have found roles for them time and over.

Been around since the beginning.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#24 - 2014-12-04 01:58:17 UTC
Interesting. But the wording is still vague and non-committal.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#25 - 2014-12-04 02:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
d0cTeR9 wrote:


Now carriers... Very multi-tasking ships,


Yep, too good in fact.

Quote:
Would become the favorite ship and expensive cargo mover


Because they are so powerful

Quote:
They are a good force multiplier, and players have found roles for them time and over.


Because they are so powerful

Quote:
which have been gathering dust for quite sometime.


Wait. What?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#26 - 2014-12-04 02:13:39 UTC
If Dreadnoughts and Carriers were allowed in, I'd suggest the following:

Capital Reps are deemed "illegal", much like smartbombs or other modules- using them would be a big no-no.

Siege Modules are also illegal- activating either of these types would result in a swift explosion.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#27 - 2014-12-04 02:58:43 UTC
OK just my opinion here but since you asked.

Allow all caps to transit through high sec only to make moving them around because of the new jump limitations seems to be a wise and appropriate thing to do. However alll modules that are offensive in nature or that can be used for remote rep or boosting should be disabled allowing for purely defensive module activation only. Why, I have seen what a single carrier flown by a good pilot can do and that level of damage and tanking would be impossible for all but the largest of the high sec corps/alliances to deal with. This would turn high sec into a virtually risk free killing zone for cap ship pilots.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#28 - 2014-12-04 03:12:58 UTC
Nothing actually is currently coded to stop capitals using their abilities in high sec (Except for DD).
It runs on the honour system and only works because of how few exist in high sec.

So any 'limiting' of what they can do in highsec will require additional coding.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-12-04 04:55:39 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Assuming T2 guns and all Vs, it'd take 103 tornados to gank my carrier in it's standard fit, with them all shooting into my resist hole and all doing max damage.

That's enough ISK in tornados to buy five carriers. And that's just on the hull price.

Bearing that in mind, how, exactly, do you figure that ganking one would even be possible in highsec outside of special events?

Type of logic I like, want to destroy my stuff you have to take a huge loss...good thing 99% of EVE is so risk adverse they have to fly so cheap to avoid a loss and CCP won't even touch destroyers (really, removing a gun or two wouldn't be over nerfing them that badly or coding them to stop making short range guns so OP cause they fire so fast...weird how destroyers lost their 50% rate of fire and suddenly the fast rate of fire gun is preferred Ugh). If I am stupid enough to activate a capital module that allows you to shoot back or CONCORD to instant pop me (would have to finally code this part, basically I could equip tank mods and guns but to activate the guns or remote reps...you get the idea what would happen), I take a huge loss...other wise I am sitting around in space doing nothing but transiting from one point to the other. Not everyone cares for huge power blows, but having a dread or carrier would be fun and players would respond in kind should I use it against them....sensor damping/jamming EWAR already says dreads are useless against NPC, and surprise surprise they are massive over kill in any level 4 (level 5 being already fixed locations and already well known, good thing probing is so easy level 5 agents are so lonely know unless your corp locks down the area) with Incursions already focused to often in highsec for "public" raids that they cause massive shout out, like a million deaths and where suddenly silenced Roll on the forums. Carriers on the other hand....yeah, they are the known factor with assign fighter except for someone saying they are blocked by gates..on the other hand if they could also use bombers but restricted to just 5 or Geckos where a racial class of drone instead of a type with 50m of bandwidth each.

CCP just needs to go one way, balls out and remove all caps with Chribba taking it over the barrel. No one should be given particular dispensation, but the player base keeps telling CCP how the player base should be treated....so damn weird Roll. Think the entire game needs to go hard core mode with full SP loss and no med clones, then get back to "remove level 4s or nerf Incursion income" cause some people can't seem to compete in an Everybody vs Everybody game where somebody is getting excluded Lol
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#30 - 2014-12-04 05:02:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Capital reps would make ganking large ehp ships impossible, dreads would make it impossible for small corps to protect their POS, station games with carriers, jita undock blockaded with a boot fleet making undocking a freighter an hour long ordeal of bumping into one carrier then the next.

Something to look forward to with the next Burn Jita...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-12-04 08:08:38 UTC
I'd like to see certain high-traffic lanes which would allow capital ships and would also jump ships longer distances per stargate. Then I would disallow capital movement through any low-traffic gates regardless of their security level.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#32 - 2014-12-05 02:48:27 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Nothing actually is currently coded to stop capitals using their abilities in high sec (Except for DD).
It runs on the honour system and only works because of how few exist in high sec.


Then before they are allowed into high sec they will have to change the code. Since they will have to change code anyway to even allow caps into high sec I do not see an issue with this.

Under the current systems in the game if those few combat capable cap ships decided to start flexing their muscles you can bet that CCP would stop them pretty damn quickly.
Vapor Ventrillian
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-12-05 02:54:58 UTC
It would be good for the noobs to see the bigger ships floating around and blasting each other in deuls...id love it Twisted

Plus one from me

The Evil Overlord of Scope, self elected as all good overlords should be

Jacid
Corvix.
#34 - 2014-12-05 03:57:17 UTC
Caps in high sec is a good idea .. and about time its done. The only limitation i would say is that caps should have is that cynos can still not be lit in high sec.

I could agree with keeping supers and titans out for the time being

As to the balance of carriers I say just require that in order to fly a carrier in high sec you can't be in an NPC corp and then let wardecs take care of the rest.

As to dreads i'm not worried about their ability to take down a tower, a properly flown tower can neut out a dread and see it ended in addition using a dread would require a wardec which should give the tower owners a chance to properly defend.

As to station games I haven't done it myself but doesn't a macharel bump a carrier off station pretty easily if its aggressed?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#35 - 2014-12-05 04:11:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Jacid wrote:
Caps in high sec is a good idea .. and about time its done. The only limitation i would say is that caps should have is that cynos can still not be lit in high sec.

I could agree with keeping supers and titans out for the time being

As to the balance of carriers I say just require that in order to fly a carrier in high sec you can't be in an NPC corp and then let wardecs take care of the rest.

As to dreads i'm not worried about their ability to take down a tower, a properly flown tower can neut out a dread and see it ended in addition using a dread would require a wardec which should give the tower owners a chance to properly defend.

As to station games I haven't done it myself but doesn't a macharel bump a carrier off station pretty easily if its aggressed?


what makes you think there will be one carrier and one dread? They will blot out the sun...

a corp that uses 6 guardians for station games can use 6 carriers and then cyno them out to a safe station if they eventually get bumped out of rep range.

an what makes you think everyone has a mach to bump with? bearing in mind a significant portion of corps decced are industrial and low SP/experience corps. it makes it even harder for poor noobs to effectively counter richer, more skilled and experienced players.

edit- Space highways are something i've liked in the past and could be a suitable allowance for caps. but something in the back of my mind is telling me theres a good reason we dont have more space highways....

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Eric Shang
Black Layer Syndicate
Pan-Intergalatic Business Community
#36 - 2014-12-05 11:24:13 UTC
The problem you have is the amount of code needed to make this happen.

Can you emagine the code for allowing just a module to work in null and then low but not in High?

Recode (Capital Reppers, Capital Guns, Siege Module)

Then calculate all the changes suggested above.

Its mental

I think the way Capitals are now is perfectly fine.

Keep them in Low and Null.

Ex Pirate - Now a reborn priest for Faith Singularity

My Pirate Journey: http://ericshangthepirate.wordpress.com/

Lars Erlkonig
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
#37 - 2014-12-05 12:26:10 UTC
Eric Shang wrote:
The problem you have is the amount of code needed to make this happen.

Can you emagine the code for allowing just a module to work in null and then low but not in High?

Recode (Capital Reppers, Capital Guns, Siege Module)

Then calculate all the changes suggested above.

Its mental

I think the way Capitals are now is perfectly fine.

Keep them in Low and Null.



That code restriction already exists for dictor bubbles, doomsdays, cynos, POS module anchoring, and a few other things. Might require re-jiggering the item attributes, but some of it is already in place. For example, you cannot assign fighters in a 0.4 sec system.

Allowing caps to transverse high sec, but not use reps, remote reps, drones, triage, doomsdays, (gang links?,) or siege might allow them the limited functionality they need to transverse high sec without disrupting the high sec balance. If you can turn capitals into orcas at best, slow shuttles at worst, I'm ok with them moving through the high sec space lanes, as the current penalties for jumping around, while necessary, are quite harmful to general travel. I'm sure the briefer war decs of null sec alliances would love the added KM's, and those alliances and pilots that can safely navigate through HS would appreciate the opportunity to bypass some awful low sec routes they now have to traverse.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#38 - 2014-12-05 16:07:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
What I'd propose:

1. No supercaps in hisec. They represent too much of a threat to Empire sovereignty.
2. No capitals in systems with 0.8 security rating and above. Again, too threatening to Empire sovereignty.
3. No assigning fighters in hisec. The implications for "easy-mode PvE" would be too strong otherwise.
4. No capitals could use hisec acceleration gates. Ditto on "easy-mode PvE".
5. No hisec cynos. Avoids hotdrops, no need to worry about coding "can I jump to this system" restrictions.

My main rationale behind my suggestion:

A. It would allow easier capital gate-to-gate travel through losec regions that have "islands of hisec" blocking major pipes. (Sazilid in Aridia comes to mind.)
B. It would open up additional transit routes for capital gate-to-gate travel through hisec.
C. It would limit the PvE utility of capitals in hisec.
D. It would create new content opportunities, either from the use of capitals to attack or the interdiction of capitals transiting hisec.
E. It would leave large-ish areas of hisec "capital-free" so small corps worried about defending their in-space assets can anchor them in 0.8 systems and up.
F. It would do all of these things without requiring any new game mechanics, only adjustments to existing ones.

EDIT:

G. Since their only real use outside of haulage would be use in wardecs, it may actually encourage players to leave NPC corps.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-12-05 18:41:40 UTC
Capitals moving in low/null sec has the potential to create content.

Capitals moving through or idling in high sec creates no content.

If you want to fly the biggest ships in eve you have to leave your security blanket.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#40 - 2014-12-05 18:48:51 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd like to see certain high-traffic lanes which would allow capital ships and would also jump ships longer distances per stargate. Then I would disallow capital movement through any low-traffic gates regardless of their security level.


Why do you want to make it easier and safer for a coalition to deploy? We just started fixing that ****.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Previous page123Next page