These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

High Security Capitals

Author
Keine Arvok
Semper Fidelis Foedero
#1 - 2015-12-05 05:26:53 UTC
I am very excited by the idea of flying Capitals in high sec. I realize however, how much of a disadvantage its would but other players in who solo or prefer small organizations. I belive there is a way to get the "cake" (Capitals) and "eat" (Destroy) it too.

I have heard that Worm Hole systems have buffs and nerfs to ship and POS attributes, aswell as SOV in null. It would be no strech of the imagination to have High Sec nerfs to Capital ships. I dont have the smarts to come of with "fair" nerfs in exact % figures to specific traits of Capitals, but I will type up a ruff example of explaining the trait nerfs. I also think that the nerfs should be perportionate to the Security Level of the system, 0.5 the lowest level of Nerf to Captial Traits - 1.0 the highest level of Nerf to Capital Ships. Some attributes may be nerfed at the same value thru all High Sec such as removing ship role bonus while in high sec, not allowing Triage or Seige modes, or a signifigantly larger need of fuel for less duration. Cyno Jumping may also still be jammed. Nerfs can also include Maximum ammount of drones allowed to be deployed from -5 from the bonus to -15 considering Drone control units, Done in such a way at the worst, it can force the carrier pilot to fit their high slots with Drone Control units just to deploy 5 drones to offset the carriers ability to fit Remote Repair. All attributes are up for consideration including but not limited to, Fitting capacitor, CPU, Power need. Cycle time, Tracking, Range, Warfare Bonus ammount. Sensor Strength, Agility, Warp Speed Fleet Hangar m3.

0.5 security is where I would expect to see the heaviest concentration of Capital ships as it would be the least Nerfed in comparison to higer security space.

For Examle: Carrier (Attribute Nerfs may not simply be a steady increase to each Attribute nerf, but also random attribute per sec)
0.5 - 10% reduction to Drone Damage, 20% reduction to HP, 5% reduction to each resistance

0.6 - 10% reduction to Drone Damage, 20% reduction to HP, 5% reduction to each resistance, 10% reduction to Repair amount

0.7 - 15% reduction to Drone Damage, 25% reduction to HP, 10% reduction to each resistance, 15% reduction to Repair amount

0.8 - Maximum Drones Deployed 10, 5% reduction to Drone Damage, 30% reduction to HP, 15% reduction to each resistance, 20% reduction to Repair amount

0.9 - Maximum Drones Deployed 5, 50% reduction to Drone Damage, 50% reduction to HP, 20% reduction to each resistace, 20% reduction to Repair amount, 5% increase to Repair Cycle time. 75% reduction to Remote repair amount

1.0 - Maximum Drones Deployed 5, 75% reduction to Drone Damage, 50% reduction to HP, 25% reduction ot each resistance, 10% reduction to Repair amount, 10% increase to Repair Cycle time, 100% Reduction to Remote repair ammout, 100% increase to Capacitor need for Remote Repair, 100% reduction to Capacitor transfer amount.

In the end, if a 2.5 billion isk capital ship can be overwhelmed by 1-3 T1 battleship(s) in High Security space then the "Risk vs Reward" would allow players to fly Capitals in High security and Discourage them from abusing what power they may be granted, thoes who whould abuse them could lose them at great personal cost, And perhapse the volume of capitals in High Security space would not be overbearing as some players may fear. This type of "Balancing" may also keep the risk of traveling thru High sec as dangerous as low for a Capital that may face gankers who have taken out Freighters in high sec.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2015-12-05 06:05:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
A few things...

- If you have to nerf any ship in rather significant ways based on the system it is in just to be "balanced" in said systems... what is really the point in letting them be there in the first place?

- The power of capitals (which pretty much includes all the things you have nerfed and then some) is rather the point behind having a capital. Otherwise, you should use a battleship.

- None of what you proposed deals with the problems of...
------- Carriers (and soon Dreds) outclassing or even obsoleting Bowheads and Jump Freighters. Even with your proposed nerfs, carriers/dreds will still be VASTLY more tanky and unreasonably safe in high-sec for people to move ships and supplies.
------- Large groups using high-sec as a secure and unassailable "storage" and "launching point" for their capital fleets. At least around low-sec stations there are risks (however slim).


tldr; go out into more hostile areas of the game if you want to play with the "big boy" toys.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-12-05 08:53:57 UTC
Why not just simply fly a Nestor?

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4 - 2015-12-05 09:27:33 UTC
Eh? If you are going to allow them, allow them. If not, don't.

I think the best way to curb this would be to make capital ships the property of the corporation, and if you are in an NPC corp you have to have high standing to be able to undock in one of their capitals.

Then make security trend to neutral on it's own, and require constant upkeep through a variety of means.

Thus you either need to work at keeping authorization to fly the capital you gave the NPC corp when you transferred to them owning one (perhaps with a one time bonus to standing for such a generous gift), or you need to keep your capitals in a player corp that is vulnerable to wardecs.

Thus capitals that come into highsec will disappear from the game one way or another unless well supported, and that problem will sort itself.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
Lost Obsession
#5 - 2015-12-05 12:07:55 UTC
If you want the toys move to the space where you can use them.

Its a lot simpler and all it takes is the will to make the jump.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

Solecist Project
#6 - 2015-12-05 12:17:32 UTC
But what's the point?
The point!
I'm looking for it, but there is none!


If the point is "I want capitals in highsec" then no, that's not a point.
That's what you want. And you want to change a lot of things,
just so you can have it there. But what is the point?

What would you do with it?

It should not be allowed in missions.
It should not be allowed in incursions.

Why? Because it's nonsensical to do so, as it's a win-button that can hardly be ganked by anyone.


The solution to the "capitals in highsec" issue seems to be to move to lowsec,
which is much less complicated and doesn't even add any work for the devs.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-12-05 12:21:55 UTC
The only compelling reason to allow it and amusingly you've not mentioned it is "because XL citadels" but that's confirmed as being already considered and rejected.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
#8 - 2015-12-05 12:56:04 UTC
Personally I'd like to have caps in highsec, but purely for being able to find and hunt down carebears and scrubs that fly them without having even the faintest clue on how to use them.

Other than that, yes, taking down XL citadels is high on my list, but to be fair, there won't be "THAT" many of them in highsec due to the exorbitant cost. Smaller groups won't be able to attack them due to lack of numbers, but that's kind of the point of the things.
Mediums are easy enough to nuke, larges, I dunno, haven't bothered to do the math on that yet.

As for the rest. There have been very valid counter arguments raised by the people here, I won't repeat them.

So, tl;dr. I personally would love capitals in highsec, but for completely different reasons.
However, I also realize that having them in highsec would be extremely unbalancing and for the greater good of the game, it's best they stay out of it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#9 - 2015-12-05 14:56:34 UTC
The moment caps ate let into high sec is the moment ccp starts to balance them for high sec and that will be a bad day
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#10 - 2015-12-05 18:01:12 UTC
i honestly hope they dont allow XL citadels or caps 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

Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
#11 - 2015-12-05 18:15:12 UTC
Well, XL citadels will be allowed in highsec. They've confirmed this already.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-12-05 18:27:20 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
i honestly hope they dont allow XL citadels or caps in hi-sec.



Yeah me too. I was sad to hear they'll be allowed in and their rationale for allowing them was that the DPS cap means battleships can do it in a reasonable timeframe.

Except that suggests the defenses will be either terrible, or that you'll need a stupid number of BS to actually do it.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
#13 - 2015-12-05 19:03:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Arden Elenduil
Here are the damage numbers you'll need. (from the latest dev blog on it, link included)

M
L
XL

Damage mitigation
4,000 DPS
12,000 DPS
60,000 DPS

Number of Frigates to reach damage mitigation
10-20
30-60
150-300

Number of Cruisers to reach damage mitigation
10-20
30-60
150-300

Number of Battleships to reach damage mitigation
5-15
15-45
75-225

Number of Dreadnoughts* to reach damage mitigation
1
2-4
10-20


http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/citadels-sieges-and-you-v2/
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#14 - 2015-12-05 20:43:40 UTC
And these numbers are not unreasonable. Every Incursion HQ fleet can get 100+ people in BS. The damage mitigation limit also does not mean that you need that many ships to get the Citadel damaged, it only means that you should not bring more. That said, the numbers are no reason for capitals in High sec. At all.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-12-05 21:39:34 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
And these numbers are not unreasonable. Every Incursion HQ fleet can get 100+ people in BS. The damage mitigation limit also does not mean that you need that many ships to get the Citadel damaged, it only means that you should not bring more. That said, the numbers are no reason for capitals in High sec. At all.



You're forgetting the defences. If they're not able to blap battleships, they'll be a joke in the rest of space. It's something of a paradox (probably. Details depending)

But no, no high sec caps. I'd rather not highsec xl either.
Atomeon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-12-06 00:16:27 UTC
It could be fun that the only nerf on capitals at high sec is to not be able to target another capital (friend or enemy).... Roll
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#17 - 2015-12-06 00:46:55 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
And these numbers are not unreasonable. Every Incursion HQ fleet can get 100+ people in BS. The damage mitigation limit also does not mean that you need that many ships to get the Citadel damaged, it only means that you should not bring more. That said, the numbers are no reason for capitals in High sec. At all.

Try 30 people in BS for an HQ fleet. Though those numbers are also to do it in the minimum time. Once it has started you can just keep shooting and it won't go invulnerable unless you stop shooting.
However Capitals in Highsec either are totally unrestricted same as every other ship, or not allowed at all.
Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Digital Vendetta
#18 - 2015-12-06 09:54:49 UTC
- Only thing I would want for combat capitals to do in Hi-sec is travel

- To enter hi-sec they have to be flown by an player in an NPC Corp. (prevents use in war)
- They cannot use their weapons/combat abilities (They would have to withstand any player attacks, but as the player is in an NPC Corp concord would defend them from everything but bumping)
- They could dock only at Trade Hub stations. (This limits the locations to a handful of dockable stations.)
- If flown by a player in a player Corp - they get Jumped to the closest low-sec.

This allows players to trade combat capitals in hi-sec. Travel with the feeling of being safe. Prevents the use of their weapons. And allows players who bought them a way out.

A few more things could be added - like ISK fees for gate use or low-sec jump from Concord NPC

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#19 - 2015-12-06 10:25:12 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
- Only thing I would want for combat capitals to do in Hi-sec is travel

- To enter hi-sec they have to be flown by an player in an NPC Corp. (prevents use in war)
- They cannot use their weapons/combat abilities (They would have to withstand any player attacks, but as the player is in an NPC Corp concord would defend them from everything but bumping)
- They could dock only at Trade Hub stations. (This limits the locations to a handful of dockable stations.)
- If flown by a player in a player Corp - they get Jumped to the closest low-sec.

This allows players to trade combat capitals in hi-sec. Travel with the feeling of being safe. Prevents the use of their weapons. And allows players who bought them a way out.

A few more things could be added - like ISK fees for gate use or low-sec jump from Concord NPC


NO NO and again NO, it is a bad idea and that is exactly why they are not allowed in high sec

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2015-12-06 11:49:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Amarisen Gream wrote:
- Only thing I would want for combat capitals to do in Hi-sec is travel

- To enter hi-sec they have to be flown by an player in an NPC Corp. (prevents use in war)
- They cannot use their weapons/combat abilities (They would have to withstand any player attacks, but as the player is in an NPC Corp concord would defend them from everything but bumping)
- They could dock only at Trade Hub stations. (This limits the locations to a handful of dockable stations.)
- If flown by a player in a player Corp - they get Jumped to the closest low-sec.

This allows players to trade combat capitals in hi-sec. Travel with the feeling of being safe. Prevents the use of their weapons. And allows players who bought them a way out.

A few more things could be added - like ISK fees for gate use or low-sec jump from Concord NPC

And they are all utter rubbish. Most intriguing and not doable is the "jump them automatically to low sec if flown in a PC": How do you jump them to that LS station if they have no fuel? And if the closest low sec is a system without station, what's the point of that? And if the closest Low sec is ahead on the jump route, not one of the previous jumps, you give people a free way of moving capitals. In fact, calling this rubbish does not do the word rubbish justice. If you need to resort to this kind of extreme restrictions and limitations, there is no use for them to be in this heavily restricted space at all. There is also no point in allowing them to be traded in High sec, they are already 100% securely, safely and reliably tradable in Low sec.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

123Next page