Because those 2 things have nothing to do with each other. Nullsec needs to be nerfed. Highsec does not need capitals.
1 Like
First off, thank you. Your post was well laid-out and detailed. I appreciate it, even if you disagree with me.
I tend to be an incredibly detail-oriented person, and this makes me long-winded at times. I would rather lay everything out up front, including all of the annoying nuances, rather than let folks find them out later. And typically I don’t like having multiple “versions” of a proposal, but all of those versions (aside from the first) sprang from the discussion in this thread, so it seemed wrong to not include them.
But, I would like to point out that most of my OP is centered around explaining motivations, or why I believe that the changes I’m proposing wouldn’t have a negative impact. If you look at what I’m actually proposing to change in terms of game mechanics, my proposal is actually quite simple:
- Capital ships can already take stargates.
- Which stargates they can take are already limited by the security status of the destination system.
- Commiting an act in space can already generate a suspect flag. (This particular act is new, but the overall mechanic isn’t.)
Almost everything that I’m proposing is just a tweak of a dial of an existing game mechanic.
In terms of actual new mechanics, the only new thing that I’m currently^ proposing falls under version 2, which involves a new setting for wardec eligible corporations. High faction standings and faction warfare membership modifying other game mechanics isn’t new in and of itself.
Incidentally, version 2 of my proposal happens to line up quite nicely with what you proposed about tying capital ship access in hisec to structure ownership. It’s currently the least favorite of my “versions” because it does introduce new game mechanics, but I do like the idea that it involves tying capital ship use to anchoring an asset; it ties it back to, as you said, their original intent as an asset for large organizations, not individual players.
^ Earlier versions of my proposal did include some more complicated things like enhanced NPC responses, etc. but I recently trimmed them out because, just like you said, they felt too complicated. Better to keep things simple.
I share this concern with you, and that’s specifically why I want to have this discussion in the open with people at least willing to entertain the idea. I’ve been around New Eden on and off for upwards of 14 years, and I think I’m pretty good at forseeing ways to “game” mechanics, but I also realize that I can’t possibly forsee everything, so I want input from those who see things that I miss.
I’m aware of all three points, and they actually drive part of my motivation behind why I chose the specific limits that I did.
Regarding #1: I specifically called out existing legacy hisec capitals as being held to my proposed changes. Right now they exist in a kind of quasi-unique state where if they get sold or used in PvP in any way, they get immediately moved to losec. This seems far more convoluted than what I’m proposing.
Regarding #2: I agree with this in principle, but if anything the denizens of New Eden have proven to be a creative bunch. Wormholes weren’t intended for living in. HICs weren’t intended to be hole rolling specialists. Command Destroyers weren’t intended to make Ravens a viable fleet doctrine. Et cetera ad nauseum. Things in EvE often evolve beyond their intended purpose, and I see that as a good thing. That’s what makes New Eden a sandbox.
Regarding #3: I wholeheartedly agree with this, and this is actually my primary reason for proposing this. EvE has existed in a near perpetual state of accretion (i.e. building more than gets destroyed) for over a decade now, and I see this as a way to help tip that balance. I want more opportunities for capital ships to explode, plain and simple. Allowing them (some of them at least) to fly into a wider range of systems, and to do so in a manner that makes them easy targets, will help achieve that goal.
As I’ve said before in this thread, I don’t want more safety or more protection for hisec residents. I want more violence. I don’t want capital ships in hisec to be a shield to hide behind, I want them to form a funeral pyre that helps dry out the stockpiles of ships and material that’s been building up for longer than most players have been playing.
I absolutely want more capital ships to explode. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be bothering with perpetual suspect flags or making the ways to avoid that flag difficult to achieve or risky in their own right.
I appreciate the sentiment, and your response. I understand if you don’t reply as you’ve indicated that you don’t want to discuss, but I’m glad you commented nonetheless.
Good hunting.
o7
1 Like
Then why isn’t nullsec severely nerfed to counter their ability to have capitals? Since nullsec is not getting nerfed, highsec needs full capital access.
The worst part is that what you want would be an actual nerf to hisec and small groups, and you can’t bring yourself to see it because you’re so convinced that you’re entitled to fly around in a Titan in near-perfect safety.
Go away. Seriously. You’re here pushing your own agenda, you’re doing it with a total lack of rational thinking, and at this point you’re just harassing people trying to discuss what I’m proposing.
2 Likes
Just want post as thank you and respect for how well you are managing this thread and difficult topic:+1: 
1 Like
Although i see your point, with recent nerfs to ec’s, moon mining, and belt mining even if captials were present in high sec they wouldn’t even be close to as efficient as a null sec capital would be for generating isk
1 Like
Carriers and dreads would not have much of an economic impact on hisec in terms of ISK earning potential. Dreads would likely earn less ISK than battleships, carriers may make as much or a bit more, but their other practical limitations would still make them less-than-ideal. The big indicator here is this: do nullsec coalitions used capitals to blitz level 4s in nullsec? Nope. Why? because it’s inefficient, even with the relatively higher worth of pirate faction LPs.
The big potential economic impacts would be Rorqs out-mining everything, or capital ships in general being used as gank-proof haulers. Carriers and Dreads are harder to gank than a freighter, but suicide ganking them is still within the realm of possibility. Titans and Supers, and to a lesser extent Rorqs, would be virtually impossible to suicide gank. Possible? Sure. But at 15x to 20x the EHP of a freighter? that would be a rare event. That level of safety breaks all semblance of balance when it comes to hisec hauling.
This upending of hauling dynamics is plenty reason to not allow capital ships unrestricted access to hisec. Hisec is supposed to be safer, not totally safe, and that’s exactly what would happen once traders started using heavily tanked Titans to haul goods between trade hubs.
2 Likes
Which is part of why they’re inefficient.
1 Like
The two biggest issue I see with the whole idea is:
Nullsec Group Strategic Fleets Located in Highsec
Phoebe introduced jump fatigue specifically to limit projection across the map and to provide room for smaller groups to feel like they could undock their own capitals. Since then, we’ve seen capital use increase and capital loss increase with that (I created some graphs ages ago tracking the rise in loss following the changes).
With the ability of major nullsec groups to put capital fleets in highsec and to move them in near perfect safety, they’ll bypass much of the effect of jump fatigue and get to large areas of the map within just a couple of jumps.
That not only provides them with significant strategic advantage for lowsec and nullsec, it again threatens the smaller capital owners who will be at risk of just being dunked on again, and I suspect, capital use within jump range of highsec will drop again, even though it shouldn’t be impacted by highsec at all.
Upwell Structure Control
Large nullsec entities closely monitor who is building capitals, particularly for supers and titans. In highsec, capitals cannot currently be built, so they don’t need to monitor what Upwell structures are built in highsec.
If capitals are allowed into Highsec, I assume this would also change and highsec groups would be able to build capitals.
In terms of the broader “allow all capitals in highsec” proposal of Sabus, this would have significant limiting affect on existing highsec groups. The nullsec alliances will see the ability to anonymously build supers and titans as a threat, and they’ll target any structure anchored that can could build supers and titans.
That effectively leaves highsec groups only able to put down the smaller structures. That wouldn’t be great, noting that this only applies to the broader Sabus proposal as I assume CCP would be able to limit supers, titans and fax machines to not being manufactured in highsec, even if they opened that up for carriers and dreads.
3 Likes
A large part of the reason why I specifically limited this to 0.7 systems and below is that there is, to the best of my ability to find, no way to cross hisec in any meaningful way without crossing a 0.8 or higher system. Sure, you could potentially save a few jumps here and there, but only carriers and dreads and only while doing so at risk.
If capital ships were allowed unlimited access to hisec, what you’re describing would almost certainly happen, and that’s one reason why I prefer a far more limited approach.
I specifically called out that capital ship production of any sort would not be allowed in hisec. If you want to build a capital ship, you still need to go to losec for it. (Capital ship sales in hisec would be allowed though.)
There is some concern for nullsec blocs using capital fleets to unduly exert influence over smaller structure-owning groups, but the fact that they aren’t already doing this with Leshak fleets (aside from proxy wars between different nullsec blocs) gives me a fair degree of belief that they wouldn’t suddenly start doing it with carriers and dreads. Carriers and dreads could be used for structure bashing, but doing so would carry additional risk depending on which version of my proposal was enacted.
If capital ships were allowed unlimited access to hisec, Titans and Supers would likely become the norm for structure warfare, and smaller entities would be unable to anchor structures without the cooperation of one of the nullsec blocs.
I appreciate your input, but I think your concerns have been addressed in my OP. A less restrictive plan would be much more worrisome to both you and I though.
2 Likes
Ok thanks. I hadn’t checked and assumed there was a way.
2 Likes
The mechanics already favor highsec enough. Your lack of capital ships is irrelevant in the context of highsec moon mining because the nullsec alliances can’t bring their capitals there either. But they continue to win because you are farmer trash while they are organized and determined PvP groups.
If they’re so inefficient and not an issue then how are they “good for the solo player”?
2 Likes
I have removed a large number of off topic posts. Do not spam or continually post off topic. No more warnings. Thank you.
2 Likes
Personally i think that all ships should be able to dock at any npc station, it would fit at least lore wise
Like all ships including supers/titans?
Agrees, especially a carrier, which would be a dps platform, shouldnt have over 500k ehp imo
Hmm, so why not have a severe ehp nerf as capitals are introduced into nullsec, say a titan only has max of 5m ehp with modules etc, get rid of the capital buffer bonus etc. That way the severe nerf applies game wide, capitals lose most of their power, and @Merin_Ryskin can gank his capitals and be happy 
Three further off topic posts were removed, and those quoting them.
2 Likes