Great reasoning!
Reminds me of the syllogisms of monty python’s witch scene. Equally hilarious.
1 Like
Carriers in Highsec. It’s time.
1 Like
Maybe it could be time once CONCORD is removed from the game.
Until then I don’t see why such a ship with so much EHP should be allowed to be in high sec space, as it’s nearly unkillable with CONCORD defence.
Just give them a permanent suspect flag and it would be an incredible source of content. 
2 Likes
And Rorquals 
I wouldn’t even have to over tank it!
I agree this is probably a trollpost, but just in case:
Capitals were very effective against subcaps in the past. A titan could wipe out an entire fleet using a DD through a cyno. Later they instapopped subcaps on field when it stopped being an AoE weapon. So now titans can only DD caps.
Similar stories can be told for carriers and dreads.
They nerfed all capitals these day to give subcaps a fighting chance and force (super)caps to be escorted.
And the astero, people keep forgetting this thing exists don’t they
no. there are haw weapons, neuts and a plethora of other items for this already. caps dont need more defence, they need more counters and more urgency to undock.
thats because groups like goons can field more titans than you have in your alliance…
[edit] ok bad example; a few years ago goons fielded a fleet of over 1400 titans…. in one fleet… at the same time…
1 Like
That is why Capitals and Supercapitals should cost some kind of “maintenence cost”. To prevent endless stockpiling. Many other games have understood that this is a good design to force people to be active, fighting over conflicts instead of trying to become “untouchable” by just massing combat forces to a degree that you can instantly replace all losses ten times over.
1 Like
That would certainly work. It would be an end to owning and building any capital ships.
fixed it for you
2 Likes
Well, if you think that caps should be active only and somehow convince CCP to update them so that inactive caps punish inactivity, you will see an end to them.
personally i would add some sort of nullsec incursions that would not only require caps.. but also be at that stage that they would destroy them.
you people should need to pay a dollar for every time someone say “punish” blabla…
When EVE was created, it had - fully intentional - many limitations that acted as conflict drivers and natural barriers for unlimited growth, so the stronger your group got, the more effort they had to burden. More bills to pay. More people to trust. And that naturally led to more weak spots, more fronts, more management etc.. pp, which allowed rivals to attack, conspire, sabotage and even break up strong empires from the inside.
Structures were limited per system, you could only anchor one per moon. That means, small systems with very few moons had strategic value since they could be “blocked”, invaders had to clear a base first before they could anchor their own. Larger systems had economic value as you could anchor many production bases. Systems close to trade hubs or trade routes were very valuable, people did even fight for them. Because not just everyone could set up a station there.
And if a system was already full, you had to either conquer it or claim another one. Often by force.
Structures themselves were limited. Hangars could only store so much m³. Ship Bays could only store so many ships. Force Fields were physically limited in size to place fleets in. And whatever wasn’t stored, was revealed to anyone passing by and could even freely be taken by anyone with the password. So Corps had to conquer space if they wanted to grow.
Production capabilities were limited. you wanted more assembly lines → go anchor more structures. Pay more fuel. Defend more fronts.
POSes could only be used by corp- and alliance members. No “holding constructs” that were safely in the hands of a few alt-chars but controlled ALL structures of a whole alliance. Refueling and defending had always to be done by the alliance or corporation itself, not keeping all the control, profits and fees, but outsourcing all the services and maintenance at the same time.
Citadels and their unlimited anchoring-, storage-, and procuction potential, combined with a ridiculously stupid mechanic like asset safety and their much weaker defenses so only large groups could hold them ruined all that. It was CCPs single worst design mistake ever, spoonfeeding power to large blocks that always have more interest in solidfying their own position than on anything else.
The original devs knew what they were doing, they knew a set of limits and increasing effort, diminishing returns etc. pp. is desperately needed. The new ones don’t even understand why that is. And thats why the gamplay experience and thus the reputation of this game goes downhill. Not saying it is dying. But for the average player it gets harder and harder to justify spending time with it.
4 Likes
Hey if you want to petition to make null sec more expensive, I’m not going to stand in your way. There is way too much isk per hour in this game as it is, right?
I neither want to petition anything nor does it have anything to do with a certain space.
The problem is omnipresent in EVE today. The fall of all limitations, the structure design around the demands of large groups and the concentration of power in too few hands, supported by a legion of data, bots and tools for convenient mass-management is one of the reasons the game is in it’s current shape.
And all efforts done by CCP in the last years to improve NPE will be in vain if you can’t hold those players. Which means you have to offer them a great and glorious perspective.
Being either a vasall or just prey for the already organized power groups as soon as you hit a size that is worth beating down and looting isn’t one.
That artwork should be pointing the other way.
