Allow Capital Ships, Supercarriers, and Titans in Highsec

Thank you for your response.

If you really want to merge topics together try to get your thread into mine. I have no problem merging topics, but it has to merge into the one that covers the topics fully, I being an advocate of full inclusion of capitals cover both your suggestion, and the thread that you linked, that advocates for carriers and dreadnoughts to be added.

I think your idea and the other thread is too limiting, yours because you add many mechanics that would make capitals annoying to use in highsec, and the other thread because supercarriers and titans are not included. Players who live in highsec do not deserve to go without the full spectrum of ships just because of the region in which they live, each region has to offer different activities in order to incentivize living there, highsec is the area of civilization, lowsec is the frontier of civilization, and nullsec is the uninhabited land where new capsuleer civilizations can emerge.

In what way?

Typical forum decorum would have been for you to post your suggestion for broader allowance of capital ships into hisec as a rebuttal to my pre-existing thread. Why? Because if you had, I could have just pointed you to my original post instead of having to copy and paste it here:

The Empires have always guarded their sovereignty from capsuleer influence quite stridently, and there’s no sign that this is changing. However, given the rising threat of the Triglavian and Drifter attacks on New Eden, a slight bending of the rules may have to be allowed to protect that same sovereignty.

Titans and Supercaps in Jita or Amarr are not a slight bending of the rules, it’s tossing the rules out entirely.

Carriers and Dreads flown by trusted pilots in lower security systems is a slight bending of the rules.

I think your proposal is a step in the right direction, just vastly too far in that direction.

(EDIT: And to clarify, my nitpicking about forum decorum isn’t about my thread vs yours, it’s about having one coherent discussion on the topic instead of one that’s spread out and easy to miss parts of. I don’t care if CCP merges yours into mine, mine into yours, or makes a whole separate one like the old AFK Cloaking thread, my goal is just to have a non-fragmented discussion.)

I understand your view. The reason I made a new post is because the threads that currently were mentioned had two different views which are very similar, however much different from mine. I personally would like to own a supercarrier in highsec, and neither thread advocates for that position, hence my posting here.

The empires are very weak right now. They let entire constellations get invaded by triglavians and sansha while they sit at the gate. Allowing better firepower for capsuleers is not unrealistic, especially supers and titans without their heavy weaponry. Its like a country giving fully automatic assault rifles to its population, they can’t own grenades, tanks, or nuclear weapons, but full auto weapons are powerful and effective if the government cannot maintain safety.

I will as well comment on your thread, because while we may have our differences, at least you would like to see the possibility of having capitals in highsec, something that we both can find common ground on.

1 Like

Are you Naari Naarian, perhaps?

1 Like

Because a fleet of titans and supers in high sec in nigh unkillable. You cannot alpha a titan/super and FAXes are very potent at repairing anything and everything that isnt insta-blapped. So there will be no reason to wage a war on a group with defensive fleet of supers or defend against a supreme fleet of supers = less wars. They also will skyrocket an entrance bar for pilots to participate in a war, just like the current situation in null.

If you want real world analogy - nuclear warheads are an effective deterrent for wars.

1 Like

Whose that?

You have a fair point. I for one would love to see nullsec be a great haven of thousands of small 1-3 system alliances, however the current politics and strength of the current inhabitants make this unlikely. Couldn’t my proposal work with a FAX removal, as a CCP developer recently hinted at? You thus have powerful ships, but you cannot just have a FAX alt on standby, rather an entire fleet to defend you with logistics in wars.

good less wars less problems. Here here! lets do it

EDIT: I would also combine this proposal with a broad nerf to total capital hitpoints, reduction in starting resist, and increase in mineral cost, to better balance cost with effectiveness. A high end battleship is around 500m-1.5B isk in value, thus the tank of a carrier shouldn’t be that much greater than a battleship, instead the price gives you jump drive capability and increased damage and application vs a battleship. Same with supercarriers, several million hitpoints and an increase in mineral cost is balanced, compared to the price of a frigate through a battleship. Having such a high jump from battleship to capital ship is arguably the biggest contributor to the capital supremacy doctrine that dominates the nullsec meta.

Wrong. It was a bug that allowed people to build caps in HS (which was quickly patched) and sometimes because GMs reimburse caps in the wrong station.

If it was a bug then why allow the ships in the first place? Now that nullsec is increasingly void of people due to blackout, perhaps an incentive to set up production in the nullsec frontiers is what is needed to repopulate those systems.

Price is not, nor should ever be, a determining factor in ship or module balance.

Also, compare apples to apples. You’re taking either fit battleship prices (or unfit faction ones) and comparing them to, I’m guessing bare carrier hulls. Not a good comparison.

Having said that, I agree with you and others who have said that the jump in capability between battleships and carriers seems a bit extreme, but I’m more in favor of introducing a new platform to fill that gap as opposed to nerfing carriers. But that’s a topic for another thread…

I disagree. Price should be a determining factor in performance. If you pay a few million, you fly a frigate, a few dozen a cruiser, a few hundred a battleship, a few billion a carrier/dread, one or two dozen billion a supercarrier, and a hundred or so billion a titan. Power comes with cost, having a carrier which outclasses the marauder in every way be worth less than a marauder is not balanced.

I argue total price of a general t2 fit. So a carrier can do t2 fit vindicator dps with great application at vast ranges, with much more ehp. While the cost is not that much higher than a vindicator. That is not balanced.

What is this new platform that you speak of?

If you replace “price” with “mineral cost” and limit the comparison to vanilla T1 ships, I generally agree with you. Once you get into T2 and faction ships though, market price starts becoming a much less reliable indicator of “performance”, especially with highly specialized hulls, because demand starts playing a more significant part in the price.

Floating around the forums somewhere, there was a thread that plotted approximate EHP per ship class in increasing size. There’s a nice, roughly linear progression in the subcap lineup and in the capital lineup, but the jump between battleships (highest EHP subcap) and carriers (lowest EHP capital) was completely out of proportion with other measures like DPS, material cost, etc. So, the poster proposed a lighter variant of dreadnaught (much like FAXs are a variant of carrier) with less EHP and DPS to fill that gap a bit more cleanly.

Years ago on the old forums I had proposed something similar: change all of the current dreadnaughts to be tankier (at the time, only the Phoenix had a tank bonus) and introduce a variant of dreads that were lighter, less tanky, but balanced more around “mobile” (as mobile as capital sips can be at least), high DPS warfare. Not quite glass cannons, but not static siege engines like dreadnaughts. (Incidentally, in the same thread I proposed something very similar to FAXes.)

Both are hypotheticals, not announced changes. Apologies if I wasn’t clear on that.

My apologies, I meant cost as in inherent mineral cost. We are in agreement then, and the comparison is within t1, as I want to see the total effectiveness of the hull be tied to the amount of minerals that it takes to build it. This should be the case from sub cap to titan, mineral cost as it gets higher, means the ship gets better.

As for the new dreadnought, we could add another class in-between battleship and normal ship of the line capital, however the mineral cost should be around 1.5B worth, and the capitals further up will have to require more minerals, 3B in value for capitals/dreads, 40-50 for supercarriers, and 300B for titans. In order to prevent stockpiles from benefiting, the current capitals will all be nerfed into mini versions of the normal elite capitals, with the respective mineral cost. That way you have a mini-mini capital as you proposed, mini variant ships of the line, and the elite supercarriers that people want, but you truly need an alliance of miners to construct. As they were originally intended to be by ccp.

One of my arguments is the ships themselves cannot dock in anything other than a keepstar, with the only mechanic changed being their access to jump and acceleration gates. This means that the ship will have to be trapped in a ‘tomb’ alt, or be constantly near a freeport keepstar, which could easily be destroyed or access locked to the public.

Since superweapons are still not allowed, highsec can enjoy high powered ships, the same as nullsec, without their full power being available, and still have to deal with logistics, since the ships cannot dock in any NPC station, or non keepstar citadels. Normal carriers and dreads can still dock.