I propose implementing an upkeep cost for capital ships to counter the endless build up of capital ships in the game.
Construction cost balancing for capital ships has become pointless as capital ship numbers continue to build up regardless of initial cost. The result is a cementing of power in a select group of alliances that have build up these stockpiles for years. An upkeep cost would balance this. Among other things It gives newcomers a chance to combat the capital supremacy of the old guard, which will hopefully drive conflict.
I will not go into details on how such an upkeep system should be implemented, I am just suggesting the general idea.
I also do not think an upkeep cost for sub capitals is desirable.
What effect would that even have on large alliances or veteran players in general? These alliances and players have billions and trillions of ISK to pay for any proposed upkeep of their capital fleet.
i swear people keep getting dumber and dumber when it comes to “fixing capitals” or “nerfing big groups”
i will point out what must be pointed out with every one of these half assed ideas
this only further cements power into a select group of alliances. if you make something expensive enough that it effects them it will be inaccessible to most other groups
I been looking at the capital market, pretty much 50% the cost of a capital comes from its modules and accessories, but still, people strip hulls and whelp them empty to get the insurance back. I don’t consider that to be a good design in principle.
That only happen because moving them can be painful. If you remove the insurance, people will just get new ones without scrapping the one “lost” far away. Then if they ever go to war around there at some point, “free carrier” in their hangar.
as some one who flies capitals i can say that the fit is not 50% unless you are going crazy (or flying a carrier). a dread is 1.7b a fit dread is 2.4-5
The big difference is that having an upkeep means your economy has to be strong NOW instead of being able to sit back on your stockpiles of years ago.
Even if a new group emerges with a very strong economy they would take years to catch up. That is just how it works when there is a one time cost to pay. Capital destruction is only a fraction of the build up.
oh yeah you’re right i totally forgot how all the big groups no longer have any economy and are just running off old stock piles how could i possibly forget that.
don’t be a damned idiot. that thing that takes years to build up is the economy. gathering and organizing thousands of players, building up to a point where you can take more resources and grow further and further.
the next thing that makes your idea nothing more than a joke is lets pretend your solution is some how harder on large groups than individuals and small corps. all they do to get around it is repack ships…
oh yeah you’re right i totally forgot how all the big groups no longer have any economy and are just running off old stock piles how could i possibly forget that.
Their stockpiles far outstrip their capacity to replace in a timely manner. This is a mismatch between available ships and economy.
don’t be a damned idiot. that thing that takes years to build up is the economy. gathering and organizing thousands of players, building up to a point where you can take more resources and grow further and further.
No, even if you did get economy comparable to the major powers, you are still years behind in capital proliferation.
the next thing that makes your idea nothing more than a joke is lets pretend your solution is some how harder on large groups than individuals and small corps. all they do to get around it is repack ships…
You are criticising an implementation I did not even propose.
Also stop with the personal insults, the only thing it accomplishes is making you look like an ass that is unable to communicate his point in a normal manner.
You and Anyone are not synonymous. I have met people driven to meat that goal simply because of how daunting it is. considering how major groups have both risen and fallen throughout eves history with very few actually holding considerable power for any drastic length of time you claims seem unprecedented. even simple things happen slow it’s one of the reasons major changes are so impactful. is it hard to take on a major power group? yes, but it should be.
I have a carrier i havnt flown in 5 years parked at a random lowsec station. I could only imagine the parking fees… No thanks. In a N+1 game bigger numbers usually wins. Its just the way eve is. For good or for bad.
Capital proliferation isn’t stoppable. If not on the high level, then on the personal level. People want caps, people will get caps. Or they’ll decide there’s nothing to work towards and just quit. And yeah, the “repackage” mechanic isn’t something that can be changed.
What might be stoppable is reducing the ability of caps to stagnate the political landscape. I just don’t think that would be in line with the agenda given to CCP by their mega-bloc overlords.
edit: you want to reduce the stagnating power of caps, make a bomber bomb that can 1-shot capitals. Problem solved, and actually relatively well balanced considering how easily bombers can die.
Lol wat? A bomber can decloak and launch before it is locked. Unlike missiles it can die or leave grid and the bomb still goes. In no way is that even close to balanced
Sure it is. Consider pros and cons to figure balance. Caps dominate in a way that ruins the whole game for thousands of [potential/former] players. Having them die easy (albeit under special circumstances) brings it back into balance. Shoot, make civ weapons 1-shot any capital and we’d also be in good shape. Remember risk vs reward? You know that thing the whinny-baby bloc “please-don’t-call-me-a-carebear” wusses keep throwing tantrums about? Cap ships should actually be vulnerable to dying to balance how absurdly they break the game.