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)…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who said I don’t want to participate in said PvP? Under this proposal, I could be ganked, I could shoot suspects, I could flag myself as a suspect, or I can hop and attack/defend structures and corps under the war system. And that is only in highsec, the pvp increase in low/null will be immense.
How is this any different than it is now? You can do all of those things already. The only thing that changes is the size of the ship that explodes.
(I’m all in favor of more capital ships exploding mind you, but I’m trying to make sure that you aren’t just proposing this in order to do things that you can already do.)
Asking non-ironically and non-sarcastically, but how will allowing capitals into hisec immensely increase PvP in losec and nullsec? There could potentially be a slight uptick by groups looking to catch capital ships on their way to hisec, but other than that I’m not seeing anything.
Yup, same as now, but with bigger ships balanced for highsec and thus as a result healthy for the game. 4 new ship classes released into highsec 5 if you count the fax as a class (logi carrier heh)
(I’m all in favor of more capital ships exploding mind you, but I’m trying to make sure that you aren’t just proposing this in order to do things that you can already do.)
Oh I know you are Don’t worry, the contents of this post are two fold, capitals in highsec in order to increase the fun for all the inhabitants, whatever their game style, followed by a ehp nerf, which has two effects. One balance the introduction of capitals into highsec and makes them balanced for the gameplay of highsec, and two, due to the aforementioned balance, makes them healthy across the game, and not the OP machine that is strangling null.
Asking non-ironically and non-sarcastically, but how will allowing capitals into hisec immensely increase PvP in losec and nullsec? There could potentially be a slight uptick by groups looking to catch capital ships on their way to hisec, but other than that I’m not seeing anything.
The ehp nerf, I like this analogy: If a tank suddenly has the ehp of a jeep, just how many more tanks will fall in war? Highsec increases cap destruction, but that is not all. Dropping caps and using them is now much more dangerous, the ehp is lower, so the commit and ‘risk’ of using them is greater. Meaning sub-capitals make a presence once again.
Ah, my bad. Reading your replies I thought you were only talking about the hisec capitals part of your proposal, not the EHP nerf. (See? This is why I like to keep ideas separate. Not a criticism, just how my brain works.)
An EHP nerf for capitals would make them less of an “i-win” button in losec and nullsec and, at least in losec, I could see that as general boon to PvP as folks will fear a capital hotdrop less.
My personal preference is to do away with losec cynos (because, let’s face it, “gate-dropping” capitals is far less fear-inspiring), but I can see where you’re going with this.
No worries, for this proposal to make sense and my arguments too, the ehp nerf has to be combined with the introduction of capitals to highsec. My stance is that the sub-cap is balanced across the game, a battleship has the same stats in highsec as it does in null. If capitals got the same treatment, same stats in high as in null, the game would be a much better place.
An EHP nerf for capitals would make them less of an “i-win” button in losec and nullsec and, at least in losec, I could see that as general boon to PvP as folks will fear a capital hotdrop less.
Agreed 100%
My personal preference is to do away with losec cynos (because, let’s face it, “gate-dropping” capitals is far less fear-inspiring), but I can see where you’re going with this.
You know, I’m in agreement. Highsec has gating as part of the balance for capital travel, and lowsec should be PvP heaven, forcing capitals to gate could revive the long dead pirate gatecamp and pirate corp. We may even get to see capitals ransomed for safe passage
Cyno works for nullsec warfare, and I’m sure industrial cyno and black ops cyno can still be in lowsec without issue.
Don’t worry, the contents of this post are two fold, capitals in highsec in order to increase the fun for all the inhabitants, whatever their game style, followed by a ehp nerf, which has two effects. One balance the introduction of capitals into highsec and makes them balanced for the gameplay of highsec, and two, due to the aforementioned balance, makes them healthy across the game, and not the OP machine that is strangling null.