These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Keepstar and Sotiyo - Precursors to Iapetan Titan Class?

Author
Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2017-02-24 05:24:29 UTC
The Citadels and Engineering Complexes were introduced last year in EVE Online, and they have changed the way EVE is played drastically. Entire fleets have fought over, destroyed and have been destroyed in conflicts involving the Citadels in particular. The big change from regular stations is that both Citadels and Engineering Complexes can be manned by players, which contributes to how fully armed Citadels play a role in fleet battles that center around attempts at their destruction. The Drilling Platforms coming in the fall will also bring further change, especially for Industrialists.

But a recent post on Facebook about the ancient Iapetan Titans, and my look through the lore about them, made me wonder: could the Keepstar, a massive Citadel that possesses a Doomsday weapon, be a precursor to Iapetan Titans being introduced into the game for players?

There are references of the Soltueur Titans in the lore of past years, and even a CCP member last year confirmed that the Gallente would have deployed their Soltueur Titan wing into the Battle of Caldari Prime if things escalated. The Molyneux hijacking is even mentioned directly in the description of the Vanquisher Serpentis Titan. Both the Keepstars and the Sotiyo are massive on their respective axes, about rivaling the sizes of what Iapetan Titans could be.

The Keepstar and Sotiyo theoretically would represent the first step in making such massive ships viable for gameplay - a massive player-manned station with High, Mid and Low Slots. The second step would be to make such a massive object able to move through space. I do not know what size the old Iapetan Titans were in the game files (or Molyneux, which actually had an event based around it back in 2006), but I can imagine them being the size of Keepstars...If not bigger.

I would imagine, in the theoretical circumstance that they are made available, that CCP would put a cap on the number that can be built, like the Palatine Keepstar. For example, say only five of each Iapetan Titan from each faction can exist at any one time.



Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#2 - 2017-02-24 06:29:18 UTC
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3 - 2017-02-24 06:31:06 UTC
Someone wants a Deathstar. I say go watch Star Wars...

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

Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2017-02-24 07:08:36 UTC
Nick Bete wrote:
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.


You must have missed the part where I suggested there would be a limited amount, like the Palatine Keepstar.

The fact that they exist in the lore provides an opportunity for these ships to be introduced in the game. Furthermore, the difficulty and time required to gather the resources to build them, and a limit to how many can exist at any given time, would balance out whatever amount of firepower CCP would decide to give such a vessel.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#5 - 2017-02-24 07:39:00 UTC
Pryce Caesar wrote:
Nick Bete wrote:
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.


You must have missed the part where I suggested there would be a limited amount, like the Palatine Keepstar.

The fact that they exist in the lore provides an opportunity for these ships to be introduced in the game. Furthermore, the difficulty and time required to gather the resources to build them, and a limit to how many can exist at any given time, would balance out whatever amount of firepower CCP would decide to give such a vessel.


and yet 1 group would aim to have them all and destroy anyone else that's rumored to have one like the first titans

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2017-02-24 09:48:47 UTC
Agondray wrote:
Pryce Caesar wrote:
Nick Bete wrote:
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.


You must have missed the part where I suggested there would be a limited amount, like the Palatine Keepstar.

The fact that they exist in the lore provides an opportunity for these ships to be introduced in the game. Furthermore, the difficulty and time required to gather the resources to build them, and a limit to how many can exist at any given time, would balance out whatever amount of firepower CCP would decide to give such a vessel.


and yet 1 group would aim to have them all and destroy anyone else that's rumored to have one like the first titans


can't see the problem TBH
we are fighting for supremacy, aren't we?

kindergarten is that way ----------->>>>>>
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#7 - 2017-02-24 10:25:34 UTC
But but but I wanna doomsday a keepstar..... SOLO!!! WAAAAAA!!!Twisted



@OP It would be an interesting thing tbh but I would limit it to one per faction and only in THAT factions space and only in high sec. Basically making it a moving, manned, epeen target for anyone that wants one with only defensive weaponry.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#8 - 2017-02-24 12:13:02 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:


can't see the problem TBH
we are fighting for supremacy, aren't we?

kindergarten is that way ----------->>>>>>

If this were a game which reset every 3 months, and you played in rounds where everyone started at the same time, you might be right.

Of course, since we are playing a game where people start at massively different times, having a situation where to get one you have to kill one results in a self reinforcing king of the hill situation, where the guy 'at the top' continues to accumulate more and more advantage keeping them at the top.

CCP's graphs showing average player age indicated we already have a self reinforcing system where a number of strong old alliances continue to just accumulate more and more power becoming harder and harder to affect meaningfully. Yes Coalitions might break, but the power house alliances & corps just shuffle around into a new coalition, it's very rare to actually see the power actually broken, and it's only ever done by one of the other power groups when it happens, which just reinforces the remaining groups even more.

Given all of that, there is no need to double down and make the problem far worse.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-02-24 13:38:01 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:


can't see the problem TBH
we are fighting for supremacy, aren't we?

kindergarten is that way ----------->>>>>>

If this were a game which reset every 3 months, and you played in rounds where everyone started at the same time, you might be right.

Of course, since we are playing a game where people start at massively different times, having a situation where to get one you have to kill one results in a self reinforcing king of the hill situation, where the guy 'at the top' continues to accumulate more and more advantage keeping them at the top.

CCP's graphs showing average player age indicated we already have a self reinforcing system where a number of strong old alliances continue to just accumulate more and more power becoming harder and harder to affect meaningfully. Yes Coalitions might break, but the power house alliances & corps just shuffle around into a new coalition, it's very rare to actually see the power actually broken, and it's only ever done by one of the other power groups when it happens, which just reinforces the remaining groups even more.

Given all of that, there is no need to double down and make the problem far worse.



the problem is that others aren't able to make that power shift!
not that those corps/alliances have it.

only cuz you are unable to take the challenge doesn't mean other won't take it.
Crying on the forum from morning to evening "they are too powerful" it's the only way that things won't ever change.

pfffffffffffffff bunch of losers Blink

Wolfgang Jannesen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2017-02-24 14:54:20 UTC
Pryce Caesar wrote:
Nick Bete wrote:
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.


You must have missed the part where I suggested there would be a limited amount, like the Palatine Keepstar.

The fact that they exist in the lore provides an opportunity for these ships to be introduced in the game. Furthermore, the difficulty and time required to gather the resources to build them, and a limit to how many can exist at any given time, would balance out whatever amount of firepower CCP would decide to give such a vessel.


You missed the point.

What is the gameplay necessity for one of these ships and what role will it fill that hasn't already been filled? If those questions don't have an answer this ship won't exist in game.
Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2017-02-24 16:06:57 UTC
Wolfgang Jannesen wrote:
Pryce Caesar wrote:
Nick Bete wrote:
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.


You must have missed the part where I suggested there would be a limited amount, like the Palatine Keepstar.

The fact that they exist in the lore provides an opportunity for these ships to be introduced in the game. Furthermore, the difficulty and time required to gather the resources to build them, and a limit to how many can exist at any given time, would balance out whatever amount of firepower CCP would decide to give such a vessel.


You missed the point.

What is the gameplay necessity for one of these ships and what role will it fill that hasn't already been filled? If those questions don't have an answer this ship won't exist in game.


1. A Multi-Purpose Super-capital. Rather than be restricted to Doomsdays as its specialty, it will be able to use the same Siege Modules as Dreadnoughts, and able to field flights of fighters like the Carriers and Super-Carrier, while possessing improved versions of the bonuses Titans have.

2. A secondary mode as a Citadel. Because the Iapetans would be too large to dock into a regular Keepstar, you can have them enter a secondary, reinforced mode that makes them stationary and function like a Keepstar. In that same sense, they can function as mobile Citadels. Yes, this would include industrial capabilities.

3. Fleet Transportation. The Iapetans are big enough to house even other Titans inside them, so an Alliance/Coalition could use the Iapetans as hot-droppers into a battle-zone where, once they arrive, the Alliance in charge of it is able to deploy entire fleets from them into the heat of battle.

4. Mass-Fleet Jump Drive. A large scale version of the Micro Jump Field Generator, an Iapetan could be able to jump an entire fleet from one system to another without the need for the rest of the fleet to expend Jump Drive fuel.




Salvos Rhoska
#12 - 2017-02-24 17:19:04 UTC
Would result in power creep, in many senses of the term.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2017-02-24 17:26:16 UTC
While I would not be opposed to having a limited number of supertitans in the game, I don't really see the benefit. (like I don't see the benefit of the palatine keepstar - if it will ever be built, it will probably be built in a wormhole and then sit there for years, not doing much of anything).
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2017-02-24 17:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Soel Reit
Neuntausend wrote:
While I would not be opposed to having a limited number of supertitans in the game, I don't really see the benefit. (like I don't see the benefit of the palatine keepstar - if it will ever be built, it will probably be built in a wormhole and then sit there for years, not doing much of anything).


you have the palatine you win the game
ez

at least until someone will destroy yours and put up one himself
then he will win the game Cool
Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2017-02-24 21:19:00 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
While I would not be opposed to having a limited number of supertitans in the game, I don't really see the benefit. (like I don't see the benefit of the palatine keepstar - if it will ever be built, it will probably be built in a wormhole and then sit there for years, not doing much of anything).


I don't know if any single Wormhole group would have the resources to set up a Palatine.

But your dialogue about wormholes once again reminds me of the idea of a Sisters of EVE Capital being capable of jumping into wormhole space.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#16 - 2017-02-24 22:20:19 UTC
Nick Bete wrote:
What would be the purpose of introducing these ships? I love the lore too but, we already have enough overpowered hangar queens for the uber wealthy in the game.




Well if they put it on palatine keepstar levels of cost...

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#17 - 2017-02-24 22:27:48 UTC
We don't need more super capital proliferation - by some estimates there may be between 5,000-10,000 super capitals in the game at this point. What we need are more reasons for players to undock these and actually use them.

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

Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2017-02-24 22:51:29 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
We don't need more super capital proliferation - by some estimates there may be between 5,000-10,000 super capitals in the game at this point. What we need are more reasons for players to undock these and actually use them.



then citadels aren't the answer...
all you need are carriers and t1 frigates/cruiser/battleships to take one down, keepstar included.
just keep reshipping and applying dps, no reason to use supers/titans and that's when you have an enemy opposition!

when the enemy fleet blue balls then you can go yolo in cheap destroyers
Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2017-02-25 06:42:43 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
We don't need more super capital proliferation - by some estimates there may be between 5,000-10,000 super capitals in the game at this point. What we need are more reasons for players to undock these and actually use them.



then citadels aren't the answer...
all you need are carriers and t1 frigates/cruiser/battleships to take one down, keepstar included.
just keep reshipping and applying dps, no reason to use supers/titans and that's when you have an enemy opposition!

when the enemy fleet blue balls then you can go yolo in cheap destroyers


Putting in Iapetan Titans would give impetus for Supers to be fielded as well. CCP could very well make it so that the firepower of Super-capitals is needed in order to do sustained damage to Iapetans. Otherwise, an Iapetan could repair the damage from anything weaker than a Supercarrier.
Salvos Rhoska
#20 - 2017-02-25 09:04:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Could these perhaps work better as a part of LS faction warfare?

Such that they cant leave the Faction Warfare zones, and cannot be bought/sold.
So they become an integral mobile staging/conflict point in Facrion Warfare exclusively.
Perhaps so that access to one, is dependent on the current Faction Warfare system control,spectrum.
123Next page