Capitals in Hisec? Well, Sorta

A lot of folks have tossed around the idea of capital ships in hisec before, and I think that is a horrible idea.

However, I’ve been tossing around an idea (actually, now a few different ones) for a while regarding limited capital ship access to hisec and I’d like to share it here. (I brought up a similar idea on the old forums a few years back, but I’ve refined it some since then.)

What wouldn’t change:

  1. No cynos in hisec.
  2. No Supers, Titans, Rorquals, or FAXes in hisec.
  3. No Capital Ship production in hisec. (But sales of capital ships would still be allowed.)
  4. Capital ships can jump out of hisec to an available cyno/beacon.
  5. Capital ships would remain unable to use (or be made unable to use if need be) existing hisec acceleration gates (missions, signatures, etc.).

What would change (all versions)

  1. Carriers and Dreadnaughts would be able to enter 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 systems via stargates. 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 systems would still be off limits.
  2. The act of being in hisec space (i.e. undocked) in a capital ship would flag a pilot as suspect. This flag would renew constantly while undocked in hisec in a capital ship so it would last until the pilot docks or changes into a subcapital ship. (Plus 15 minutes as with all suspect flags.)
  3. CONCORD response strength for criminal activity in a capital ship would be increased to keep protection in line with sub-capital ships. CONCORD response time would remain unaffected at first, but could be reduced later if need be for balance purposes.
  4. Jumping into hisec when doing so would produce a suspect flag would be disallowed should a pilot’s safety settings be set to maximum.
  5. All of these changes (and the ones listed below) would apply to current legacy hisec capital ships.

What would change (version 1):

  1. The “suspect in a hisec capital ship” response would be avoided if the pilot (not their corp or alliance) has sufficiently high standings with the empire faction of the system they are in.
    3.0 faction standings for 0.5 space
    5.0 faction standings for 0.6 space
    7.0 faction standings for 0.7 space
  2. Dropping below the standings requirements while in space would immediately flag you as suspect.

OR

What would change (version 2):

  1. A new corporation setting, “Enable Hisec Capitals”, would be added. It could only be set if the corporation was wardec eligible, and it would automatically be toggled off if the corp became wardec ineligible. Declaring war on a corporation set to “Enable Hisec Capitals” would have the cost substantially reduced.
  2. The “suspect in a hisec capital ship” response would be avoided if the pilot were in a corporation with “Enable Hisec Capitals” set.
  3. Leaving (or being kicked from) your corp while in space, or your corp no longer enabling hisec capitals while in space, would immediately flag you as a suspect.

OR

What would change (version 3):

  1. The “suspect in a hisec capital ship” response would be avoided if the pilot were enrolled in faction warfare (either individually, or through their corporation/alliance), but only in the faction they are currently enrolled with. This would not include faction allies. (So Caldari militia could fly capital ships in Caldari hisec only, not Caldari and Amarr.)
  2. Ending your militia service while in space would immediately flag you as suspect.

OR

What would change (version 4):

  1. Nothing. There would be no escaping the suspect flag while operating an allowed capital ship in hisec.

Why the change at all? (From a lore standpoint)

With the rise of the Drifters and the Triglavian Collective, the empire factions have had their collective military strength drained by these new threats. The previous limits on capsuleer capital ship activity in high security space was intended as a means to protect their sovereignty, but now that sovereignty is under attack from elsewhere.

As a result, the empire factions, along with CONCORD, agreed to allow limited capsuleer capital ship capabilities on the peripheries of high security space as a deterrent to the Drifters and the Triglavian Collective so that the empires could focus their defenses on their core worlds. In order to avoid possible encroachment by hostile capsuleers, the empires requested that CONCORD limit such activity to capsuleers who were not already shown as loyal to the faction whos space they were operating in, either by standings or by volunteer service to the local militia. (Or, in Version 2, CONCORD would be limiting such activity to players who agreed to make themselves more susceptible to other capsuleers keeping them in check.)

Why the change at all? (From a gameplay standpoint)

These changes would create a sort of “midsec” (i.e. middle security space) on the edges of hisec. Pilots not meeting any of the criteria could try their luck at operating capital ships there as permanent suspects, and pilots wanting to interfere with said luck would have opportunities to do so. Pilots with excellent faction standings or current militia service would receive a hefty reward for their loyalty, or pilots willing to expose themselves to increased risk via wardec would be rewarded for taking that risk. Mission runners could use capital ships to complete gateless combat missions (although I’ve done the math on this, and I doubt it would be of much benefit in terms of ISK/hour). Mercenary corps could utilize capital ships for structure-bashing (or structure defending) contracts, which they could charge higher fees for. Intrepid merchants could establish new hisec trading hubs with a special focus on capital ships.

In the end, more capital ships would end up exploded, and exploding other things, without impacting hisec as a whole too much, or the core of hisec at all. And more explosions are a good thing, right?

But what about suicide ganking?

In terms of available EHP, Carriers and Dreads, depending on how they are fit, will range in difficulty to gank from a max tanked freighter to about double or triple that EHP. Yes, they will be safer than freighters, and I’m aware that they could potentially get used as a safer hauling alternative. But most, if not all, of the major hauling trade routes start, end, or pass through systems of 0.8 security status or higher, so there would still be points where more vulnerable ships would have to be used to move bulk goods. This change wouldn’t eliminate suicide ganking of freighters, but it would likely change where that ganking took place.

And yes, there is the possibility that dreads would be used for suicide ganking. I can almost guarantee that it will happen. But would it be cost effective? Not really. Sure a gank Moros puts out an astounding amount of DPS, but five or six Polarized Taloses will match that DPS with better tracking and better mobility for a fraction of the price.

But what about the nullsec blocs?

One of the main concerns with hisec capital ships is the ability for nullsec blocs to hide capital fleets in relative safety, or to travel to distant regions without having to use jump drives. Such fleet move ops would be limited to pilots with sufficiently high faction standings, or to moving while suspect. In addition, there is no way to cross hisec (at least not that I can find) without being blocked by at least one 0.8 system. It would be possible to save some time by traveling some distance into hisec and then jumping to losec, but such an op would still be limited in the number of pilots it could utilize or only be executed under relatively high risk.

There is also concern with large nullsec groups moving into 0.5 space with capital fleets and monopolizing the moon mining going on there. I feel like it’s pretty safe to dispel this fear because if such groups were interested in 0.5 moon minerals, they’d already be making efforts to monopolize them with subcap fleets. At the time of this posting, this doesn’t appear to be the case.

Conclusion

I know that all versions of this are a controversial idea and I will likely get a lot of pushback on it. I’m not entirely sold on it myself because even with all of the limits and restrictions I have in place, there’s still potential for abuse. I see this a way to hopefully draw some players away from the core of hisec (admittedly while pushing some others further into it) and adding more depth to the current distinction between just hisec, losec, and null.

Plus…more exploded capital ships… :smiling_imp:

Thoughts and feedback are encouraged.

EDIT HISTORY:

  • Added version 2 as an alternative.
  • Settled on “No Faxes” to both proposals. Hisec should still remain primarily a place for subcaps, and FAXes simply do too much to negate subcapital damage.
  • Added commentary about suicide ganking.
  • Reorganized and streamlined existing proposals and added version 3 as another alternative.
  • Added version 4 as an alternative.
5 Likes

Dude are you insane, imagine dreads or carriers in Niarja, the ganks would be insane, and they’d be able to beat concord

4 Likes

Well, a few things:

  1. Remember that if you get CONCORDOKEN, you get no insurance payout. I can’t imagine too many people suicide ganking in un-insurable capital ships when platforms like Catalysts, Bombers, and Taloses are far more cost effective. I mean, some may for lulz, but I can’t see it becoming the new normal.

  2. To even get to Niarja in a capital ship without being a massive target, you would have to have Amarr faction standings of 7.0, unless you bought it locally.

  3. You seem to have missed the part about buffing CONCORD response appropriately. Even with current CONCORD response, I doubt a capital ship could tank CONCORD for long, and even if they could with the neut/ewar power of CONCORD they would just take longer to die.

2 Likes

I like the idea of Capitals in highsec, but based around your faction standing and security status. What I mean is some kind of benefits-for-loyalty system, for example my standing with Caldari is very high, and so there should be some perks for that. I should be able to fly certain Capital ships in highsec for being a Caldari loyalist who has a very low Gallente standing, depending on how high my faction standing and security status is.

And Yes, if my faction and security standings are high enough, I should be able to fly a Titan in highsec :slight_smile:

3 Likes

The Invasion has started. Anyone else interested in tossing this idea around?

I’m really suprised by the lack of flaming here.

Just sayin’…

On the tanking concord, IIRC after a certain amount of time shooting you the battleship that spawns just instakills you.

The idea seems interesting. What proposed use would capitals have in highsec over lowsec though, that is, why would I use them? The draw to highsec is that you can’t be legally shot unless you engage in theft or combat first, but being suspect, while important to keep capitals from being too good, negates that. Why run level 4s in a carrier when I can do that safer in a battleship, or just run level 5s? I don’t know why you’d need dreads to kill a structure either, since a Leshak is quite capable of putting out a staggering amount of DPS already.

I’m not entirely sure why this is a rule, from a lore standpoint. I guess its a way to try to make it at least somewhat dangerous to having a cap in HiSec.

My concern would be the overall balance of HiSec. The dangers, enemies and missions are designed for sub-caps, so introducing caps would just outbalance everything.

To be honest, and no offence to the OP, but this feels to me that someone with High Standing wants to own a Capital Ship, but does not want the danger and work that comes from owning said ship in Low/null.

(and who wouldnt, I would love the opportunity to own/pilot a cap, but i’m a filthy hiSec carebear, so it will never happen), but I dont see how allowing caps in HiSec would improve the game.

You can be The Filthiest Carebear in HS and still own (but never use) a capital in LS…

I’ve always supported the idea of pocket carriers in HS with 1 or 2 flights of light fighters only. Think Drone Marauders. While Marauders cover the HS version of Dreads as it is. (I think Marauders should have a damage buff due to being locked in place and not being able to match a BS in damage) I personally think their role should be seen as a “step between BS mechanics and Cap mechanics” but my opinion isn’t really a popular one. I just like marauders and drones/fighters and think they could fill a void that HS seems to want filled but doesn’t know how to express.

But full on caps belong in low/null.

1 Like

Answered that in the next bullet:

The Empires don’t want any capsuleer flying any capital ship they want through their territory willy-nilly, but it didn’t make sense to me from a game mechanic standpoint to only allow jump gate use based on player standings with NPC groups, so I came up with that.

There is probably some truth to your statement, but my empire faction standings aren’t great (all positive, but none above 5.0 and only Caldari/Amarr above 3.0) so I wouldn’t personally gain much benefit from it. Plus, I extracted almost all of my capital skills when I came back to EvE a few years back, so even if I could, it would be some time before I could do it properly. :roll_eyes:

My primary motivators are A) wanting to see more capital ships get used (and destroyed) and B) lore-based reaction to continued incursions into Empire space. And like I said, I’m not 100% sold on the idea, it’s just something I wanted to toss around.

1 Like

Seems reasonable, lots of good counters, but you know I want them banned from all of empire space :slight_smile:

I do.

If CCP went your way and removed caps from all of empire space, I could get behind that too because it would reshape losec to be, well, less like losec. Operating under a constant fear of capital hotdrop does stifle the region a bit. But I’d rather take the option where more capital ships get used and blown up, not fewer.

Putting my thinking into your terms, I want to see a new sink on capital ships that will hopefully help drain some of them out of other regions, and/or absorb some of the mineral faucet that Delve has become.

1 Like

Somone in another thread claims @CCP_Falcon said something about making cynos (hopefully not covert) banned in empire space.

That could open the door to something like this, because IMHO the thing that stacks the meta in low sec is the capital hot drop.

1 Like

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Only the pilots with he highest standings wouldn’t appear as a threat to the local empire.

1 Like

See, that bit of news really tears at me.

On the one hand, I strongly dislike the idea of de-coupling regular and covert cynos (i.e. you can use covert cynos in places you can’t use regular ones, and vice versa). That seems needlessly complicated.

On the other hand, removing regular cynos from losec would shuffle up losec in a positive way I think, but losing covert cynos in losec would be a real blow to gameplay.

Tough call on that one.

Hmmmm, strange how this topic appears…and my original High-sec capital ship topic gets deleted…I can’t find it anywhere.

You know I love the idea Bronson - anything that improves ‘carebear-ism’ for high-sec players i’m all for, however I wanted to view your original stance to my post in that thread - but I can’t find it.

If you “click on yourself” (I always get a kick out of saying that) and select Topics, it should be there unless it was deleted. I’ve found a few of my old topics that way; they didn’t get deleted, they just fell off of the front page really quickly.

I vaguely remember posting in your original topic, and doing that is, I think, part of why I posted this.

1 Like

I found it from another page where I posted a link to it:

https://forums.eveonline.com/t/new-high-sec-dreadnought/160545/69

for some reason, it’s been deleted.

That was actually one of my favourite topics. Not sure why it’s been deleted…

Oh I remember now! It got merged into another topic that was active at the time. Hell if I can remember which one though. :rofl: