These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Idea to for allowing capital ships in high security space
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
tk givens
Voidborn Knights
#1 - 2016-07-08 22:19:35 UTC
The following is a proposal to allow capital ships(carriers,dreads,etc) access to high security space with certain restrictions that can make it a win win for both sides CCP and For Capsuleers. I propose to allow cap ships to enter high security space for ease of access to other systems,thus allowing unrestricted movement through the eve universe. since capital ships can now use jump gates it is viable to allow them to enter high security space without using a cyno field, however just like bombers the capital ships should have limitations to avoid corps/players from wreaking havoc and getting away with it. for example: Make it to where capitals can only be used for defensive purposes, IE defending player assets, such as citadels during a wardec, i do not propose to allow capital ships to be used offensively in high sec(except for use against criminals who are flagged Red/yellow, ) this is to prevent rich players/corps from declaring war on smaller corps just to grief them. In order to achieve this i would recommend making it to where Capital ships cannot target other player ships that are not criminal, and not at war within (a certain distance) of Player assets IE citadels, pos's, etc. i believe that capital ships should be able to kill pirate NPC's within high security space, just not be used offensively against Player ships that are not criminaly flagged, as mentioned above. if this were allowed or somehow implemented i believe it would freshen up the gameplay, draw more players, and get older players to re subscribe to eve.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-07-08 22:50:48 UTC
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a group of four FAX in triage repping a citadel. Hell. please tell me how you would deal with ONE of the near infinite cap booster FAX in highsec.

Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a carrier gang defending thier citadel.

Please tell me how, in highsec, you would deal with a HAW dread gang defending said citadels.



Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?


Please explain why, after all the nerfs we had to a capital ship's ability to traverse the galaxy, you feel that caps should have unrestricted movement through highsec.
tk givens
Voidborn Knights
#3 - 2016-07-09 00:00:42 UTC
for one, it makes no sense to limit capital access to high sec anymore, eve has came along way from when it needed to restrict such movements, as for your statement "Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?" i never said to allow gate camps, i said "In order to achieve this i would recommend making it to where Capital ships cannot target other player ships that are not criminal, and not at war within (a certain distance) of Player assets IE citadels, pos's, etc." i never said to allow gatecamps, that was never in my post to begin with.

As for breaking through a capital defense, i didnt say it would be easy, in fact it would be damn near impossible which is why people should not declare war unless they know they can destroy a target.

As stated this is a proposal which is obviously open for input.
slumbers
Doomheim
#4 - 2016-07-09 00:20:53 UTC
Allowing caps in high sec is a possibility, but then you would have to restrict their use severely, so as not to disrupt high sec environment. And restricting a class isn't really fun.

For starters you could allow the Dreadnought class ONLY (no carriers - sorry) but without angular weapons. The use of a Dread in high sec would be in the strict sense of the class, just hit structures, be it pos's, citadels or pocos. Extra limitations on guns so that you wouldn't be able to track a battleship even with 10 webs on it.

Unfortunately that really distorts the essence of Capitals, there is no point in doing that. The argument of "supers can now fire dd in low sec but were meant for null sec only" doesnt really fly with use of Capitals in high sec. There will be abuse from big wealthy entities. Essentially Capitals will turn high sec into low sec.

Even though I understand why people would like to see Capitals in high sec, the cons currently exceed the pros for such a move.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#5 - 2016-07-09 01:25:56 UTC
slumbers wrote:
Allowing caps in high sec is a possibility, but then you would have to restrict their use severely, so as not to disrupt high sec environment. And restricting a class isn't really fun...


I don't know about that but if we need those kind of restrictions, it might not be a good idea after all?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
tk givens
Voidborn Knights
#6 - 2016-07-09 01:35:28 UTC
heres an example of the type of restriction, just like stealth bombers you cant activate a bomb launcher in high sec, so on caps the only thing that would need restricted is when you can/cant activate your weapons on another ship/player in space, IE make it so you can attack all players that have criminal status, and then only allow activation on members of a war dec when defending your citadels or any other structures you have in high security space.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#7 - 2016-07-09 02:33:40 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
slumbers wrote:
Allowing caps in high sec is a possibility, but then you would have to restrict their use severely, so as not to disrupt high sec environment. And restricting a class isn't really fun...


I don't know about that but if we need those kind of restrictions, it might not be a good idea after all?


Probably why it hasn't been done. Go figure.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
JohnPaulJones
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2016-07-09 05:55:38 UTC  |  Edited by: JohnPaulJones
Let them in. The foundation is laid what with restrictions to their modules,CONCORD insta kill and Citadel incoming damage limit (the wave of the future). Some of you give these big fat things entirely too much credit. The abuse spoken of however is very real because there is a slight chance had I an Avatar I'd park the front of it right at Jita 4-4 undock and bunt all traffic back into the docking bay.I'd get bored fast and likely GM'd to doomheim but I wouldn't be alone. No citadels in trade hubs and no capitals either...least not the supers.

An afterthought proposed by my cousin to negate bumping,supers hit a wall X km from NPC stations and bounce ,a pos bubble effect in essence.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#9 - 2016-07-09 06:53:15 UTC
No, captitals should not be allowed in high sec for any purpose and under any sort of restrictions. They are one of the few remaining factors that differentiate high sec from other areas of space and thus drawing people out of High sec into more dangerous areas of space.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2016-07-09 10:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Celthric Kanerian
Absolutely not.

If Capitals were able to access hisec, alliances would store them in hisec for safekeeping until they need them, thereby removing all risk in owning them.

Also capitals pack a huge punch to anything that dares mess with them, and after the release of Citadel-expansion, carriers obliterate almost anything larger than a BC.

Dreads themselves got too much dps for hisec, if they were allowed to enter hisec, it shouldn't be possible for them to either use Siege or HAW, which removes the point in using them.

That, and all capitals have too much tank for the average hisec dweller. It would also make it so people in lowsec and nullsec have advandage in hisec since capitals cannot be built in hisec, nor should one be able to build them in hisec. Lowsec, null and wh alliances would have an advandage over players who don't live anywhere else than hisec, people who can't get their hands on capitals over their own.
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2016-07-09 10:48:07 UTC
I will just autopilot through high sec with nano buffer (insert cap name here) bye bye freighters.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#12 - 2016-07-09 11:04:47 UTC
I vote to allow paragraphs into the OP's post

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2016-07-09 12:02:13 UTC
tk givens wrote:
for one, it makes no sense to limit capital access to high sec anymore, eve has came along way from when it needed to restrict such movements, as for your statement "Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?" i never said to allow gate camps, i said "In order to achieve this i would recommend making it to where Capital ships cannot target other player ships that are not criminal, and not at war within (a certain distance) of Player assets IE citadels, pos's, etc." i never said to allow gatecamps, that was never in my post to begin with.

As for breaking through a capital defense, i didnt say it would be easy, in fact it would be damn near impossible which is why people should not declare war unless they know they can destroy a target.

As stated this is a proposal which is obviously open for input.



So if you can't shoot war targets who are on grid with your citadel, what can you shoot?

Please define citadel defence for me. Can you only shoot things in range of your citadel's guns? Or can you only shoot war targets who have already shot you?

Why do you feel it should be utterly impossible to take down a highsec citadel if the defenders have access to a couple of cheap FAX?


And why, given the nerfs to capital mobility, should capitals be able to move through highwsec unhindered?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#14 - 2016-07-09 13:53:45 UTC
Caps, in particular supers, have sucked the fun out of much of the game (honestly the most fun to be had is where caps cannot go). Let them into hi-sec and people will mission run with dreads, and where everyone uses proteus, battleships and vindis for wardecs there will be carriers and fax logi. It will suck hairy balls.

So nerf them in hi-sec? Great. Floating hulks that can do **** all. Thats fun. They'd be right up there with stealth bombers and command dessies for hi-sec fleet comps.

All this is about is making short cuts for null blocs. Nope. Projection through hi-sec is still projection.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#15 - 2016-07-09 15:14:26 UTC
NO
Caps in high sec has always been a bad idea and it will always be a bad idea.
Caps do not need a way to work around the jump range and jump fatigue limits and that is essentially what this is.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#16 - 2016-07-11 00:07:55 UTC
Number's Danika...superior numbers against your carriers will always defeat them.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2016-07-11 02:07:50 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:


If Capitals were able to access hisec, alliances would store them in hisec for safekeeping until they need them, thereby removing all risk in owning them.



You do realize people already do that in 100% safe low-sec NPC stations right?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#18 - 2016-07-11 03:11:34 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:


If Capitals were able to access hisec, alliances would store them in hisec for safekeeping until they need them, thereby removing all risk in owning them.

You do realize people already do that in 100% safe low-sec NPC stations right?

Except the "rules of engagement" are open-ended enough that there is always a possibility for someone to make a mistake.

In high-sec... the only ways to engage someone are through war declarations or aggression shenanigans... both of which can be worked around (see: avoided) with extreme ease.

And Suicide Ganking isn't a reasonable possibility given Dred/Carrier+ tanks.

How did you Veterans start?
Roenok Baalnorn
Baalnorn Heavy Industries
#19 - 2016-07-11 04:49:46 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a group of four FAX in triage repping a citadel. Hell. please tell me how you would deal with ONE of the near infinite cap booster FAX in highsec.

Please tell me how, in highsec, you would break a carrier gang defending thier citadel.

Please tell me how, in highsec, you would deal with a HAW dread gang defending said citadels.



Would it be considered defending a citadel if a wardec group is sitting in their citadel 3000km off the jita gate in perimeter, with their fighters all over the gate ready to defend their citadel from any war targets on grid with it?


Please explain why, after all the nerfs we had to a capital ship's ability to traverse the galaxy, you feel that caps should have unrestricted movement through highsec.


While i get your point and dont even disagree with it, you do know that caps are not required to kill other caps right? Caps are actually quite squishy.

OP: if caps were allowed in high sec it would have to be an all or none to keep the game balanced. IE: If caps are allowed in to defend citadels, then caps are allowed in to destroy citadels.

If i were going to allow caps into high sec, i wouldnt allow cynos still and you would be charged 50 mil isk fee per gate as a concord fee( much like an "oversized load" permit here in the US). If you need to go 6 jumps from low sec to defend a citadel and you are taking two fax its going to cost you 600 mil to get those fax there. Taking 4 dreads the same 6 jumps to blow up the citadel will cost you 1.2 bil isk in fees.
Iain Cariaba
#20 - 2016-07-11 05:17:21 UTC
DrysonBennington wrote:
Number's Danika...superior numbers against your carriers will always defeat them.

Let's apply some logic and reasoning to this. Go figure the "superior numbers' needed to gank a 2 million EHP brick tanked carrier in highsec using only sub-caps. Once you do that, come ask us if that number is anywhere near reasonable.
123Next pageLast page