Allow Capital Ships, Supercarriers, and Titans in Highsec

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
381

High sec is a great choice to be for new recruitment and full feel for the highest technical space game ever, to have caps in high sec seems it would just kill ALL of that and the entire reason why CCP made it that way.

If implemented correctly that great part of highsec will be preserved, don’t worry.

I won’t reply to this thread after this but I’ll put it like this, I’ll quit the game if caps get out into high sec! :+1::smirk:

Please do not, but like I tell those who quit in protest, more and more players will come into the game expecting all that it has and could offer, you quitting won’t change the new generation of EVE players.

382

Nothing in that proves that it’s a good idea to add capitals into highsec. You feeling like you are being left out is not a valid reason to allow them in highsec. If you wish to use the big toys, go to low,null or wormhole-space.

Saying that to enjoy the game you must move is not a valid reason, why not improve the area where the majority of players spend their time?

Having capitals in highsec is not a “positive change”.

I disagree

If you agree that different parts of space need to be different, then you already agreed that there is a valid reason to keep capitals out of highsec. Having the most players is not a valid reason to break the balance that currently exists.

That is incorrect, different areas of space should have different features, but they should not be unbalanced.

Balance already exists in Eve currently. The game is not meant to be equal. You wanting to have everything is not a valid reason to do this.

Equal in outcome and in wealth distribution in terms of resources, we agree. However the tools available should be equal, so you have the same starting ground to compete as other areas.

Capitals belong in null and low. Of course removing them would be a bad idea. Just like adding them to highsec is a bad idea. There is already an issue with too much isk being generated and not enough stuff being destroyed and you want to add these things to the area with the least chance of you losing your ship and allowing for 100% safety in your isk-making? Of course the economy would go to hell.

So you do not want capitals removed from the game, however instead of suggesting isk and wealth sinks, you rather have highsec unbalanced and unprofitable. That is not a good stance in my eyes, let highsec increase its wealth earning capacity, and add sinks to mitigate it, such as the Hypernet.

Capitals will have a chilling effect in PVP in highsec due to their tank and damage, not to mention FAXes. Allowing capitals (I’m not even touching supers or titans, those would just be insane in highsec) would mean that any big fight would automatically mean capitals are on the field and then it’s a matter of who has more of them and they win. You have no idea about how to fight with capitals or against them or what kind of effect they will have in PVP. Less things are destroyed = Less things need to be purchased = Economy takes a dive.

What you mentioned shows that more things will be destroyed however, capitals in highsec will result in more fighting, that is a good thing.

There is no “allowing it to happen”. You would have no way to fight back. Any big group would come in with their capital and supercapital -fleets and would wipe the floor with highsec as nobody in there is willing to fleet up or group up enough to put up a fight. There is no organization in high that would stand a chance against nullsec, especially when it comes to capitals or supers. Sure there will be more conflict once when nullsec comes to play but after that? Less destruction as people will lose their ships less often in PVE or PVP, less pvp in general as there is now a minimum amount you have to be able to field to break a capital while having more isk-generation would cause more issues with the economy than there already are.

Who says there are no organizations that can afford to buy capitals and fight, or that one will spring up? And there will be more fighting, capitals being destroyed removes much more minerals from the economy than sub-capitals. Isk generation is not inherently bad, nullsec swims in it and the economy keeps humming, why not allow highsec to participate?

Your idea boils down to “Waaaa, I want what they have” without proof that it would be good for the game beyond " I think" You want all the nice things without having to risk anything for them. Entitlement is not a very good reasoning for breaking the game more than it already is.

The majority of people who are against this are people who own capitals in nullsec and other areas, and don’t want to see them introduced into highsec. Nullsec increasingly removes risk from the picture, so that argument is becoming ever more moot as time goes on. An equalization of all access to ships throughout highsec is what this game needs, the majority of the players deserve it.

383

All of your points boil down to the fact that you feel entitled to have access to everything. Yeah, that’s not how Eve works.

384

All of your points boil down to the fact that you feel entitled to have access to everything. Yeah, that’s not how Eve works.

Players have the right to propose changes that improve the game that they play.

385

Except this doesn’t improve anything.

386

Except this doesn’t improve anything.

It improves the isk making potential of highsec, allows for more fighting over structures to be had, and it also acts as a minor sink, as all the buy and sell orders of capital ships will drain money out of the economy. Finally, it allows for highsec residents to have a goal to aim for, better chance they stay in the game if they aim for a titan, versus a faction blingy battleship.

387

-There is no need for extra isk-making in highsec
-There is no proof that this would increase people attacking structures
-These sinks already happen when capitals are traded where they belong, in low,null or wormhole-space.
-If you want to aim for capitals or supers, you need to leave highsec.

Again: You feel entitled to having access to these things and you don’t care how much it would break things.

388

There is no need for extra isk-making in highsec

Why? The vast majority of wealth is being produced in nullsec, why not buff highsec abit to compensate?

There is no proof that this would increase people attacking structures

Most certainly it will increase people attacking structures, a solo dreadnaught can easily clear an afk low power structure, more will be destroyed.

These sinks already happen when capitals are traded where they belong, in low,null or wormhole-space.

Majority of capital trades, especially large ones, occur through private contracts, no sink there. Imagine thousands of supers flowing through a highsec keepstar market, much better sink.

If you want to aim for capitals or supers, you need to leave highsec.

Again, having to leave a bad area to a better one does not mean that all is working as intended. The majority of players live and stay in highsec, they should be able to obtain end game ships the same as any other area. Sov mechanics and other unique mechanics should remain in their designated areas, but ship availability should be uniform.

389

Only way capital ship should be allowed into factional highsec is if player has 7+ standing with said faction.

Any entry into faction space below said standing bring factional navy forces to bear.
And any Doomsday module detect causes the same thing no matter standings with faction.

Any standing or security lose should be double if in capital, triple if in super and quadruple if in titan.
So ganking with these power ship have a larger penalty.
I would go one step further, and add standing looses along with the normal security looses at equal rate.

As an added feature, if player in Capital or large any killrights and bounties have an added boost to the rewards given. So the default player with an CCP boosted isk bonus based on size capital to titan.

390

Because this game needs LESS money, not more.

That doesn’t happen in low or null at the moment, why would it happen in highsec, where the bar to doing it is even higher?

Of course supers are traded in contracts, they are build by alliances and they sold to only trusted members. Nothing would change even after allowing them into highsec as you would not get your hands on them.

Highsec isn’t bad. It’s different. Blurring the lines between the different parts of Eve is not a good thing, not a bad one. Capitals were removed from highsec for a very good reason and they should still stay out of there. Limiting what ships can access where is part of the balancing of Eve. Get used to it.

391

Only way capital ship should be allowed into factional highsec is if player has 7+ standing with said faction.

Any entry into faction space below said standing bring factional navy forces to bear.
And any Doomsday module detect causes the same thing no matter standings with faction.

Any standing or security lose should be double if in capital, triple if in super and quadruple if in titan.
So ganking with these power ship have a larger penalty.
I would go one step further, and add standing looses along with the normal security looses at equal rate.

As an added feature, if player in Capital or large any killrights and bounties have an added boost to the rewards given. So the default player with an CCP boosted isk bonus based on size capital to titan.

I read everything and so long as all capitals are allowed under your proposal, it is quite reasonable. It’ll bring back standings as a meaningful part of the game, open up the opportunity for lv4 runners to sell standing sharing, in order to get all of your faction standings above 7+, and if you decide to gank with them, impose a more severe penalty.

+1, it is a reasonable proposal

1 Like
392

Because this game needs LESS money, not more.

Majority of wealth is concentrated in the top 10% of players, and as they quit the game, that wealth disappears, if not the majority of the wealth is not actively used, thus not impacting the economy. Finally, isk sinks help alleviate any negative effects of excess wealth, so I see no issue with allowing the poor player access to more isk.

That doesn’t happen in low or null at the moment, why would it happen in highsec, where the bar to doing it is even higher?

What’s the bar to declaring war and shooting a structure?

Of course supers are traded in contracts, they are build by alliances and they sold to only trusted members. Nothing would change even after allowing them into highsec as you would not get your hands on them.

Sure you will, alliances will spring up dedicated to building and selling capital ships, people will asset safety/smuggle their capital ships into highsec, or some alliances like renter groups will sell to highsec markets. Some alliance will forbid it, others will not.

Highsec isn’t bad. It’s different. Blurring the lines between the different parts of Eve is not a good thing, not a bad one. Capitals were removed from highsec for a very good reason and they should still stay out of there. Limiting what ships can access where is part of the balancing of Eve. Get used to it.

They were removed because concord back then was killable and tankable, now it is not, so the reason they were removed no longer applies. People wanting them out because they wish to see highsec nerfed is not a valid reason to keep them out.

393

When even CCP is saying there is too much ISK in the game, your point is invalid.

They were also removed because they eschewed with the risk and reward of highsec and there is no content on highsec that requires or benefits from capitals, let alone supers and titans.

As long as whoever holds the biggest fleet of supers and titans is the king of the hill of this game, nobody is going to be selling them outside of their alliances/coalitions.

1 Like
394

When even CCP is saying there is too much ISK in the game, your point is invalid.

Not really; there is too much isk, best way to resolve that is by introducing more isk sinks, like the hypernet, an excellent sink. But conveniently people say that the best way to remove isk is to severely nerf highsec, I wonder why they jump to that conclusion instead of say arguing to nerf nullsec?

They were also removed because they eschewed with the risk and reward of highsec and there is no content on highsec that requires or benefits from capitals, let alone supers and titans.

Perhaps back then, but ccp is cleverly realizing that the majority of the playerbase and revenue source is in highsec. Back then they had griefer wars, they had a poor concord, and terrible income in highsec. Now we have reformed wardec system, a very powerful concord that guarantees punishment to those who attack you, and great income in highsec, through incursions, invasions, etc. As I mentioned, all content benefits from having capital ships, if your so confident that it does not, then why don’t you argue for a removal of all capital ships from the game? If not then your a hypocrite.

As long as whoever holds the biggest fleet of supers and titans is the king of the hill of this game, nobody is going to be selling them outside of their alliances/coalitions.

Sure they will, I just told you how capital ships will be sold from nullsec. And if the problem becomes too great, you can allow for capital ships to be built and constructed in highsec/lowsec, negating the power of nullsec if it becomes too unbalanced.

395

Not changing highsec does not mean it’s being nerfed. Adding capitals, let alone supers/titans to highsec would only make the problem worse, not better.

Capitals not being in highsec does not mean they do not have a place in the game. Those are very different things. Not every area needs to have every ship accessable. You don’t hear wormholers complaining about not having access to supers or titan do you? That’s because people understand that there is a reason why certain things are limited from certain areas of space.

Adding capitals let alone supers and titans to highsec would unbalance things already…

Again: You feel entitled to everything. That’s not how Eve works.

396

Not changing highsec does not mean it’s being nerfed. Adding capitals, let alone supers/titans to highsec would only make the problem worse, not better.

I disagree, the problem is the capital ships outclassing sub-capitals in nearly every way. If you do not remove them from the game, then the only way to equalize the imbalance is to have High/Low/Nullsec have the ability to use them. So far Low/Null has the ability to use them, yet Highsec is missing.

Capitals not being in highsec does not mean they do not have a place in the game. Those are very different things. Not every area needs to have every ship accessable. You don’t hear wormholers complaining about not having access to supers or titan do you? That’s because people understand that there is a reason why certain things are limited from certain areas of space.

The main map of the game, no matter the security status, absolutely needs to have every ship accessible. The sole possible exception is wormhole space, the reason being the inherent mass limitation of their ‘gates’, the active effects of the wormholes that are designed to buff sub-capital and non super capital gameplay, and finally the wealth generation, which is the highest in the game, with billions an hour possible through PVE.

And even then, I would be fine with them having full access to capitals, which will mean supercarriers and titans, perhaps a c7 can be introduced with statics across all of High/Low/Null, and with a mass limitation that allows supers/titans through.

Adding capitals let alone supers and titans to highsec would unbalance things already…

Again: You feel entitled to everything. That’s not how Eve works.

It will strongly buff highsec, which will make it closer in balance to nullsec. Both sides have equalization of usage of tools, and the sandbox determines the content and victor of said content. I believe players have the right to get the best possible experience from their game, the majority of the game spends the majority if not all the time in highsec, they have the right to enjoy all of the ships available, and create their own little castles, domains, and stories in the sandbox with them.

397

What you’re fighting for is to make capital ships a required part of owning or operating a structure in hisec. You’re fighting to raise the cost of entry to that aspect of the game, making it less available to new players and small groups.

You can still defend your structures with sub-capitals, but structures in highsec are a bonus, everything that they do with the exception of supercarrier/titan docking can be done by an NPC station, and you have have major stations in every highsec region similar to the new Jita IV IV under construction.

I understand that you’re trying to buff hisec and I respect that, but if what you proposed came to pass, you’d likely crush it instead.

I thank you for your appreciation, but I stress I always have the interests of highsec in heart when I argue for changes. Since complete removal of capital ships is unlikely to occur, the best thing for highsec residents is to also be allowed to own and accumulate stores of capital ships, the same as nullsec.

398

And this right here is what I think underlies your drive to have capital ships in hisec.

Nullsec is better than Empire space in almost every quantifiable sense.

Highest paying mission agents? Nullsec
Most valuable minerals? Nullsec
Highest bounty NPCs? Nullsec
Ability to conquer and own space? Nullsec
Ability to upgrade space and build infrastructure? Nullsec
Ability to use AoE effects like bubbles? Nullsec
No silly Crimewatch timers to worry about? Nullsec

And the fact that nullsec now has a concord like capital umbrella means that the game is unbalanced now, a buff to highsec is what we need to equalize the different sectors.

399

They have never been meant to be equal and they never will be. Your entitlement is not a valid reason to break balance of the game.

400

They have never been meant to be equal and they never will be. Your entitlement is not a valid reason to break balance of the game.

Do you deny the vast imbalance between nullsec and highsec at the present time?