Of course, I’m a progressive. Progress for all is my mission.
No you aren’t. You’re cancer.
Progress for all is my mission.
Then why do all of your proposals create inequality that benefits you at the expense of others?
6 Likes
Reported
That’s ok, I’ve reported every single thing you’ve ever posted for being a crime against humanity. It’s not like CCP ever does anything about this forum.
4 Likes
? Um ok
Ganking newbros… cool story bro.
I only Assumed that the newer pilot was referring to being ganked in their venture as I never asked nor checked zkill on their pilot. I felt the overwhelming urge of spreading the word The Code along with supplying a fit that had been tested on missions just in case it wasn’t a “Gank” that that newer pilot was referring to when losing “their venture”!
1 Like
Bollocks.
2 Likes
If its equal now
Why would you want it changed?
3 Likes
If its equal now
Why would you want it changed?
Same reason why the civil rights movement happened, they are equal, but not under the current system.
SO you are saying they arent currently equal?
2 Likes
Low/null have capitals ships, highsec does not. Aye they are not equal under the current system.
Fair dos.
My next question is, if Caps are in High, do you feel CONCORD response to a gank performed by a Capital should be the same as it is now or be changed?
Same as the current mechanic. In my most recent thread, I argue for a severe nerf in ehp, so that capitals can with a big enough fleet face ganking pressure in highsec. The resulting ehp nerf to capitals in order to make them balanced in highsec will cure eve of the capital proliferation, as they would be much easier to kill.
Ok so you want to reduce the EHP of Capitals operating in High Sec as a balance for allowing them, and allowing gank fleets a chance of defeating them? Am I following this correctly?
Ok so you want to reduce the EHP of Capitals operating in High Sec as a balance for allowing them, and allowing gank fleets a chance of defeating them? Am I following this correctly?
No, direct ehp nerf across the game. Take this analogy for example, a battleship has the same stats across the game, whether it is in highsec or nullsec. However a capital was never designed for highsec, so it is vastly OP compared to sub-capitals for the same amount of minerals/isk. By introducing them into highsec, and thus nerfing them so that they are balanced in highsec, capitals will be more balanced, and the problems of cap proliferation go away.
So yes, broad ehp reduction, so that capitals have ganking risk in highsec proportional to their cost (titan can be ganked with say a fleet of 120 talos etc) and due to this ehp reduction, capitals stop being the light cyno I win buttons that they are currently, sub-capital doctrine and numbers will be the determinant factor of alliance power, not the capital stockpile.
Ok, so reduce EHP in all Capitals across the board, and allow them in High Sec?
How much of a reduction did you have in mind?
Yup, reduce ehp across the board and allow them into highsec
As for how much it’ll be a very strong reduction, around 80% of the ehp or so. So capitals/dreads will have around 200-300k ehp depending on fit, supers will have around 1-3 million ehp depending on fit, and titans will have 3-5m ehp depending on fit.
Numbers are fluid, I want them so that the ehp nerf is severe enough that capitals are not a substitute for more sub-cap numbers, you can’t auto win a keepstar timer by dropping say 100 titans, since a sub-cap fleet of around 500-600 would murder them and their fax support. In addition, I want the possibility of ganking, so if someone has a bunch of talos’s and managed to corner a terribly fit titan in highsec, it could be ganked.
Goal is for active rep capitals to make a comeback, and for capitals to be high end trophies and expensive high risk high reward assets in battle. A quick titan drop and boson could wipe out an entire sub-cap fleet if you do everything well, or you miss and the titan dies fast with only 5m ehp.
Wouldnt that make Battleships competitive with them, even one on one in high end cases?
It would yes, but remember that a marauder fully fit is effectively the same cost as a carrier. And a carrier has capital repair modules, fighter wings that can do battleship level dps and applied very well, and at immense ranges. The difference between a marauder and a carrier is incredibly vast, that difference is what caused the game to be where it is now, where it is have a bigger capital fleet or goodbye.