These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
8 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Why no capships in high-sec?

First post
Author
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2017-04-14 20:35:48 UTC
I have no idea how many times this possibly-dead horse has been beaten. I imagine it has come up before, but don't recall seeing it.

Why no capships in high-sec?

1) First off, it seems artificially limiting. This is supposed to be some kind of 'sand box.'

2) What does this limitation accomplish? Is there some perceived balance issue? You have CONCORD, so it isn't as if capships can run rampant preying upon the unsuspecting.

3) I *think* I saw someone once giving a rationale about balance concerning structures (POCOs, etc). They said no one could stand up to a capship beating on a structure. To this I give a number of responses, like: A) nonsense (capships fall in nullsec all the time to swarms of smaller ships), B) who cares? (where else do we express concern over a bigger ship like a battleship or cruiser beating up on a little ship like a frigate?), C) go get your own capship if you think you can't beat a capship no other way, etc.

I guess I haven't seen any arguments for not allowing capships in high-sec, and personally I see it as limiting. Can anyone explain it to me? What's the rationale?
Pandemic Horde
#2 - 2017-04-14 20:38:25 UTC
Why are cap ships in the game at all?
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2017-04-14 20:45:15 UTC
Hello Meow Kitty wrote:
Why are cap ships in the game at all?


Why shouldn't they be? Are you one of these "it should be cruisers online, not Eve Online" people?
#4 - 2017-04-14 20:56:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I have no idea how many times this possibly-dead horse has been beaten. I imagine it has come up before, but don't recall seeing it.

Why no capships in high-sec?

1) First off, it seems artificially limiting. This is supposed to be some kind of 'sand box.'

2) What does this limitation accomplish? Is there some perceived balance issue? You have CONCORD, so it isn't as if capships can run rampant preying upon the unsuspecting.

3) I *think* I saw someone once giving a rationale about balance concerning structures (POCOs, etc). They said no one could stand up to a capship beating on a structure. To this I give a number of responses, like: A) nonsense (capships fall in nullsec all the time to swarms of smaller ships), B) who cares? (where else do we express concern over a bigger ship like a battleship or cruiser beating up on a little ship like a frigate?), C) go get your own capship if you think you can't beat a capship no other way, etc.

I guess I haven't seen any arguments for not allowing capships in high-sec, and personally I see it as limiting. Can anyone explain it to me? What's the rationale?
CONCORD is your main problem. It is effectively impossible to illegally explode a combat capital in highsec because of their massive EHP meaning they would completely trivialize moving things around safely among other things.

But more generally, I see no problem with different sectors of space having different mechanics. Bubbles, capitals and cynos all provide a different flavour of combat and I see no reason why there shouldn't be an area of space also free of some or all of them where battles are more controlled. It's a sandbox yes, but there are different areas of space with different levels of risk and reward to suit all types of players and this provides more places for players to find game play they enjoy. It makes sense that there would be a place where only subcaps can play with each other, especially for newer players and smaller groups that don't have them.

That said, I don't think the problems preventing capitals from returning to highsec are insurmountable. CCP developers have said they want to let capitals back into highsec and perhaps someday they will find a way to do so and still keep them at risk to the other players. I wouldn't count on it any time soon though.
Pandemic Horde
#5 - 2017-04-14 21:42:00 UTC
Hello Meow Kitty wrote:
Why are cap ships in the game at all?



No, I'm for ships that everyone can fly and enjoy with dynamic gameplay along with straightline balance. I'm not for ships a few old vets fly. How many legit new players start and say "hey I'm going to train straight into a cap ship and wait 6+ months."
#6 - 2017-04-14 22:03:13 UTC
Capitals were originally allowed in High Sec when they were introduced, but they created a bunch of problems so they were removed.

If you could move or store Capitals in High Sec it would be incredibly easy to store power and project it out of High Sec, since the capitals could be stored in an NPC corp and have too much EHP to suicide gank they'd be effectively immune.

They also present way too much of a power swing for the average High Sec player. Imagine if, instead of a Proteus and some other T2 and T3 ships, the war-decers in Jita were camping with a squad of Carriers parked 1000km off the gate with Fighters sitting on it blapping anything coming through. There's basically no way to deal with that without capitals of your own or a pretty massive force of ships, both of which would be seen coming a mile away while the Carriers dock up.

This isn't some hypothetical, CCP originally allowed Capitals in High Sec and removed them intentionally after player feedback and their own observations.
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2017-04-14 22:04:16 UTC
Hello Meow Kitty wrote:

No, I'm for ships that everyone can fly and enjoy with dynamic gameplay along with straightline balance. I'm not for ships a few old vets fly. How many legit new players start and say "hey I'm going to train straight into a cap ship and wait 6+ months."


You already have what you want - the smaller ships that younger pilots can play with 'dynamic gameplay' and 'straightline balance' blah blah. So what you want is to eliminate choice, and tell the rest of us what kinds of ships we want to fly and train for.

I'm on a months-long train right now to get into cap ships. It's my choice, it's a choice I want to make. I'm not stopping you from flying easy-to-train-for cruisers or whatever, don't stop me from training and flying what I want to fly.

Personally, I want to see even BIGGER capships. I want to see something beyond Titans. I want to see Super Titans - like death stars the size of moons, flying battlestations bristling with weapons, fighters coming out of them, ships which can dock up inside, doomsday devices, etc. I say "more more MORE," not "less less LESS."
End of Life
#8 - 2017-04-14 22:13:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Caps don't deserve the protection of CONCORD and ability to be essentially immune from aggression by being stored in highsec with near risk free movement most of the way to almost any region in the cluster.

If you're experienced and skilled enough to be flying caps, then your experienced enough to be managing the risk yourself.

We don't need caps in highsec (the above is not the reason they were removed, just my opinion on caps in highsec).
Caldari State
#9 - 2017-04-14 22:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
I think caps should be allowed in highsec too... but the only way I could see it working in any reasonable way would be to give all caps in highsec a suspect flag by default. (current allowed HS cap classes aside, of course)...or maybe some kind of "highsec mode" that keeps their holds at 0m³ and modules offline.Just realized this doesn't solve the power projection problem mentioned above.

If you want to know more about highsec caps and the problems they caused, googling in the old forums is a good way to do it. There are extensive, verbose conversations about every facet of the potential problems.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Amarr Empire
#10 - 2017-04-14 22:37:24 UTC
I guess I'm not convinced by any of the arguments presented yet.

"Immune to risk in high-sec."

What? It seems this isn't a problem with capitals in high-sec. It's a refusal to embrace a design choice in the game - CONCORD. Do we want CONCORD, or don't we? If so, we have it. If not, remove it. What's with all the "well, now we have to adjust this, tweak that, ban capships in high-sec, etc." Sounds like a combination of nonsense (refusal to accept design choices you make), cognitive dissonance (I want CONCORD, I don't like the consequences that brings), doublethink (CONCORD and capships good, CONCORD and capships bad), etc.

The best way to address this is to either accept CONCORD being in the game, or reject it. If you accept it, fine, we have capships that can fly around high-sec safely. What's the big deal? What's there to fear? If he attacks anyone, HE loses. And if he's safe flying around in his big fat ship in high-sec, who cares? Is it any skin off my nose?

The second best way to address this is to accept your cognitive dissonance or whatever, and start making adjustments so you can have your cake (CONCORD) and eat it too (capships). So fine, anyone can attack a capship in high-sec. Was that so hard for me to think of? Took me about 5 seconds.

"Transporting stuff risk free."

I guess I don't get it. You're saying people will be using these things as freighters? Are the cargoholds *that* big? Fine - again, cognitive dissonance, but making capships attackable in high-sec fixes the issue.

"Projecting power out of high-sec."

I guess I don't get it. My answer is "who cares." Too much whine, too much butthurt. "Wahhhh! He's projecting power out of high-sec!"

Again I think the core issues are, apparently just bad game design, or an unwillingness to accept game design choices. Either way, I think things are easily adjusted or fixed so as to make the whiners whine a little less.
Caldari State
#11 - 2017-04-14 23:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Beast of Revelations wrote:
So fine, anyone can attack a capship in high-sec. Was that so hard for me to think of? Took me about 5 seconds.


Wow. You must be new here. Actually the mechanics across the types of space we have are pretty complicated. This isn't just hyperbole. If you are thinking about ways to introduce caps in highsec in "5 seconds" your ideas aren't very good. If you just want to rant, by all means, and let this thread slip into the hundreds of other ship tosts on the subject. If you want caps in highsec, you're actually going to have to do a lot of reading and learning, and present a cohesive argument. Yours are just ignorant. Even most HS gankers, such as myself, recognize removing CONCORD is a non-starter. Freighters and JFs get ganked every day in HS. It takes 20-40+ ships to pull that off though, so the bar for entry into big ship HS ganking is already high. The EHP of some real caps though would require so many ships to gank the system would go into TiDi. That would effectively render caps as completely invulnerable. (For instance, if a JF has 2 Alliance Tournament ships in it, it may go into Narjia, but it ain't coming out. With a dreadnought safety would be assured. We can't have that.) Projecting power matters because HS is a big obstacle to controlling nullsec. If you could just cut through empire, BoB, TEST, PL, Goons, who-knows who else might have been able to wreck the entire null sec game (and believe me, the goons would do it).

You just aren't approaching the problem rationally.

/thread

Signatures should be used responsibly...

End of Life
#12 - 2017-04-15 02:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Beast of Revelations wrote:
...It's a refusal to embrace a design choice in the game... ...Sounds like a combination of nonsense (refusal to accept design choices you make), ...

Not sure if this is irony or not.

All the rest was a bit of rubbish.

"We" don't decide anything. CCP do. Accept it, or don't. Totally up to you, but calling others out for not accepting design choices (no capitals in highsec) made by CCP is pretty funny.
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2017-04-15 02:42:23 UTC
Gogela wrote:
If you want caps in highsec, you're actually going to have to do a lot of reading and learning


I don't think any of that will be necessary, as I don't think it's near as complicated as you think it is. All I need is this:

GIVE ME YOUR BEST ARGUMENT.

Go ahead, shoot. If it's one of the ones already presented here, I already said I'm not so impressed. If it's another one, let's hear it.

Quote:
The EHP of some real caps though would require so many ships to gank the system would go into TiDi. That would effectively render caps as completely invulnerable.


Let me get this straight. Because you and your buddies would find it difficult to gank a cap, or it would send the system into TiDi if you had enough ships to pull it off... caps shouldn't be allowed into high-sec?

Is that your best argument? If so, it's a poor one.
End of Life
#14 - 2017-04-15 04:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Let me get this straight. Because you and your buddies would find it difficult to gank a cap, or it would send the system into TiDi if you had enough ships to pull it off... caps shouldn't be allowed into high-sec?

Being impossible to gank means they face no threat. They can move about safely in highsec and jump anytime they want into almost any region in the game directly from highsec.

The force projection nerf CCP introduced with Phoebe would be significantly undermined in an instant. Capitals could freely and totally risk free, be staged in highsec, then move and jump with virtually no counter and then just jump back to a connecting lowsec and re-enter highsec and be risk free again, with complete freedom to move to a different region easily.

There is also virtually 0 gameplay for them in highsec. They can't take mission gates, so cant be used to run missions. Highsec anomolies can be run in a destroyer. They can't be used for pvp. So highsec would just be a super highway for them, with virtually no other reason to be there.

Ultimately though, each of the security sectors of space have their own unique rules and things that make them attractive to players. Capitals being allowed in low, null and WH space is part of the attraction of those spaces as much as any of the other rules differences they have from highsec.
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2017-04-15 04:27:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Mieyli
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Why no capships in high-sec?


Why capships in high-sec?

Ps, dude, want my best argument for why they shouldn't be allowed? Tough. I don't work for you. You're asking for changes, you do the convincing. If the thread swings your way, then I'll post my arguments.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

#16 - 2017-04-15 04:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Piugattuk
For every reason for it there's gonna be a counter reason why not, ultimately the question should be why was it changed before, if that reason still exists of why they removed them then you have the reason why it should not change.

My opinion is there really isn't any usefulness to have them in high sec beyond players using them to bash the new complexes that are up and war Dec grief with immunity those without them, ending in complete chaos for everyone and again all the problems that these complexes fixed for players.
Fidelas Constans
#17 - 2017-04-15 06:14:34 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I have no idea how many times this possibly-dead horse has been beaten. I imagine it has come up before, but don't recall seeing it.

Why no capships in high-sec?

1) First off, it seems artificially limiting. This is supposed to be some kind of 'sand box.'

2) What does this limitation accomplish? Is there some perceived balance issue? You have CONCORD, so it isn't as if capships can run rampant preying upon the unsuspecting.

3) I *think* I saw someone once giving a rationale about balance concerning structures (POCOs, etc). They said no one could stand up to a capship beating on a structure. To this I give a number of responses, like: A) nonsense (capships fall in nullsec all the time to swarms of smaller ships), B) who cares? (where else do we express concern over a bigger ship like a battleship or cruiser beating up on a little ship like a frigate?), C) go get your own capship if you think you can't beat a capship no other way, etc.

I guess I haven't seen any arguments for not allowing capships in high-sec, and personally I see it as limiting. Can anyone explain it to me? What's the rationale?


1. Lore reasons. The Capsuleers already exist as independent entities from the four main empires, regardless of where they originally came from. So when Capsuleers start getting their hands on Capital ships, the four empires would likely see that as a potential growing threat to their power, and would take steps accordingly to limit that power.

How? By locking stargates into high-sec to prohibit any Capsuleer-owned Capital ship from jumping into High-Sec (barring Orca Industrials and Jump Freighters).

2. Game-play reasons. High-sec is the starting region for all new players. The area where new players can learn about the game and get ready access to any skillbooks they need before venturing out into Low or Null-Sec (assuming they don't find ways to make their profit in High-sec). But putting a Capital ship into anything PvE oriented into High-sec is over-kill to the highest degree.

The level of anomalies and ores is measured by security level; the best ore deposits and the best PvE anomalies are located in Null-Sec. A Dread or Carrier running PvE or missions in High-Sec would make them back-breakingly easy (including Level 4), and a Rorqual in High-Sec in the current state would choose through all the ores in an asteroid belt and not give lesser mining vessels a chance.

Which brings me to:

3. Risk vs. Reward. In High-Sec, player vs. player combat, unless done via war-dec or duels, is immediately punished by CONCORD. What risk there is in High-Sec comes from anomalies and mission running (and Sansha Incursions). With Capitals, you are piloting for the highest level of risk (billions of ISK to be lost in one ship), but with the potential for greatest reward, also. No Capital is safe in Low-Sec or Null-Sec as even Titans are routinely blown out of the sky these days.

But that would not exist if Capitals were allowed in High-Sec. You could fly your Carrier, Dreadnought, or even a Titan through High-Sec every day of the year and not have to worry about losing it to other players (outside of war-dec), with no mission site in High-Sec being dangerous enough to threaten their destruction.

Frankly, it would destabilize the game and its ecosystem.
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2017-04-15 06:43:40 UTC
Pryce Caesar wrote:

1. Lore reasons.


Capships used to be allowed in high-sec. I doubt there was wailing and gnashing of teeth and people screaming "take away caps!" over lore reasons.

Quote:
2. Game-play reasons... But putting a Capital ship into anything PvE oriented into High-sec is over-kill to the highest degree... A Dread or Carrier running PvE or missions in High-Sec would make them back-breakingly easy (including Level 4)


A) As far as I know, capships would not be able to run missions in High-Sec because of mission gate restrictions.

B) Either way, usage of a capship to run level 4 missions hurts no one except the capship owner. It's not a good return on investment. If some dummy wants to spend billions on a capship to run level 4s when he could just get a cheap battleship and do the same thing, why is this skin off your nose?
#19 - 2017-04-15 07:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Pryce Caesar wrote:

1. Lore reasons.


Capships used to be allowed in high-sec. I doubt there was wailing and gnashing of teeth and people screaming "take away caps!" over lore reasons.

Quote:
2. Game-play reasons... But putting a Capital ship into anything PvE oriented into High-sec is over-kill to the highest degree... A Dread or Carrier running PvE or missions in High-Sec would make them back-breakingly easy (including Level 4)


A) As far as I know, capships would not be able to run missions in High-Sec because of mission gate restrictions.

B) Either way, usage of a capship to run level 4 missions hurts no one except the capship owner. It's not a good return on investment. If some dummy wants to spend billions on a capship to run level 4s when he could just get a cheap battleship and do the same thing, why is this skin off your nose?

There is still no risk in using capitals in highsec. No matter how you look at it, that gives you an infinitely low risk vs. reward ratio and thus is unbalanced in a game where you are never suppose to be safe.

Something is going to have to give to put capitals at risk again before they can come back to highsec. Whether that is a change to CONCORD, or perhaps some new AI like the new Blood Raiders that drops Empire NPC capitals on you, but CCP isn't going to give players invulnerable ships, especially for no compelling reason other than the "why not?" that is all you have been able to provide.

Even if you seem to reject it, New Eden is an interconnected universe where everyone's action affect everyone else. It does affect me if you are running highsec anomalies while 100% immune to attack by the other players, or much worse, mining from 100% immune Rorquals. There is skin being taken of my nose by you devaluing my efforts and assets. And this doesn't even account for the effects giving the large groups a safe space to store caps would have on the game play outside of highsec.

Yes, these problems could be solved with significant changes to the game if that is the answer you are looking for. But things are the way they are for good reasons and those reasons are still in play. There are very good reasons why CCP won't flip the switch tomorrow and just let them back in without changing other things. Shouting loudly that you want capitals in highsec isn't going to make that happen.
#20 - 2017-04-15 07:07:52 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Gogela wrote:
If you want caps in highsec, you're actually going to have to do a lot of reading and learning


I don't think any of that will be necessary, as I don't think it's near as complicated as you think it is. All I need is this:

GIVE ME YOUR BEST ARGUMENT.

Go ahead, shoot. If it's one of the ones already presented here, I already said I'm not so impressed. If it's another one, let's hear it.


You seem to be under the misapprehension that you need to be impressed or that you hold the default position here. That is not correct, the default position is the current status-quo, and you need to present a coeherent and rational argument against that, something you have so far failed to do in spectacular fashion.

You don't need to convince us, you need to convince CCP they should make a change, and so far all you've done is demonstrate your own ignorance of the uses and strengths of a Capital Class ship and go on about how 'unimpressed' you are with everyone's arguments, without actually bothering to state why you feel most of them don't apply. You're just cherry picking the few bits and pieces, generally out of context, that you think you have an answer for.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
A) As far as I know, capships would not be able to run missions in High-Sec because of mission gate restrictions.

B) Either way, usage of a capship to run level 4 missions hurts no one except the capship owner. It's not a good return on investment. If some dummy wants to spend billions on a capship to run level 4s when he could just get a cheap battleship and do the same thing, why is this skin off your nose?


A is not correct, some missions are gate restricted others don't have any gates, and besides that there's other PvE content available in High Sec for someone in a Carrier to mess with.

B is not correct either, it has the potential to create balance issues between risk and reward in the game. If a cap-ship can run in High Sec and make more ISK than a normal Battleship doing the same then that's had a significant impact.

You're also, still, ignoring all the potential impact capitals would have on High Sec structures and PvP, especially with the limits on AOE weapons in High Sec and CONCORD on top of that. Want to see a Citadel become functionally unkillable? Dock a couple of Carriers in it. Even if by some crazy miracle CCP decided to actually remove CONCORD protection from Caps in High Sec (never going to happen) the thing would still be almost unkillable without capitals of your own, at which point you've just turned High Sec PvP into "bring caps or go home" one of the major reasons Caps were removed in the first place.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
"Projecting power out of high-sec."

I guess I don't get it. My answer is "who cares." Too much whine, too much butthurt. "Wahhhh! He's projecting power out of high-sec!"

Again I think the core issues are, apparently just bad game design, or an unwillingness to accept game design choices. Either way, I think things are easily adjusted or fixed so as to make the whiners whine a little less.


The only one whining about game design choices here is you. CCP decided Capital Ships were best left out of High Sec. You apparently have issues with this decision and you're being willfully blind to anyone with an argument that contradicts you on the matter.
8 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump