These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Really? CMA's in Low-sec/WH?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hitoni Jaynara
Doomheim
#1 - 2013-04-03 11:22:21 UTC
Now there are people who rave about null and want to bring their own style to high sec areas - the question i want to bring up is: why allow CMA to be anchored in lo-sec or wh space? To me it seems that the intention here is to squeeze people's opportunities to investigate out of hi-sec into such areas - to bring about null sec rules to high sec. I'm sorry - but allowing CMA to be put in lo-sec will allow the big alliances to set up their own fleets in null and hem in hi-sec. Where is there fun for the hi-sec people if this was to happen? Heres a strange idea for null-seccers - maybe we dont want to run under the uberlordship of people who are way above themselves in importance, hence why we stay in hi-sec. This idea is handing more power to the null sec alliances who see this game as a war, war, war thing and not the "do what you feel like" abstract that makes Eve stand out from all the other MMO's. Really CCP - this idea sucks the big one, big time. Stop kow-towing to one side and listen to all - lo-sec should be dangerous for all, which at the moment it is. Dont allow the "follow our rule" lot take over - otherwise people might just starting going elsewhere and thus, cripple if not destroy the game.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#2 - 2013-04-03 11:26:38 UTC
Linky?

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#3 - 2013-04-03 11:29:31 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Linky?


Its in the Dev Blog from yesteday.

My knowledge of sov isn't too strong, but will this mean that Titans and Super caps can be built in WH and low sec?
Hitoni Jaynara
Doomheim
#4 - 2013-04-03 11:32:36 UTC
no but store there instead. so....alliance build their super caps and have them in lo-sec. a major unfair advantage.
Null Exchange
Guns-R-Us Procurement Division
Weapons of Mass Logistics
#5 - 2013-04-03 11:32:54 UTC
Please read the actual blog before making any further comments.
Arkane Mystic
POT Corp
#6 - 2013-04-03 11:35:16 UTC
Why not allow it to be anchored anywhere? You should be able to build Caps in lo and wh space as well.
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#7 - 2013-04-03 11:36:34 UTC
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
no but store there instead. so....alliance build their super caps and have them in lo-sec. a major unfair advantage.


Hmm, well it isn't that much of a big deal as they could store their Titans and Supercaps in low sec anyway simply by leaving inside a POS shield. You do have a valid point though, perhaps CCP should watch to make sure that there aren't any unintended consequences to this change.
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#8 - 2013-04-03 11:37:42 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
Linky?


Its in the Dev Blog from yesteday.

My knowledge of sov isn't too strong, but will this mean that Titans and Super caps can be built in WH and low sec?


No. You just will be able to refit one in those respective spaces. There's another POS module called CSAA which allows building a supercarrier or a titan and can only be anchored in null. All this is explained very clearly in the devblog:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Removing the sovereignty requirement from Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays

Clarification: This change affects Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays, not the Capital Ship Assembly Array that is used to build supercapital ships. CSAAs are not being changed. This change does not in any way allow supercapital ships to be constructed in lowsec or wormholes.

Capital Ship Maintenance Arrays are giant SMAs that are currently can only be anchored in space that has been upgraded for supercapital construction. In order to reduce the number of SMAs needed to service large corps we are planning to allow CSMAs to be anchored in all lowsec, 0.0 and wormhole systems regardless of sovereignty status.


And by the way supercarriers or titans can't get in WH space as the entrance itself has limits for the mass that can pass in one direction, allowing only carriers and dreads to pass through.
Hitoni Jaynara
Doomheim
#9 - 2013-04-03 11:38:26 UTC
caps can be built in losec/wh space but not Super Caps or Titans. A CMA will allow someone to store such ships there whereas before they couldnt.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#10 - 2013-04-03 11:39:29 UTC
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
Now there are people who rave about null and want to bring their own style to high sec areas - the question i want to bring up is: why allow CMA to be anchored in lo-sec or wh space? To me it seems that the intention here is to squeeze people's opportunities to investigate out of hi-sec into such areas - to bring about null sec rules to high sec. I'm sorry - but allowing CMA to be put in lo-sec will allow the big alliances to set up their own fleets in null and hem in hi-sec. Where is there fun for the hi-sec people if this was to happen? Heres a strange idea for null-seccers - maybe we dont want to run under the uberlordship of people who are way above themselves in importance, hence why we stay in hi-sec. This idea is handing more power to the null sec alliances who see this game as a war, war, war thing and not the "do what you feel like" abstract that makes Eve stand out from all the other MMO's. Really CCP - this idea sucks the big one, big time. Stop kow-towing to one side and listen to all - lo-sec should be dangerous for all, which at the moment it is. Dont allow the "follow our rule" lot take over - otherwise people might just starting going elsewhere and thus, cripple if not destroy the game.


Slow down. Take a breath. Use paragraphs.

You're clearly pretty upset about something, but you're not making it very clear what the issue is, exactly. How will allowing players to store supercaps in POS that aren't in sov space have such a henious effect?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#11 - 2013-04-03 11:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Thelonious Blake
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
A CMA will allow someone to store such ships there whereas before they couldnt.


Capitals can be stored just about anywhere where you can lit a cyno or build capitals. Including w-space and low sec at this moment (pre-odyssey).

Edit: Grammar.
Hitoni Jaynara
Doomheim
#12 - 2013-04-03 11:45:47 UTC
the main issue i have is that CMA's make it easier for alliances to "hide" a supercap or titan in a CMA - thus making it easier for them to stage a takeover, as it were. i would like to explore space more but the alliances make that a virtual no-no. Even more so with this change.
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#13 - 2013-04-03 11:47:43 UTC
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
the main issue i have is that CMA's make it easier for alliances to "hide" a supercap or titan in a CMA - thus making it easier for them to stage a takeover, as it were. i would like to explore space more but the alliances make that a virtual no-no. Even more so with this change.


You don't explore null/wh/low because you are afraid of supercaps ?
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#14 - 2013-04-03 11:48:14 UTC
So whats wrong with CMA being allowed in Low? I really didn't feel like reading through that dribble of crap the OP spewed.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#15 - 2013-04-03 11:48:35 UTC
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
the main issue i have is that CMA's make it easier for alliances to "hide" a supercap or titan in a CMA - thus making it easier for them to stage a takeover, as it were. i would like to explore space more but the alliances make that a virtual no-no. Even more so with this change.


No one is going to use their titan to deal with a random solo interloper. Incidentally, most enterences to 0.0 aren't camped at any given time. Just avoid the ones that connect directly to hi-sec.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#16 - 2013-04-03 11:50:42 UTC
And by the way, OP, don't you know that big power blocs don't like to fight? The chances someone will try to hunt you down while you're exploring are close to 0 (ofc if you know what you're doing). That's why the playerbase and CCP are concerned so much with sov changes.
Hitoni Jaynara
Doomheim
#17 - 2013-04-03 11:52:22 UTC
its not a case of being afraid of something like that - it will allow alliances to hold lo-sec pipes to null with them being able to store/repair/refit them which will make it easier for them to hold a lo-sec pipe. and thus put a strangle hold on hi-sec.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-04-03 11:56:14 UTC
Thelonious Blake wrote:
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
A CMA will allow someone to store such ships there whereas before they couldnt.


Capitals can be stored just about anywhere where you can lit a cyno or build capitals. Including w-space and low sec at this moment (pre-odyssey).

Edit: Grammar.


Supers can't. They need to be parked in a POS shield or put in a CMA.

I doubt folks have concerns about capitals proliferating in lowsec - it's easy to park them in a station. That would be a tad silly to worry about with just capital class ships (You can have 20 of them parked in a a lowsec station and nobody would know).

This may also simply be part of their POS revamp efforts "long term". Recall the discussions on removal of POS shields? How are you going to keep supers safe when there is no POS shield to hold them? Now if CMA's are made more available and such? ...

You don't want that tied to SOV so tightly. Not if a null empire does lose its grounds while still having supers.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2013-04-03 11:56:45 UTC
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
Heres a strange idea for null-seccers - maybe we dont want to run under the uberlordship of people who are way above themselves in importance, hence why we stay in hi-sec.


Not really weird.

I'm too independent to take the BS in these alliances/corps (CTAs = Avatar camping...and I'm not going to be chained to a computer/phone/iPad to get a GET OUT HERE NOW call at 3am). I don't pay for that junk.

Didn't take it in WoW and not going to start in EvE.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#20 - 2013-04-03 11:59:53 UTC
Hitoni Jaynara wrote:
its not a case of being afraid of something like that - it will allow alliances to hold lo-sec pipes to null with them being able to store/repair/refit them which will make it easier for them to hold a lo-sec pipe. and thus put a strangle hold on hi-sec.


How exactly having capitals in low sec will allow null sec entities to hold it? And even if they are able to hold low sec in this manner why should it put a "strangle hold on hi-sec"?
123Next page