Yes and no but that’s the issue, if u allow this crap to happen then they need to be able to be killed by organized groups, pvp is what eve online is
Updated my post with a different variation.
Instead of rewarding high NPC standings, this alternative version would force players to be in an easily-wardecced corporation in order to undock in a capital ship or use hisec stargates, and if you, say, left corp or boarded a capital ship in space to bypass that restriction, you’d be flagged as a permanent suspect until you docked or swapped to a subcap.
This variation would make the limited use of capital ships in hisec less a reward for standings and more about making your corp vulnerable to other players, while still leaving options for permanent suspects in space for baiting and such.
Thoughts?
For the sake of give and take I would like to see the giving of extra space to capitals combined to the taking away of using their cynos in high and low sec. So only industrial and covops cynos will work in these spaces.
I feel like adding covert and industrial cynos to hisec would be a worthwhile discussion to have, but I’m not personally in favor of it. It seems to grant far too much benefit to jump freighters and covert ops ships with no real drawbacks. In particular, jump freighters could jump straight from losec to hisec without worrying about losec gates, or bypass typical choke point systems that see a lot of ganks, both of which would make them considerably harder to kill.
A few other folks have mentioned banning normal cynos from losec (so no regular cynos anywhere in Empire space). I think this is another worthwhile discussion to have, but unlike the earlier one I’m much more in favor of this. I’d be okay with reducing capital ship utility and increasing capital ship risk in losec (i.e. no more losec capital hotdrops, losec move ops would be stargate-only) in exchange for limited capital ship access to hisec. Heck, I’d probably be okay with it even if capitals weren’t allowed anywhere in hisec. I think this would provide a huge boost to losec PvP activity, which often gets stifled by the fear of capital hotdrops.
1 Like
Sorry typing on my phone, I meant covops and industrial cynos mechanics continue in hisec / lowsec as right now in game design unchanged and the trade off fur the capitals will be no functioning cyno mechanics in low sec (and none in hisec ofcourse).
I would love to see some more “Love for Battleships” giving them a place in lowsec to shine a little bit brighter.
1 Like
Hey @Ugren_Okaski & @Lucas_Kell, I’d love your feedback on this thread…
I’ve already read it, and this proposal is good. Well, at least the first version of it.
2 Likes
Full access to all capital ships in highsec is needed, current proposal is nothing more than a buff to nullsec @Bronson_Hughes
Well if theres no cynos in high sec, the titans cant move?
Also to add to the list we should convert jita and the other trade hubs into capital shipyards
1 Like
I’ve removed some spam/off topic posts.
3 Likes
This is the default state for farmers, so it shouldn’t be a thing. It’s not even work for them reaching high faction standing, because it’s a side effect of what they want to do anyway. A new farmer will just be farming anyway, reaching high standings both soon and easily enough anyway.
I request removal due to it not actually achieving anything.
Hardcore mission runners are indeed more likely to have high faction standings. I don’t dispute that. Lots of folks are concerned about hisec players using capital ships to farm easy ISK. I agree that Rorqs and Supers would definitely be an issue (which is part of why I specifically exclude them), but lets look at dreads and carriers compared to, say, Marauders, for running missions.
Damage application on dreads is pretty bad compared to Marauders, even with HAW fits. Their DPS is great, and their active tank is utterly unbreakable by any level 4 mission, but when you look at how well they apply damage, they won’t exactly be blitzing through level 4 missions. Couple with that the increased travel time (half as fast in warp, much slower to align, no MJD, 5 minute siege cycles), greatly increased lock times (super-low scan resolutions), and limited mission availability (they can’t take any existing acceleration gates) and I’d contend that dreads would earn less ISK/hour than a Marauder.
Carriers do fare better here. They have good application, much faster lock times (potentially), only a 1 minute “siege” cycle to contend with (If they’re using a NSA). I’m more concerned with them being able to run missions to farm ISK and LP faster than Marauders do. But, they’re still much slower to travel and still limited by acceleration gates, and if they do turn out to be too popular for level 4s, it probably wouldn’t be hard at all to tweak mission NPCs to heavily favor player-controlled fighters, which would severely curtail their utility. So, a little trickier to balance, but I also don’t see carriers as a huge ISK/hour monster.
They would both be far less susceptible to suicide ganks thanks to their much larger EHP pools, but active tank carrier and dread fits are still in the ballpark of freighters, so a suicide gank of a carrier or dread would at least be possible, even if difficult.
In the end, I don’t see capital ships as all that appealing for mission runners. Sure, there’s an increased level of security, but they aren’t exactly ISK-printing machines so I’d see it less as a buff for them and more of a trade-off: trading less risk for lower rewards.
With all of that out of the way, I’d be really curious to hear your thoughts on the rest of my proposal (either version) or what I’ve detailed above.
Thanks.
1 Like
Balanced individually, however corp wise, the rich get richer.
Capital ships are called capital for a reason, normally no entity lets another entity bring their capital ships into their territory unless it is war. A “capital ship” in empire space is invading someone.
Should be perma suspect, no docking in empire stations and that is so lame really, what this is telling us is capital ships should be banned in empire space.
I’m not convinced of this, at least as I have proposed it.
Large nullsec groups use capital ships to earn ISK or extract resources in more or less two ways: they strip mine belts and/or mineral anoms with Rorqs, or they blitz combat anoms with carriers or supers. Neither of these options would be available since Rorqs wouldn’t be allowed (not to mention the mining isn’t nearly as profitable), and the combat anoms in hisec just don’t pay nearly as much.
I outlined in my post directly above this one why I don’t think mission runners will actually be able to earn much, if any, more income with capital ships than with, say, Marauders. Let me summarize it this way: if making ISK using capital ships by running level 4 missions was an efficient way to do it, large nullsec groups operating under the relative safety of their capital umbrellas would already be doing it. As far as I’m aware, they generally don’t. That says a lot.
(Tagging @Solstice_Projekt to see this last bit.)
I generally agree with you here, and I lay out my rationale along these lines in my OP. The empires are concerned with the recent Drifter and Triglavian invasions, and they’re willing to let loyal capsuleers bring smaller capital ships closer to their home worlds in order to help provide protection. But not the largest of vessels, and not particularly close to their core worlds.
EDIT: Random thought in response to your comment about territories at war. Same deal as before (carriers and dreads only in 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 systems, permanent suspect), but if a player undocked in hisec in a capital ship is a participant in faction warfare (and obviously in their faction’s space) they are spared the suspect flag. They’re actively aiding one particular empire so my same rationale as high standings applies, only it’s A) not permanent (and thus not farm-able just by running a lot of missions), and B) still leaves them vulnerable to players from opposing militias, even in hisec.
1 Like
Aren’t level 4 missions gated, in which case capitals wouldn’t be able to run them anyway due to the gate restrictions.
I don’t missions much at all, so apology if that’s stupid and they aren’t gated, but if they are, the Capitals will largely just be for show and anom running, in which the ISK isn’t worth the time required to get a capital to the site. Much smaller, faster ships will still be way more efficient.
Not all of them, but a lot of them. I don’t know the exact ratio. But yes, gates missions would be off limit to capital ships, or at least could very easily be made so if the gates don’t already exclude them.
I largely agree with you here. I’m still concerned that someone else will think of a way to game things, but that’s why I’ve been asking for input on this for almost a year. 
1 Like
I don’t think you’ll necessarily like my input though, but it’s below.
My biggest concern is with Fax machine use if that is allowed under the proposal (I know you are on the fence). We’ve seen in null that just a few fax’s on field negates most subcap opponents.
So for something like structure attack and defence as part of wardecs, the recent changes were in large part to give the defenders an objective to end a war, and to provide a target for attackers that might encourage defenders to login and defend.
I feel the biggest risk is that the meta would shift to capitals only, since subcap fleets would become ineffective against the larger wardec groups, who would just use Fax’s to nullify the effect of being suspect and being shot by facpo.
Everyone would need to have capitals to defend and/or attack each other, because even with capitals as suspect, even neutrals who undock capitals to come shoot, would also be liable to be shot, which will discourage many from getting involved at all, since the Fax’s will just laugh in the face of subcap opponents (wardec opponent or neutral that comes to join the party).
A shift in the meta like that wouldn’t be very good for the game, as the current battleship meta around highsec wardecs does actually bring some good content.
1 Like
I decided to math some things for the lulz, and I’d wonder if dreads might be OP for ganking. A t2 fit dread is half as ISK-efficient than a polarized Talos, but outputs just over seven times the DPS. That’s enough to kill a freighter fit with tank-neutral modules (i.e. not a bulkhead or a cargohold) within the timeframe for concord intervention in a 0.5 system. I didn’t factor in any implants either, for what it’s worth. This also assumes the dread dies as soon as CONCORD arrives, which may not be the case given a sieged dread’s immunity to EWAR and access to cap boosters to keep firing. I’m aware that a polarized Talos is not even the cheapest ISK/DPS ratio, but the ability of a single player to vaporize a freighter seems worrisome.
1 Like