These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Why not allow cap ships like carriers and dreads in Empire space?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aessaya
Independent treasure hunters
#21 - 2011-11-20 00:50:39 UTC
How about NO?

It helps to keep defined borderlines between different security systems.

hisec Arrow concord, subcaps-only
lowsec Arrow no concord. capitals
nullsec Arrow player sov, bombs and bubbles
wh space Arrow no stations, no local, no supers, no gates, sleepers

Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song.
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#22 - 2011-11-20 09:27:52 UTC
Honestly can you explain why no? Currently the only thing that become more easy if you allow caps into high sec is pos bashing, and somewhat mining op; but if you balance this advantage with a concrete cost you can de facto limit their use.
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-11-20 12:18:38 UTC
Carrier repairs? (Neutral) logistics give enough trouble today for a typical high sec wardec. How about a carrier or a few?

Practically 100% safe trading in a jump-capable carrier. How many battleships do you need to gank one?

Set fighters to assist L4 missions. LP prices drop even further thanks to faster mission completion speed.

Just carriers are able to make anything new players can try useless. Add the ability to swat POSes easily with dreads and further mining improvements with the rorqual and the following mineral price crash thanks to more supply and we have a very new player-unfriendly system in place. You'd practically have to own a capital if you wanted to do anything more than minimum wage work.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2011-11-20 12:51:46 UTC
Keras Authion wrote:
Carrier repairs? (Neutral) logistics give enough trouble today for a typical high sec wardec. How about a carrier or a few?

Practically 100% safe trading in a jump-capable carrier. How many battleships do you need to gank one?

Set fighters to assist L4 missions. LP prices drop even further thanks to faster mission completion speed.

Just carriers are able to make anything new players can try useless. Add the ability to swat POSes easily with dreads and further mining improvements with the rorqual and the following mineral price crash thanks to more supply and we have a very new player-unfriendly system in place. You'd practically have to own a capital if you wanted to do anything more than minimum wage work.


neutral remote repair is clearly a bug this should never be allowed to begin with and if i remember correctly they fix it in crucible

safe trading? if they move stuff in a carrier you gank them in dread, carrier aren't mom you can wd them, beside they pay alot more and move way less stuff than today.

are you sure that fighters can warp inside a mission with acceleration gate? if yes this is another bug and need to be addressed.

mining in high sec is not that profitable even today, due to the fact that the precious mineral is only in null or WH, beside if you use a rorqual and use the industrial core into an high sec it not only consume fuel but it need a certificate like authorization that make it more costly.

high sec pos are just to secure today, you ever tried to take down a large faction pos decently fitted with only bs? It take ages and beside the fact that dreads make it more easy you pay alot to move and use them.
Adunh Slavy
#25 - 2011-11-20 13:28:17 UTC
Allow them in, if anyone can shoot at them for any time for any reason - Always red and blinky.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2011-11-20 13:33:55 UTC
Roger Soros wrote:
neutral remote repair is clearly a bug this should never be allowed to begin with and if i remember correctly they fix it in crucible
No, it's not a bug and it's not getting fixed, and the problem remains: capital reps make it far too easy to have anything stay alive in the highsec environment.
Quote:
safe trading? if they move stuff in a carrier you gank them in dread
Yeah… no, you just explained why it's a bad idea and why it makes trading far too safe. Also, no dreads don't actually deliver the kind of damage required for your idea to work.
Quote:
are you sure that fighters can warp inside a mission with acceleration gate? if yes this is another bug and need to be addressed.
It's not a bug. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of reasoning — labelling stuff as bugs that are working as intended — just because you want to do something, kind of shows that your idea isn't a good one.
Quote:
mining in high sec is not that profitable even today
…and that's how it should stay. The ability to make use of a Rorq is one other means to entice people to go elsewhere (not to mention that the Rorq itself generates all the previously mentioned problem).
Quote:
high sec pos are just to secure today, you ever tried to take down a large faction pos decently fitted with only bs?
Yes. It's very easy… or at least it was until CCP wrecked the wardec mechanic and made all POSes safe, but that's nothing that can be helped by letting capships in.
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-11-20 15:12:14 UTC
neutral remote rep is an workaround used to prevent aggro mechanic and concord punishment, the fact that this not adressed don't mean that is "working as intended"

so basically why gank an hauler should be easy? i only see this as an escalation that make hauling valuable stuff/gank hauler with valuable stuff in their cargo more costly

acceleration gate are here to prevent some ships to enter a mission and make it too easy, if a carrier is not allowed inside a mission how the main weapon can?

mining remain not profitable because the advantage to use the rorqual is balanced by the incresed cost of running one on empire

Again caps in high sec just only mean that there is an escalation on the warfare it's nothing to be afraid

Sincerely i always find it hilarious how everytime someone propose an idea that put some risk on living or running business in the little high sec garden, there is so much hate.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#28 - 2011-11-20 15:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Guard
Roger Soros wrote:
Honestly can you explain why no? Currently the only thing that become more easy if you allow caps into high sec is pos bashing, and somewhat mining op; but if you balance this advantage with a concrete cost you can de facto limit their use.


Please keep it civil.
-Guard
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-11-20 15:46:00 UTC
Cost is a balance factor, in the case of supers and titans it simply wasn't keeped in line with the increase of income that the sov changes have done.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#30 - 2011-11-20 15:53:02 UTC
Roger Soros wrote:
Cost is a balance factor, in the case of supers and titans it simply wasn't keeped in line with the increase of income that the sov changes have done.


You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

CCP themselves have said that cost as a balance factor is a stupid idea.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#31 - 2011-11-20 16:12:25 UTC
****ty idea is a ****ty idea.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#32 - 2011-11-20 20:10:10 UTC
Roger Soros wrote:
neutral remote rep is an workaround used to prevent aggro mechanic and concord punishment, the fact that this not adressed don't mean that is "working as intended"
No, the fact that it is working as intended means it is working as intended. The use of of neutral reps is a way to keep support ships from being immediately detected and intercepted before they can be put into play. They don't avoid any aggro or CONCORD mechanics that affect non-neutral reps.
Quote:
so basically why gank an hauler should be easy?
It's only easy if the hauler pilot is stupid, and it most certainly doesn't need to be made easier to be that stupid.
Quote:
acceleration gate are here to prevent some ships to enter a mission and make it too easy
…and bringing in fighters does not change that. The addition they offer isn't much more helpful than if you simply had a second ship of the type allowed by the gate. It's a bit easier to manage when dual-boxing, that is all. Bringing the whole carrier is a completely different matter. Again, you are arbitrarily labelling things as bugs that are not — they are direct consequences of you wanting to add something that is not good for the game, as shown by the fact that you feel that need to label these consequences as bugs.
Quote:
mining remain not profitable because the advantage to use the rorqual is balanced by the incresed cost of running one on empire
Since there is no increased cost, no, it's not.
Quote:
Again caps in high sec just only mean that there is an escalation on the warfare
…which is not needed to begin with, and which is, more importantly, utterly false. It means an escalation of the safety from non-warfare and that level is already far too high. There is absolutely no need whatsoever in highsec for any of the capabilities caps offer, and only tons of problems (which you try to solve by incorrectly labelling them as bugs).

What is truly hilarious is how you manage to fool yourself into believing that what you're proposing will in any way increase the risks involved when it so obviously does the exact opposite (which is why it's such a horribly bad idea).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#33 - 2011-11-20 20:11:51 UTC
Roger Soros wrote:
Cost is a balance factor
No, it is not. Cost is a consequence of abilities, and is utterly useless as any kind of of rationalisation for capabilities.

In fact, as soon as you hear the argument “it should do X because it is so expensive”, you can be 100% certain that it most definitely should never be allowed to do X.
Vaako Horizon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-11-20 22:47:50 UTC
I too think capitals should be allowed in highsec, but with some restrictions.

Like a fee for every gate jump, remote repair abilitys disabled etc etc
There are several ways to do it...
Aessaya
Independent treasure hunters
#35 - 2011-11-20 23:15:23 UTC
One sidenote: as far as I remember, assigned fighters will not follow you into a deadspace mission (deadspace missions may or may not have gates, but if you cannot warp around it and always land at the same location upon warping in from outside - it's a deadspace. Acceleration gates in mission do not guarantee the mission is a deadspace - i have encountered a few non-deadspace missions with accel. gates.

I will test this thing tomorrow and report the findings, but i'm pretty sure none of the mechanics involved have been changed recently. Otherwise i'd be doing L4s in a shuttle/inty with fighters assigned to it.

Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song.
Roger Soros
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-11-21 11:09:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
snip


I think that i'm not explain myself well, i too think that if caps were introduced without some enforced iron rules they simply become another layer of protection for the High Sec but as i have stated in my first post if you introduce them in the right manner you can open the empire to a whole new type of warfare or an escalation; I think that one the main reason because so many fellows remain in high sec is the lack of caps warfare if you change that in the right way i think that alot of peoples will move into null.

On the last not for me cost is a balance factor when you ear "its so rare because it cost so much, and because its so rare its powerfull"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2011-11-21 11:26:05 UTC
Roger Soros wrote:
Tippia wrote:
snip


I think that i'm not explain myself well, i too think that if caps were introduced without some enforced iron rules they simply become another layer of protection for the High Sec but as i have stated in my first post if you introduce them in the right manner you can open the empire to a whole new type of warfare or an escalation; I think that one the main reason because so many fellows remain in high sec is the lack of caps warfare if you change that in the right way i think that alot of peoples will move into null.

On the last not for me cost is a balance factor when you ear "its so rare because it cost so much, and because its so rare its powerfull"

One of those iron rules would have to be “HP and capacitor divided by 50", another is “no actively targeted, AoE or passive remote support modules." Otherwise, they become too safe. This also instantly kills you idea of using them as “escalation" (which is not new in any way, nor is it needed).

Still interested?

The simple fact is this: caps have no place and no role in highsec and would have to completely redesigned to fit there. This would remove all the allure they have for the people who want them but can't have them, and ruin them for everyone else. Want a capship? Move to lowsec — they have been balanced to be used there.

And no,cost is not a balancng factor since, as every attempt in that direction has shown, people will pay that extra cost. Cost was tried as a factor to limit Titans to maybe 3–4 in the game. That worked out well…
Previous page12