These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Carriers, Dreadnaughts & Stargates - Something Doesn't Add Up
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#41 - 2014-02-02 06:50:51 UTC
The solution is to reduce the size of freighters and jump freighters in half, capacity in half, tank in half, etc. Then we fix the lore problem.

Nerf haulers!

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2014-02-02 06:56:56 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
The solution is to reduce the size of freighters and jump freighters in half, capacity in half, tank in half, etc. Then we fix the lore problem.

Nerf haulers!

No one gives a flying dogturd about CCP's lame lore. Its worse than the James338 crap you guys rave on about in most cases.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#43 - 2014-02-02 07:03:06 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Erotica 1 wrote:
The solution is to reduce the size of freighters and jump freighters in half, capacity in half, tank in half, etc. Then we fix the lore problem.

Nerf haulers!

No one gives a flying dogturd about CCP's lame lore. Its worse than the James338 crap you guys rave on about in most cases.


You still seem mad about getting your ship all blown to pieces.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2014-02-02 07:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Erotica 1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Erotica 1 wrote:
The solution is to reduce the size of freighters and jump freighters in half, capacity in half, tank in half, etc. Then we fix the lore problem.

Nerf haulers!

No one gives a flying dogturd about CCP's lame lore. Its worse than the James338 crap you guys rave on about in most cases.


You still seem mad about getting your ship all blown to pieces.

I got my ship blown all to pieces? Oh my 20 minute old alts ibis or whatever it was :) yeah, nope.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
#45 - 2014-02-02 07:13:37 UTC
Silivar Karkun wrote:
CCP could enable capital ships to traverse high sec but they would be limited in what they can do of course:

-they would still need to use cynos

-they wouldnt be able to remote repair

-they wouldnt be able to launch drones/fighters or use EWAR, energy disruption and weapon modules

-they would be locked from mission sites and anomalies/DED sites...

-they can repair themselves and use propulsion methods

-capital ships can interact in duels and defend if agressed by players, its the only moment where they have combat enabled

the idea is that while not in wardecs or being attacked, capital ships would only serve as hauling ships, they have the permission to pass and defend themselves if attacked, but they wont be able to do any PvE content, mining included, since their place should be out of high sec


Yea...no. Right now capital logistics requires some effort and includes RISK. Cynos in highsec remove risk.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2014-02-02 07:27:52 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
I find myself wondering why capitals are not allowed in High sec. Anybody got a justification for that?


To break the sandbox, an clumsily try to control what players do.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#47 - 2014-02-02 07:39:12 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No one gives a flying dogturd about CCP's lame lore. Its worse than the James338 crap you guys rave on about in most cases.

Actually, much as I'm not supporting Erotica here, viewing them as a great example of the worst EVE has to offer, a LOT of people care about EVE's lore.

But on this point about Caps, it's as simple as 'They don't get to use stargates'. We can argue till we are blue in the face about lore, but sometimes game balance has to come first, not lore. (Most times in fact). So we can simply make Psuedo lore explanations that when viewed from an in game perspective would hold true. Or you can rant on the forums how it's not fair.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2014-02-02 07:40:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Messoroz wrote:
Silivar Karkun wrote:
CCP could enable capital ships to traverse high sec but they would be limited in what they can do of course:

-they would still need to use cynos

-they wouldnt be able to remote repair

-they wouldnt be able to launch drones/fighters or use EWAR, energy disruption and weapon modules

-they would be locked from mission sites and anomalies/DED sites...

-they can repair themselves and use propulsion methods

-capital ships can interact in duels and defend if agressed by players, its the only moment where they have combat enabled

the idea is that while not in wardecs or being attacked, capital ships would only serve as hauling ships, they have the permission to pass and defend themselves if attacked, but they wont be able to do any PvE content, mining included, since their place should be out of high sec


Yea...no. Right now capital logistics requires some effort and includes RISK. Cynos in highsec remove risk.

Cyno's, jump bridges and titan bridges remove risk in null and low too. So what? If by risk you mean, undocking in Jita, jumping to a low sec POS then warping to 0 on a high sec gate as risk ....


Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No one gives a flying dogturd about CCP's lame lore. Its worse than the James338 crap you guys rave on about in most cases.

Actually, much as I'm not supporting Erotica here, viewing them as a great example of the worst EVE has to offer, a LOT of people care about EVE's lore.

But on this point about Caps, it's as simple as 'They don't get to use stargates'. We can argue till we are blue in the face about lore, but sometimes game balance has to come first, not lore. (Most times in fact). So we can simply make Psuedo lore explanations that when viewed from an in game perspective would hold true. Or you can rant on the forums how it's not fair.

I agree game balance is important. What specifically do you think would be imbalanced if capitals could jump to cyno's in highsec?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#49 - 2014-02-02 08:07:54 UTC
Neutral cyno alts would require suicide ganking to kill. There are no hard coded limitations on what a cap can do in high sec. Suicide Ganking cap ships is nigh on impossible (So crazy as to be unrealistic to ever do), Caps in High Sec would completely change the scale of High Sec war. Hardcoding them to prevent them doing stuff would mean that in the event of a wardec, they would be utterly vulnerable and unable to even defend themselves.
So yea.... Huge can of worms for no real benefit to the gameplay overall.
Ramone Ormand
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-02-02 08:45:48 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No one gives a flying dogturd about CCP's lame lore. Its worse than the James338 crap you guys rave on about in most cases.

Actually, much as I'm not supporting Erotica here, viewing them as a great example of the worst EVE has to offer, a LOT of people care about EVE's lore.

But on this point about Caps, it's as simple as 'They don't get to use stargates'. We can argue till we are blue in the face about lore, but sometimes game balance has to come first, not lore. (Most times in fact). So we can simply make Psuedo lore explanations that when viewed from an in game perspective would hold true. Or you can rant on the forums how it's not fair.



I like pseudo lore explanations about how they hold true, but I created a pseudo lore explanation on how it doesn't. I hope you're not referring to the OP when you talk about ranting on the forums about how it's not fair. Because I never, ever stated that. I approve of no carriers in high sec. Yet people still seem to think that's what this thread is about... Sad
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2014-02-02 08:46:38 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Neutral cyno alts would require suicide ganking to kill. There are no hard coded limitations on what a cap can do in high sec. Suicide Ganking cap ships is nigh on impossible (So crazy as to be unrealistic to ever do), Caps in High Sec would completely change the scale of High Sec war. Hardcoding them to prevent them doing stuff would mean that in the event of a wardec, they would be utterly vulnerable and unable to even defend themselves.
So yea.... Huge can of worms for no real benefit to the gameplay overall.

So they can open a cyno, unlike low and null they can't scram you and open a cyno.

I'm sure if caps were allowed in high sec doomsdays would not be use-able since they're not useable in low. What limitations would need to be imposed on them. They would already not be able to dock if supercaps, they would already not be able to use acceleration gates, they could not do incursions because they're cyno jammed afaik.

Why would not being able to suicide gank capitals be an issue? Of course your actually wrong about that you could suicide gank them with enough Nado's. But why is there some sort of entitlement to be able to suicide gank every ship in game?

Wars. Titans would be useless. Super-carriers would be relatively useless against anything except other caps and moderately effective against battleships. Anyone fielding caps would be taking a pretty big risk. There would be no smart-bombing drone defense. No bubbles. No bombs. Nuetral bumping alts would make cap warfare very annoying, you would easily be able to neutral bump a cap out of range of reppers with a neutral cap warping to nuetral scout.

Apart from drone issues which need to be fixed (sentry assist) which is not a cap issue I doubt the would be problematic at all. The only real issue would be maybe using them to bump freighters off grid for ganking.

I see no can of worms and plenty of benefits to players, the majority who inhabit high sec and would like a cap ship.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#52 - 2014-02-02 08:58:47 UTC
Yes, because Blap dreads, POS's, Carriers supplying massive RR power, Titan Boosts, Fighter assist for Mission running, couldn't possibly be an issue at all.... Heck, even with the tiny exposure to cap warfare that I've had I know how terrible letting loose caps in high sec would be.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2014-02-02 09:27:39 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Yes, because Blap dreads, POS's, Carriers supplying massive RR power, Titan Boosts, Fighter assist for Mission running, couldn't possibly be an issue at all.... Heck, even with the tiny exposure to cap warfare that I've had I know how terrible letting loose caps in high sec would be.

Or you're just exaggerating.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Seras Victoria Egivand
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2014-02-02 10:24:39 UTC
easy solution make all of eve 0.0 and wipe hi sec off the map... :P
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-02-02 10:28:30 UTC
Because of balance. That is all.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Chaotix Morwen
Church Of BDSM
#56 - 2014-02-04 01:33:31 UTC
Rastafarian God wrote:
Chaotix Morwen wrote:
This is just postulation on my part, freighters and jump freighters are specifically designed to be able to move freely in high sec, it would be likely that due to this that they have a number of inbuilt systems designed to reduce the burden on the stargates, some kind of a heavy warp stabilizer and advanced computing system which greatly reduces the load on the gate and allows it to move something that is possibly vastly over its normal mass capabilities. Of course the cost of this ability is the inability to mount any more equipment as all of its power and cpu is required to run this stargate efficiency program.

Carriers however are designed to have specialized combat uses, to get a similar system operating in them would require far too much sacrifice of its combat modules. Even though the Nidhoggur only has a roughly 5% difference in mass from a Charon, with the theory posted above the difference between its mass and the gates mass capability will be far higher. which would explain why the various capital designers did not even attempt to design a combat capital with the capacity to operate gates (to do that they would essentially be building a battleship).

I don't have anything to backup what I've said above, but at the very least its a way to explain the game mechanics without stuffing up eve lore.


You are forgetting that an Orca is a capitol ships as well, and that an Orca is basically a nerffed down Carrier for highsec with mining bonuses instead of PVP bonuses. So a lot of what you said still does not make sense.

:)



Oh i never forgot that Orcas are capital ships themselves. The only thing an orca has in common with a carrier is a vastly miniaturised ship maintenance hangar. A Nidhoggur has 1,014,750 tons of mass, whereas an Orca has 250,000 tons. So an Orca has less than 25% of the mass of one of the lighter carriers, id dare say that this is well within the tolerance of stargates, clearly the ORE company thought ahead and designed their premier command ship to have stargate usability.

Does this clear the issue you feel my theory has?
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2014-02-04 03:58:08 UTC
The guy who programmed the gates used a 32 bit operating system and thus had to assign 1 bit for signage, 2 bits for decimals, and failed to realize he had only 29 bits left to store the ~537 megatons of mass
Trying to pilot a gigaton through a gate causes a buffer overflow on scanning thus preventing usage of the gate.

See people, this is why you need to upgrade your computers!
You are keeping the rest of us from having capitals in hisec!
Ramone Ormand
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-02-04 06:45:36 UTC
Chaotix Morwen wrote:
This is just postulation on my part, freighters and jump freighters are specifically designed to be able to move freely in high sec, it would be likely that due to this that they have a number of inbuilt systems designed to reduce the burden on the stargates, some kind of a heavy warp stabilizer and advanced computing system which greatly reduces the load on the gate and allows it to move something that is possibly vastly over its normal mass capabilities. Of course the cost of this ability is the inability to mount any more equipment as all of its power and cpu is required to run this stargate efficiency program.

Carriers however are designed to have specialized combat uses, to get a similar system operating in them would require far too much sacrifice of its combat modules. Even though the Nidhoggur only has a roughly 5% difference in mass from a Charon, with the theory posted above the difference between its mass and the gates mass capability will be far higher. which would explain why the various capital designers did not even attempt to design a combat capital with the capacity to operate gates (to do that they would essentially be building a battleship).

I don't have anything to backup what I've said above, but at the very least its a way to explain the game mechanics without stuffing up eve lore.


If this theory was to be true, then the minimised mass has already been accounted for. It suffers the same problem that the bloated "footprint" theory has as well.

with the mass of all of the parts that make up a freighter (charon was used for reference here), it equates to 2.22 million kgs.

960 million kgs is the mass of a fully built Charon. As you may notice, the components that make up the Charon are heavier than the components that make up a Nidhoggur. Yet the Charon is lighter than a Nidhoggur which may prove you right - The Charon is more "efficient" at reducing it's mass, whether that's from electronic systems or a stargate efficiency program, it's not known.

But, the way it proves you wrong is that now that the "electronics system" is taken into account, the Nidhoggur is still only 5% heavier. Therefore, it's not "much too big" at all.

Another problem with a "stargate efficiency program" is that no matter what, the same number of particles (ie. the same mass) has to pass through the stargate at the same time. You could reduce the stress on the stargate by making the particles move through the stargate at a slower rate - which will spread them out further as they move through hyperspace. This will unfortunately break the bonds on the particles, and you won't end up with a Charon at the end you'll end up with a subatomic blob of broken particles.

Do you understand what i'm getting at? No matter what electronics you put onto it, the same volume of particles will have to go through the stargate at the same rate. What?
Rashnu Gorbani
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2014-02-04 08:55:18 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
I find myself wondering why capitals are not allowed in High sec. Anybody got a justification for that?

cloaked concord cyno jammers
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2014-02-04 09:07:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Ramone Ormand wrote:
Chaotix Morwen wrote:
This is just postulation on my part, freighters and jump freighters are specifically designed to be able to move freely in high sec, it would be likely that due to this that they have a number of inbuilt systems designed to reduce the burden on the stargates, some kind of a heavy warp stabilizer and advanced computing system which greatly reduces the load on the gate and allows it to move something that is possibly vastly over its normal mass capabilities. Of course the cost of this ability is the inability to mount any more equipment as all of its power and cpu is required to run this stargate efficiency program.

Carriers however are designed to have specialized combat uses, to get a similar system operating in them would require far too much sacrifice of its combat modules. Even though the Nidhoggur only has a roughly 5% difference in mass from a Charon, with the theory posted above the difference between its mass and the gates mass capability will be far higher. which would explain why the various capital designers did not even attempt to design a combat capital with the capacity to operate gates (to do that they would essentially be building a battleship).

I don't have anything to backup what I've said above, but at the very least its a way to explain the game mechanics without stuffing up eve lore.


If this theory was to be true, then the minimised mass has already been accounted for. It suffers the same problem that the bloated "footprint" theory has as well.

with the mass of all of the parts that make up a freighter (charon was used for reference here), it equates to 2.22 million kgs.

960 million kgs is the mass of a fully built Charon. As you may notice, the components that make up the Charon are heavier than the components that make up a Nidhoggur. Yet the Charon is lighter than a Nidhoggur which may prove you right - The Charon is more "efficient" at reducing it's mass, whether that's from electronic systems or a stargate efficiency program, it's not known.

But, the way it proves you wrong is that now that the "electronics system" is taken into account, the Nidhoggur is still only 5% heavier. Therefore, it's not "much too big" at all.

Another problem with a "stargate efficiency program" is that no matter what, the same number of particles (ie. the same mass) has to pass through the stargate at the same time. You could reduce the stress on the stargate by making the particles move through the stargate at a slower rate - which will spread them out further as they move through hyperspace. This will unfortunately break the bonds on the particles, and you won't end up with a Charon at the end you'll end up with a subatomic blob of broken particles.

Do you understand what i'm getting at? No matter what electronics you put onto it, the same volume of particles will have to go through the stargate at the same rate. What?

I think at release from memory they could never use star gates. Perhaps a more reasonable explanation for it is the empires don't feel comfortable with capsuleers being able to amass fleets of capitals and so stargate operators just don't allow them to jump.

From what I understand the lore part of no caps built in highsec was due to a cap crashing into a station in Yulai however given we crash freighters into stations all the time and just bounce off doing no damage whatsoever it's pretty silly but then we are talking about the NPC empires, I've killed that weirdo in Goonristas Extravaganza a few hundred times at least and he still tells me he's going to take care of me every damn time.

Grrrr Goonristas

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)