Allow full access to capitals in highsec combined with a broad ehp nerf across all capital hulls

Perhaps it rewards attentive gameplay, I believe you’ll be in favor of a capital pilot surviving a gank if he was at the keyboard and paying attention at the moment he was ganked, while having no sympathy for the one who was ganked while afk.

Finally, the ‘invulnerability button’ is designed to counter the huge ehp of capitals, and make dreadnaught bombs a feasible tactic. If there is a severe ehp nerf, I’m sure the module can be retired, in the name of increasing capital destruction.

But enough about this button, let’s get back to the pros and cons of the OP proposal.

Negative the video above was a hull only no module fit avatar trying to get into highsec, it was killed in lowsec. If you watch the video, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind having him afk piloting across the uedama gate and getting a gank. Especially since a naked titan hull will be around 3-4m ehp.

Sabus is a known profiteer and extortionist. This is just a troll post. Reported.

3 Likes

Not in capitals in hi-sec.

But you guys can use marauders…

1 Like

According to CCP, wrong.

1 Like

Chiming in here, once, for the record. Long post with multiple TL;DRs in bold.

Let’s look at a example of EHP progression from Cruiser up to TItan. I’m preferential to Amarr ships (plus they’re notoriously strong when buffer fit) and all entries assume max skills, a single DC2, a single appropriate T2 plate, a single T2 EANM, and 3x T1 trimarks. Yes, I realize that this is an utter peasant fit for Titans and Supers and it’s ignoring the cost of the rest of the fit (which can be substantial), but I wanted an apples to apples comparison. Also, I’m using ISK price (and estimating for the Titan and Super) but really we should be looking at the build cost (which I don’t readily have access to). So treat this as a very, very rough approximation.

  • Avatar: 6.5 million EHP, ~65 billion ISK cost, ~100 EHP per million ISK
  • Aeon: 4.8 million EHP, ~35 billion ISK cost, ~138 EHP per million ISK
  • Revelation: 1.5 million EHP, 1.95 billion ISK cost, ~790 EHP per million ISK
  • Archon: 1.15 million EHP, 1.35 billion ISK cost, ~852 EHP per million ISK
  • Abaddon: 112k EHP, 214 million ISK cost, ~523 EHP per million ISK
  • Prophecy: 75k EHP, 62 million ISK cost, ~1209 EHP per million ISK
  • Maller: 33k EHP, 20 million ISK cost, ~1617 EHP per million ISK.

There are two big discrepancies that stand out to me.

The first (highlighted in bold) is the jump in raw EHP from battleships to carriers. But I don’t see that as a problem in and of itself, I see that as a symptom of the real problem, which is the second discrepancy, which I’ve highlighted in italic bold.

The trend in ISK efficiency of ship hulls (that is, how many EHP you get for the build price of your fit) inverts between battleships and carriers. In this regard, smaller subcaps, Titans, and Supers seem to follow roughly the same trend, but Carriers, Dreads, and Battleships seem out of place. I see three ways to fix that:

  1. Drop the raw EHP of dreads and carriers without reducing their build price.
  2. Increase the raw EHP of battleships without increasing their build price.
  3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

All of these solutions present their own unique balance issues.

For #1, Carriers and Dreads are already effectively cannon fodder for targeted Doomsdays, which greatly contributes to the overall supremacy of Titans. Many large nullsec fights in recent history have just been reduced to large Titan fleets volleying smaller capital ships off of the field. Reducing their EHP will only compound that issue. So, in order to address #1, you have to also give a serious look at targeted Doomsdays, and the overall balance of power among the Capital lineup.

For #2, subcaps are already balanced around current battleship EHP values, so increasing those would require a massive re-work of DPS and EHP for the entire subcap lineup. Also, combat-oriented PvE content would require a massive rework since battleships would become significantly harder to kill and subcap DPS would likely be increasing.

For #3, well, anytime you mix two balance issues together, things get complicated.

(Hey @Sabus_Narian, do you understand now why I wanted to have this conversation separate from the idea of allowing capital ships into hisec? Each issue on its own is already incredibly complicated.)

Now, does the trend in ISK efficiency with increasing hull size have to be a linearly decreasing relationship? (i.e. do we need to drop carrier EHP by half or double battleship EHP?)

No.

Capital ships are, and always should be in a class by themselves, separate from subcaps. I don’t necessarily see a problem with there being a discrepancy in ISK efficiency at that transition point between caps and subcaps, but I think there is an issue is with the magnitude of it. Right now, there’s about a 50% discrepancy, I think a 25% one would be far more balanced overall (other issues notwithstanding). (Yes, this is purely my gut feeling, I have no hard data to back this up, just experience and intuition.)

  • TL;DR #1: reduce the raw EHP potential of Dreads and Carriers by 25%, or increase the raw EHP potential of Battleships by 25%, or do some mix of the two totaling about 25%.

The other issue here is more subtle, and that is that Titans and Supers effectively have such large EHP pools that in typical combat settings (i.e. not a fleet dropping on a single ship) you get into a traditional N+1 situation where the only way to win is to field more Titans and Supers than the other side.

  • TL;DR #2: The current meta N+1 established by the massive EHP pools of Titans and Supers needs to be looked at, but only after addressing TL;DR #1. This adjustment would need to extend well beyond just their EHP

As for capital ships in hisec, one of my largest concerns with that (and I have many, which I’ve laid out here) is the possibility of using buffer-tanked capital ships as highly gank-resistant haulers. If the EHP of carriers and dreads were reduced to the levels proposed by the OP, that would go a long way towards reducing that concern. However, in order to drop their EHP by 50% or more, you’d have to also reduce their mineral cost accordingly; anything else would be far too heavy-handed a nerf to capital ships. Could this work? Possibly? But doing so would likely destroy a massive chunk of existing player wealth and dramatically alter the dynamics of combat all throughout New Eden. This seems like a huge change to make in a single go just to justify allowing formerly restricted ships to operate in hisec.

(I’m not considering Titans, Supers, or Rorqs here since there is a large consensus (including myself) that believes that they have no place in hisec. They’d be even more broken in this regard.)

  • TL;DR #3: Nerfing capital ship EHP enough to allow them to operate largely unrestricted in hisec could work, but would almost certainly break ship balance in many unpredictable ways.

Cheers.

3 Likes

Well written and thought out post, thank you for doing it!

Drop the raw EHP of dreads and carriers without reducing their build price.

This is the point most in line with my stance and proposal, you mention the concern of titans being able to volley lesser capitals off of the field, and with the nerf in ehp, this will be true, most capitals will suffer serious damage from doomsday weapons. But remember the titan itself will also suffer a serious nerf, I want around 5m ehp WITH the buffer fit, lower as a base hull. Effectively, I want titans to be similar to tactical nuclear weapons in real wars, very powerful, but also very expensive and fragile.

I want for the ability to start seriously volleying titans off of the field, say 200 dreads will have the combined dps to start eating fax support like candy, and enough dps to put serious pressure on competent titan pilots, and since dreads can have a temporary ehp boost with the emergency damage control clicky, huge battles can begin and end relatively quickly with untold numbers of losses. Pitched battles and all in drops are now much more important in the null sov war meta.

(Hey @Sabus_Narian, do you understand now why I wanted to have this conversation separate from the idea of allowing capital ships into hisec? Each issue on its own is already incredibly complicated.)

Of course, remember my stance is not only to add more content and improvements to highsec, but as a believer in the sandbox ideal, I want nullsec to be vibrant and healthy, so that people join and stay in the game not only because of a good highsec, but also because of a good nullsec, and eventually a good lowsec, we all know lowsec needs love.

If the EHP of carriers and dreads were reduced to the levels proposed by the OP, that would go a long way towards reducing that concern. However, in order to drop their EHP by 50% or more, you’d have to also reduce their mineral cost accordingly; anything else would be far too heavy-handed a nerf to capital ships.

I disagree with that statement, I’ll cite the example of an Alliance Tournament ship. I believe the mineral costs should be the same, and the ehp dropped by 50% or more, to get the low enough numbers for ganking to be a rare but existing threat in highsec even for titans, and for capital fights to be much more high stakes.

An alliance tournament ship is around 2-10 times better than the equivalent pirate faction variant, depending on the level of modules fitted. If you t2 fit an AT ship, it is about twice as good, if you go all out and fit deadspace/officer abyssal modules, it can get quite powerful, up to 10 times better. But the price is much more, you can say it is unbalanced, paying 150B+ for an AT frigate that may have the same ehp/dps as a small gang of frigates combined.

We both admit that capitals are a huge jump from sub-caps, take the example of a marauder vs a normal carrier, the ehp/dps and abilities simply are greater in all ways, for about the same price. I have no problem with capitals being more of an min-max for capsuleers and their corps/alliances, the meta was best when everyone primarily used sub-caps, and big nullsec fights were battleship fleets, not 300 titans on side a and 300 titans on side b, especially since the small nullsec alliances simply are eliminated in such a scenario.

(I’m not considering Titans, Supers, or Rorqs here since there is a large consensus (including myself) that believes that they have no place in hisec. They’d be even more broken in this regard.)

I believe all ship classes should be accessible in normal space, this includes high/low/null. In order to make this balanced, the ship classes should be balanced with all regions in mind, I believe the nullsec/low exclusivity of capitals caused ccp to disproportionally buff them compared to sub-caps, causing this entire mess. If however capitals are in highsec, then the ehp and other traits need to be balanced in order to be balanced with the other ship classes.

@Bronson_Hughes Thank you for the discussion, do come again I enjoyed it :slight_smile:

NO NERFS PLEASE, better make some battleship able of hunting (HAW-) dreads.

I’m not replying to the majority of your post right now because A) I think we’ve already well-established our respective views on those points and B) I’m short on time.

But I wanted to quickly call out this point. Using AT, faction, or even T2/T3 in an “ISK vs capability” comparison is horribly broken because those ISK prices depend to an overwhelming degree on things like limited supply and high demand. T1 hulls aren’t generally so cursed, so comparing their capability with their raw mineral build cost (which I openly admitted to approximating with the ISK cost) is a much safer proposition.

I see where you’re going with this, but it’s a dangerous (and largely irrelevant) rabbit hole, especially when we’re largely talking about T1 hulls (albeit exceptionally large ones)…

Any time.

2 Likes

Alright, no worries

But I wanted to quickly call out this point. Using AT, faction, or even T2/T3 in an “ISK vs capability” comparison is horribly broken because those ISK prices depend to an overwhelming degree on things like limited supply and high demand. T1 hulls aren’t generally so cursed, so comparing their capability with their raw mineral build cost (which I openly admitted to approximating with the ISK cost) is a much safer proposition.

Of course, the analogy however holds because people still pay many billions for a slight edge, whether it is that uber expensive abyssal module, implant set, people don’t mind spending in many cases foolish amounts of money for slight advantage. I believe capitals should be the same, my analysis of EVE’s history puts the golden age at around 2010-2013, in terms of peak players and enjoyment. Why was this a golden age? Because sub-capitals were the norm, and you could do doctrines like sniper apocalypses or sentry dominix without being laughed at, because nowadays your entire fleet gets murdered by capitals.

Having the sweet spot for cost/damage/survivability at the battleship level will be very beneficial for the game, not only will capitals be more regulated to their proper role as trophies, expensive tide turners in battle, and siege warfare, but I think EVE will have a much healthier PvP gameplay experience, I remember years ago watching this video and wanting to be like that someday, nowadays you’ll get dropped on and you could never do this:

I see where you’re going with this, but it’s a dangerous (and largely irrelevant) rabbit hole, especially when we’re largely talking about T1 hulls (albeit exceptionally large ones)…

Remember this is not the difference between a cruiser and a battleship, capitals really need to be balanced with a High/Low/Null mindset, for everyone who says that Sabus full capital access in highsec is terrible they are SO OVERPOWERED, well then they are too overpowered for eve online. A battleship is a battleship, wherever it is in the game, a capital should be a capital, balanced for all areas.

Then why do you stubbornly insist on bringing capitals into the one region of EVE that doesn’t have them? Your “golden age” already exists, what you should be lobbying for is removing war immunity from all corps so that there is more PvP in the place where capitals do not exist and you are free to have these sub-capital doctrines.

A battleship is a battleship, wherever it is in the game, a capital should be a capital, balanced for all areas.

Then all areas need to have the same rules. You can’t balance a ship for all parts of the game when different areas have different rules. That means that CONCORD needs to be removed, the restrictions on bubbles/bombs/etc in highsec need to be removed, cynos need to be allowed everywhere, etc.

3 Likes

Yeah, and, following the logic of some people, then operations in highsec will become less risky. There is no risk in nullsec now, after all.

1 Like

Because having them not in highsec means they don’t get the strict balancing that all other ships have. When people mention things like having 6x the ehp, 3x the dps, can use jumpdrive, and other complaints, the response will be “but they can be killed so its not a problem.” By having them in highsec, they will need to be nerfed and balanced so that they are not overpowered in highsec, thus balancing the game and eliminating the capital proliferation problem.

Then all areas need to have the same rules. You can’t balance a ship for all parts of the game when different areas have different rules. That means that CONCORD needs to be removed, the restrictions on bubbles/bombs/etc in highsec need to be removed, cynos need to be allowed everywhere, etc.

You missed the entire argument, highsec acts as a great balance test. Is it overpowered in highsec? Can you pvp all day without issue in it, or turbo farm all day without issue? If either or is yes, then it is unbalanced, if both are no then it is balanced. I don’t know if you agree with returning to the old ways of the meta, but if you do then the best way is to get these ships in highsec, because then they will be nerfed to be balanced in highsec, which will extend into balance across the game.

This is why sub-caps are terrible compared to capitals, sub-caps are designed to work across the game, including highsec, capitals are not. If capitals get the same treatment, the issue goes away.

Effectively the problem with nullsec is this: Capitals are powerful, thus certain groups managed to get enough of them that they built a fortress that is all but impossible to breech, while also incredibly profitable, using ships that are vastly superior since they never got balanced to include highsec, unlike sub-caps.

If you want to fix null, and give highsec some fun at the same time, nerf the ehp of capitals so that their presence in highsec is balanced, versus the other ships allowed and the content provided in highsec, including the fact that concord exists. Once that happens the ships will cease to be the problem causing ships that nullsec is having so many problems with. They can actually be enjoyed again.

Current stockpiles won’t be reduced and expanding where they can be will just lead to more, especially as they’ll be near invulnerable in highsec.

In a different thread, your preference is that:

If pvp all moves to null, how does any destruction of capitals in highsec occur at all?

3 Likes

Sure they will, capitals will be weaker and you’ll need the stockpile for home defense, and invasion. Furthermore many will be destroyed in highsec, through ganks or other things like structure attack/defense and pilot foolishness.

If pvp all moves to null, how does any destruction of capitals in highsec occur at all?

My problem in that thread was with those who wished to nerf highsec by removing concord protection without any other change, which is what that thread was about. I want pvp across the game, it is fun and part of the sandbox gameplay. Highsec destruction of capitals will occur through ganking, within wars, and from pilots flagging themselves or doing foolish things, like pressing f1 in their titan while forgetting that safety is red.

That’s not how people have played the game for years. If they are weaker and just likely to die, they won’t undock capitals.

2 Likes

{citation needed}

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim that CCP cares less about balancing highsec than other regions? After all, given their marketing focus on nullsec and major alliance battles the more likely scenario is that nullsec balancing is the highest priority and whatever happens in highsec is what it is.

I want pvp across the game, it is fun and part of the sandbox gameplay.

Then make your corp eligible for war and stop hiding behind CONCORD.

3 Likes

He never said he wants to participate in said PvP. He just “wants PvP” - to gain more support, I presume.

You can repeat the phrase all you want but bringing capital ships into High Sec will not increase their destruction regardless of how the EHP is adjusted. That is not the mechanic in High Sec.

Just admit that you want a capital ship and you do not want to go to Null or Low.

Especially since the alliance you are a part of reacted to being PvP eligible by telling people to hide in stations. I am very disappointed to say I used to be part of that alliance. I moved to Null and PvP is not as scary as all that.

4 Likes