These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Really? CMA's in Low-sec/WH?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#21 - 2013-04-03 12:03:09 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
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.


You have just failed to find the right corp/alliance for you. Don't make conclusions for all of EvE's corporations/alliances just because you had bitter experience with 1 or two.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#22 - 2013-04-03 12:05:51 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.


What does this mean, exactly? If you want to "hide" a supercap, then by far the most efficient way to do so is to leave it logged off, not stash it in a large, vulnerable, visible CMA.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2013-04-03 12:07:16 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
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.


I've never had an experience like that the whole time I have been playing EVE. I think they are more of an urban legend than reality. Which alliance were you in where you experienced the 3AM calls?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#24 - 2013-04-03 12:14:35 UTC
I always dreamed of being able to store my Cap ships in a Capital Ship Maintenance Array, but was unable to because I didn't hold sovereignty out in 0.0 because we weren't a huge corp or alliance. We occupy a piece of NPC 0.0, so we are limited to storing our cap ships in a multitude of Ship Maintenance Arrays, which is annoying. So yeah, there is no real issue of allowing people use CSMAs in non sovereign systems.

And as others pointed out, you won't be able to build Supercaps anywhere but where they are being built currently. So all this really is a non-issue, so don't get your panties in a bunch over nothing.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2013-04-03 12:24:41 UTC
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#26 - 2013-04-03 12:27:25 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt


I'm going with "He thought CMAs were the same thing as CSAAs" for 200, Alex

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dave Stark
#27 - 2013-04-03 12:41:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt


I'm going with "He thought CMAs were the same thing as CSAAs" for 200, Alex


sad thing is, even though the dev blog clearly states the difference... you're probably right.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#28 - 2013-04-03 12:57:16 UTC
About bloody time, it was a pain having multiple caps in a large corp/alliance in wormhole space. Either leave them floating or require ridiculous amounts of SMAs/POS ...
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#29 - 2013-04-03 13:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Malcanis wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt


I'm going with "He thought CMAs were the same thing as CSAAs" for 200, Alex


I actually hoped CSAAs could to be allowed in low sec. I could finally build my own Titan like I have built every other ship and POS and module and ammo I own.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Emu Meo
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-04-03 13:06:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt


I'm going with "He thought CMAs were the same thing as CSAAs" for 200, Alex


sad thing is, even though the dev blog clearly states the difference... you're probably right.


Actually I read the Dev Blog the other day as soon as it was released and the clarification was not in there, so it was obviously edited at a later date by CCP.

So perhaps the OP read the blog yesterday.
Morrow Disca
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#31 - 2013-04-03 13:11:50 UTC
Confirming that 0.0 Alliances are falling over themselves to store their Titans and Super Carriers inside static, highly vulnerable structures for no clear advantage whatsoever.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#32 - 2013-04-03 13:14:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
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.


I'm afraid I'm kind of getting the impression that you don't really know very much about supercaps.

It's OK though, because the main thing you should take away from this thread is that what you're worried about won't happen because of this change.

RIDDLE TIME;

I can kill capitals with a single blow
I don't work in lo-sec
My name rhymes with LOOMS GREY

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games.
#33 - 2013-04-03 13:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Buhhdust Princess
Having not read most of the replies here, I'm posting this assuming noone else has.

When a POS is put in to reinforced, any hangars and the like become completely inaccessible.

Therefore, if you put your Super/Titan in a CSMA, it is MORE risky than putting it in hostile 0.0 space. I don't see a problem with this change in the way of supercarriers. Infact, I see a way of CCP giving a small buff to wormhole characters, so they don't have to have carrier/dread holder chars.
Dave Stark
#34 - 2013-04-03 13:18:57 UTC
Emu Meo wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt


I'm going with "He thought CMAs were the same thing as CSAAs" for 200, Alex


sad thing is, even though the dev blog clearly states the difference... you're probably right.


Actually I read the Dev Blog the other day as soon as it was released and the clarification was not in there, so it was obviously edited at a later date by CCP.

So perhaps the OP read the blog yesterday.


well i read the blog before this thread was made, and i understood what was going on. so he was sitting on his complaint for quite some time.
Deathwing Reborn
#35 - 2013-04-03 13:19:35 UTC
Honestly I do not really see the problem. I doubt anyone would really use a CSMA in Low sec anyway. All it does is paint a huge cross hair on your POS and say "Hey look at me I have a supercapital here come reinforce my POS." And any that do store them there will be shedding tears when they lose their super to a low sec gang that can muster 40-50 teir 3 battle cruisers.

The only difference I see this making is in Worm Holes where it would be nice to have something that can store more than 1 carrier before you run out of room.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#36 - 2013-04-03 13:20:55 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
This is a huge, welcome change for WH dwellers. Not sure why the OP is so butthurt


I'm going with "He thought CMAs were the same thing as CSAAs" for 200, Alex


I actually hoped CSAAs could to be allowed in low sec. I could finally build my own Titan like I have built every other ship and POS and module and ammo I own.


But you can right now if you like. Just app your supercap building alt into a sov 0.0 bloc alliance and get to it. The hardest part is choosing one that's not so bad that they're in immement danger of getting kicked out, but not so good that you'll be expected to make any actual contribution.

People mostly put those kind of alts into a mid-tier CFC alliance for the perceived stability advantage. But heck, shoot me an evemail and I'll see if I can sort you out with INIT.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#37 - 2013-04-03 13:56:46 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.


tl:dr; "Please don't make me stay in hi-sec, despite my desire to stay there."

WTF?

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#38 - 2013-04-03 14:14:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Listen OP, you have clearly misunderstood something here, or gotten the wrong end of the stick.

I assure you, unless you fly capitals yourself or hold large amounts of POSes in lowsec, you have absolutely no reason to be afraid of anything that will happen as a result of this change.

No one is going to drop supercaps on you in lowsec unless you are;
A) A strategically important POS or set of POSes, or
B) Fighting alongside capitals or super-capitals yourself.

Even if you are in either of the above categories, the chances or someone dropping supercaps on you are slim to none. Even if you are fighting alongside caps or supercaps you also don't have to be afraid unless you are in a Battleship or a heavy interdict or.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Velicitia
XS Tech
#39 - 2013-04-03 14:28:27 UTC
Arkane Mystic wrote:
Why not allow it to be anchored anywhere? You should be able to build Caps in lo and wh space as well.



The naming convention is a holdover from the past, when the progression was (IIRC) "Small, Medium, Large, Capital".

Currently the breakdown is as follows:
Small Ship Assy Array (anchorable in 0.7 and lower)- Frigates, other small stuff
Medium Ship Assy Array (anchorable in 0.7 and lower) - Cruisers, BC, Barges, etc
Large Ship Assy Array (anchorable in 0.7 and lower) - BS, Orca, Freighter
X-Large Ship Assy Array (anchorable in 0.4 and lower) - Capitals (dread, carrier, rorqual, orca, freighter) and IIRC, BS can be built there too
Capital Ship Assy Array (anchorable by sov-holders only) - titans and motherships


The SMA has an internal capacity of 20,000,000 m3, or roughly 1 capital (18-18.5m m3), and 3-4 BS (~450k m3) for 250k PG on your POS. The CSMA has 155,000,000 m3; or roughly 8 capitals and 15 BS for 1,000,000 PG on your POS. Granted, you're probably not going to be leaving EIGHT capships inside at any one time, but it'll go a long way to helping out corps with caps in W-space (7.75x the storage space, for only 4x the fitting cost).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#40 - 2013-04-03 14:29:01 UTC
So someone stores their big ship inside a lowsec POS bubble... how is this any safer than inside a nullsec POS bubble? Seems like it would only make it an even bigger sitting duck than before. Or did I miss something?

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Previous page123Next page