These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why no capships in high-sec?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cade Windstalker
#141 - 2017-05-03 21:03:29 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You're incorrect. There were a number of engagements involving cruisers and destroyers vs battleships in WW2. One that I recall was a night action in Guadacanal in which a number of cruisers damaged and drove off a number of battleships. The Japanese had excellent torpedo's that were a significant threat to battleships. A destroyer could easily cripple a battleship if it hit with its torps.

Ships in EvE early on had the exact same roles as their rl equivalents actually. You're incorrect.


Again, your own example disproves your own point. A *gun duel* between a Battleship and a Cruiser was a joke for the Cruiser, and not all Cruisers in the WW2 era even had Torpedoes. On top of that there's no equivalent weapons system between the Torpedoe of WW2 and Eve's weapons.

The two night's action at Guadalcanal saw *one* Battleship damaged and no torpedo hits scored on any Battleships in the entire engagement. That one Battleship was the South Dakota and the only reason it sustained most of that damage in the first place was due to an electrical fault, caused by improper repair procedures being used previously. The resulting shell damage from light guns did structural damage and knocked out communications, radar, and gun plotting but all of that was fairly easily repaired later and the ship was never in danger of sinking. It likely would never have sustained most of that damage had the electrical fault not occurred in the first place.

Yes, a Torpedo could be a threat to a Battleship, or any ship, but there is no equivalent weapon in Eve, and even the Torpedoes were imprecise weapons that missed completely more often than they actually hit their target.

If you think ships in Eve were in any way modeled on real life ships you're either greatly overstating your knowledge of naval history or you know nothing about Eve in the early days, let alone now.

Oh and to top it off Capital Ships, the original topic of this thread, were always planned and always intended to be bigger than Battleships. Like I said before, CCP like many games, is just using the class designations to denote sizing. Hence why a Carrier is a capital ship but a Battleship isn't, because most people know Carriers as mammoth vessels larger than the biggest Battleships, because that's what they're like today. The same goes for the terms Dreadnaught and Titan, which simply evoke "big ship" rather than referring to any specific class of ships a player or even most devs might be familiar with.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#142 - 2017-05-03 21:15:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Why is a discussion of underwater super spaceships and where they can go, involving WWII?

At least talk U-Boats.

#IZthings

The failed security guard and space lawyer is an historian now too?

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
ApexDynamo
Neurosurgical Reconstruction Centre
#143 - 2017-05-04 16:34:49 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?



there are capships in highsec actually Freighters,jump freighters are technically capital ships,.
Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2017-05-08 19:13:52 UTC
ApexDynamo wrote:
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?



there are capships in highsec actually Freighters,jump freighters are technically capital ships,.


I think this guy just wants to flaunt himself with a Titan in High-Sec (which a single player can't even build on their own, and it'd take an excessively long time to mine all the resources with the ores available in High-Sec).
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#145 - 2017-05-09 04:11:36 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
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."

Only a month to train into a capital ship? for me to train into a capital its like 120- 200 days or more ._.
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
#146 - 2017-05-09 04:37:38 UTC
The problem was capitals could tank concord forever while another team would gank unhindered. Now concord has a weapon that can one shot any ship in the game. Clearly capitals and super capitals should be allowed back into highsec so we can make them great again.