Minimum Cap for Warp

We all know cap is life.

What if you had to have at least 15% cap in order to initiate a warp? Present behaviour you’ll warp “some distance” as long as you have “some cap”.

Might add some very interesting emergent behaviour… particularly thinking about a curse with a mutated heavy neut on it… 60km away and blap, your orthrus just got zapped to zero. Ofc a Lachesis in similar circumstances can point out that far anyways, so, it’s not exactly broken.

Counterplay is batteries and cap boosters.

Is it needed? No. But it might be an interesting option and make fitting long points more optional on pvp fits - which of course increases flexibility.


Except it then decreases flexibility by making cap boosters and batteries more mandatory in your fits.
So all you are doing are swapping one mandatory for another.

This is how it used to work. I think the current mechanic is bugged. There’s an entire skill dedicated to lowering minimum cap amount to initiate warp but in the modern game if you have even 1 gj you will go somewhere

1 Like

It’s not bugged, it lowers the cap your warp consumes just like it should.
Long warps you can run out of cap in some ships without it, and there are some systems with really long warps.
Even without that it brings you into a warp in fight better.

1 Like

Nos would also work, and cap boosters are only “mandatory” if you want to be able to run away from someone with neuts and not points… arguably something you’d need anyways (no prop means you’ll never be getting out of point range, even if they’re in a battleship and you’re in a neut/webbed frigate).

Ultimately, I feel it offers the greatest power potential to larger ships such as battleships. Heavy neuts will ■■■■ up the cap on a tremendous number of ships… and then of course there’s the gorn, that ■■■■ would be sexy as ■■■■.

While you can fit heavy neuts on cruisers at great costs, it’s really only battleships where you’ll see real danger.

By that logic warp stabs are mandatory on PvP fits to counter warp disruptors.


my memory must be rusty, because I reckon back in 09 and 10 you needed x-amount of cap otherwise you went nowhere

You need exactly 0 cap to initiate warp

No. Sounds like you lost point on a ship and it got away now you want cap life to play a role in making it even easier to hold tackle, without needing tackle.

You make it sound like only you’ll be on field with a neut ship and you can counterplay with cap boosters and batteries. When in reality, this is just a buff to blobs. Maybe i escape the longpoint of your tackle, but then have a heavy neut curse neuting me from 80km away, welp, guess i’m not getting out now. Blobs/large alliances will just spam heavy neut curses/geddons at anything that warps in. With abyssal neuts making it even easier to do (doesn’t matter if you fumble fitting on a heavy neut if its going on a geddon, as long as you get more range and possible neut amount).

If you want something to stay on grid, bring tackle pilots that know what they’re doing. Bring scrams/long points. If something warps off with no cap, they’ll warp to a safe. Have combat probes ready and you can scan them down if they’re slow.

Hell, this doesn’t even touch on void bombs and how you could stop an entire fleet in its tracks without bubbles or tackle. We had null blobs whine about void bombs from citadels, well with this change, every fleet will be flinging void bombs at each other now, citadel or not.

I like “some distance” I still use it from time to time to get to a certain position, usually for bookmarking.

I also think that a minimum would mean that when a ship being ganked, that is trying to take the tackle down and escape, reaches the 15% cap it would create a “no hope point”. Without the minimum there is always that chance to slip away in the 11th hour. Even .5 AU is priceless in that case.

Nope, I do fleet pvp exclusively. I’ve never lost tackle on something, because I’m generally not in an interceptor… and when I am, there are a dozen other frigates taking point before I warp off.

How in god’s name will you escape longpoint when you’re blobbed and they’ve got neuts? You’ll be perma-capped, your prop will be off, and theirs will not. Poor example. Lachesis can point out to 100km in similar circumstances, so again your argument about the 80km heavy neut falls flat on its face. While both are extreme, both are “right now” things. And arguably, the curse with the heavy neut had to make an obscenely high sacrifice and risk (that neut with NOT be cheap, and they had to forego most of their tank for it).

They do already, and because they’re large blobs they’ve got dedicated tackle boats. We always run lachesis in our shield battleship fleets.

No, I want more interesting fits.

“It’s a pvp fit, so it needs a point” isn’t a choice, it’s a necessity. Big groups don’t care, they’ve got dedicated tackle. Smaller gangs, they need to fit points because they’ve got no other option. This increases their flexibility dramatically.

Very true, and a thought that occurred to me while I was thinking about it. I found it to be a very appealing thought actually. If they’re crying about void bombs, bring some T3Ds with defenders on them. SO hard, I know. Fleets should always be designed around ships supporting ships. Failing to support your fleet with counters to obvious things (hey, I brought battleships and I’m getting waterboarded for the next 30 gates… GG!) deserve what they get.

Do you often cap yourself out before you make safes?

If they’re being ganked, they were ■■■■■■ from the get-go. A competent group of pilots will have more than one point, they may not have neuts at all if they’re a nano gang.

If your cap regen wasn’t a downward slope at that point toward 0 it might make sense but since it actually is I think it make keeping ships under 15% too easy.

A single cap booster would be enough to enable warp. 8k GJ feels like a good number to generalize for battleships, a single cycle of a 3200 (align, boost, warp) would get them free. Cruisers, lets say 2k GJ, a 400 would get them free.

Cap-dependent ships generally have cap boosters on them anyways, because neuts already ■■■■ them up. They’d have a built-in counter to this.

And at the end of the day, I’d argue that if you’re capped out, you wouldn’t be escaping a long point either.

So there is no need to add another layer on top of that. Glad you made that clear yourself.

Never said there was a need. Said it would increase fitting flexibility. We already have scrams, points, infinipoints, heavy points, Sirens, bumping, and an assortment of bubbles. Adding this adds a new dynamic. I do not feel this crowds the dynamic.

I contend that when capped out, a long point will be inescapable anyways. Since fitting points is presently not a choice for a gang (at minimum 1 dude has to have tackle of some kind), I feel it improves gameplay by offering other options.

Is it your concern that it’s too easy for ships to be tackled with this?

It’s literally adding an option on top of

which is a list of options I would consider long enough.

That doesn’t really answer my question though. I want to know how you find this harmful to Eve. If you don’t find it harmful, I want to know why you think it will be detrimental. If you don’t think it’s detrimental, I want to know why you’re against it.

I support it because it means more ships explode. It means more diverse PVP fits. It means that points are no longer required, and now that rattlesnake your gang just tackled can neut you out and kill you, point or no point… where before you’d just warp off if it looked like you’d die.

It does not have to be harmful to EVE to not be a good idea. Cap warfare already has it’s own strength, there is no need to add additional perks to it on top of what it already has.

I mean, making ECM also point ship is not explicitly harmful to EVE and would cause more ship to explodes too so how about we go with that instead of neuts? No need to fit points man, just being some ec-300 or a falcon.

True, and I can agree with the sentiment that not all ideas have to be harmful to be bad.

I am of the opinion however that given the mechanics, the “role playing”, and other previously mentioned benefits, it would be a good fit for improving the game.

You’re certainly entitled to disagree. I was wondering by what merit you base your stance on. Something you’ve now voiced and I can understand where you’re coming from.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.