Mixed armament for the main battery. Dreadnought-era battleships still had plenty of secondary weapons. The only difference was that instead of, say, four 15" guns, four 12" guns, three 10" guns, six 5" guns, ten 4" guns, etc, the post-Dreadnought battleship would have eight 16" guns, twenty 5" guns, and a whole pile of lighter AA weapons. Escorts had their roles, but the battleships were fully capable of obliterating a lighter warship. The only reason EVE ships don’t do the same is because of the rock/paper/scissors game balance that CCP wanted to impose.
I have the solution to the problem, and it’s simple, doable, and it would work. Unfortunately, nobody here will agree, least of all CCP.
Simply divide the game into two. I don’t really care how you do it. One way would be two entirely different servers. That means one group of players on one server, and another group of players on another server. Another way would be to divide the galaxy map into two sections, with one set of rules for one section, and another set of rules for another section. When you travel to the ‘other’ section of the map, you agree to those rules of play, period, paragraph, end of story.
Rules for Server1, or Map Section 1: There are no capships in existence. Period. Paragraph. End of story. They can’t be build, they can’t be flown, they simply don’t exist here.
Rules for Server2, or Map Section 2: Capships exist.
Now, all the players who hate capships play on Server1 or in Map Section 1. All the players who are fine with them play on the other server or in the other map section.
Some will no doubt say “but this divides the players up!” Of course it does, but that’s far preferable to what we have now - players at each others throats because they each want to play a different game than the other players, and groups of players trying to force the other players to play according to their rules and their vision of the game.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Highsec.
Everywhere else.
Seems like CCP has already agreed to your idea!
No, this would not be what most players who hate capships would want. They would want access to lowsec and nullsec too. So, roughly half the map including highsec, lowsec, and nullsec areas, play according to rules of NO CAPSHIPS. The other half plays with capships.
The only sticking point I can see with this is wormholes. Would half the wormholes have capships, and half not?
My impression of the situation is that people don’t like Titans. Personally, I don’t think supercarriers belong in lowsec, but it is moot, since you almost never see them.
I have seen only a few, limited complaints about carriers being overpowered. I have not read a single post about dreads being overpowered, not in the past year at least. Thinking about it, I almost never see dreads in lowsec, not even on dscan.
Except this isnt about Real World comaprisons as there isnt an analogue to Caps in EvE in the real world.
Thats why I was trying in vain to get the OP to explain what kind of indestructible brick they were thinking of.
Capships removed until their role can be found.
So why assign up to three squadrons of up 5 escorts per Battleship or battlegroup?
They may have been capable of obliterating a lighter ship, but ten? Fifteen?
Yet this is what the OP and the Beast want, invulnerablity to the very squadrons of Destroyers and PT boats DESIGNED to kill them.
They dont want Jutland, they want Monitor and Merrimac.
1 Like
That’s exactly what I proposed… either in a section of space, or on a separate server. Then you people can play “frigates and cruisers online” to your hearts’ content.
Boy this troll sure triggered you guys 
1 Like
Be real, it hardly takes anything to trigger any of us! 
2 Likes
yes thats true, and haw( shortrange XL guns) i think should be in the same optimal range as M long range guns, dont you?
well… as i already pointed out, comparing 1vs1 is a little dumb.
but you can come here with your shitposing skills all you want, twisting the story.
everyone knows that the loki optimal is outside the range of the haw guns,
and longrange dred guns dont even hit the loki.
and everyone knows that if you bring 100 lokis to the grid, you already have an “i-win” button.
Yeah, so its not just me who thinks afk cloaky camping should be gone.
According to ccp, cloaky camping is the nr1 reason people contact support .
and im not even saying that cloaky camping should be gone…
im saying that i feel that only 1.5b+ ships (black ops) should have the power to >afk< cloaky camp.
Frigates should not even be able to light a cov ops cyno
(if anything it should require more cpu/power/whatever to light a secret cyno, thats essentialy a t2 regular cyno)
nor do i think frigates should have the power to sustain a cloak for more then x minutes… but thats just me.
and also it can be done by having an x minute cycle on the cloak, and then a y second/minute de/re-cloak debuff… as now, only longer or same… dont matter.
also, your macroing would ofc get you banned, just invest in a blackops instead you pleb.
Here’s an exact quote of the dumb as dog ■■■■ thing you said:
I’ve conclusively demonstrated that that’s false.
If you think a 1v1 is a stupid scenario, I agree!
Which is why I pointed out that your claim was, in fact, dumb as dog ■■■■ by providing actual stats that you could have looked up before making such a trivially disproven claim.
It turns out that, in reality, dreads kill t3cs pretty easily and pretty often, while the opposite is almost never true.
When you have someone making false statements as frequently as you do, it’s generally helpful to fact check them along the way so people who aren’t necessarily familiar with the subject matter don’t accidentally get confused and think that the false things you’re saying actually reflect reality in any way.
yup. and i also specified what i meant by that quote, when an person asked about it.
but i guess you failed to find that post where i said that a loki would win vs a dred, if dred was buffer tank - after xx minutes.
but thanks for yet another shitpost where you call me a dog… lol.
gl in life.
Except what actually happens is the loki dies, or the dread leaves. The former is more likely.
Your scenario doesn’t require a buffer fit dread, it requires an afk dread.
why are you even here shitposting on your alt?
like… wtf have i done to you? how is your mental health?
also. “okay”.
normaly id respond:
"no, the dred cant move or apply damage, as haw dont reach the loki and if dred has "anti-cap"guns aka. long range, the dred wont even hit the loki, and if once in a blood moon, dred capguns hit loki…
Loki can take multiple hits… and self-repair and get in “under the guns”…
and the outcome is the same.
in a streight up simulations, no friends no wapring away 1vs1 brawl@ the sun, a loki will kill a dred.
but i wont say a nything like that, as i had said it all before, but you just want to quote me on unrelevant stuff and drag this thread to the bin with your ulimate lvl of shitposting.
There’s no range at which a loki can both outrange a HAW and hold tackle on a dread. Literally the dread’s worst case scenario is it desieges and jumps out.
Like I said… dumb as dog ■■■■.
Well, except maybe a Moros, but that just gets slotted under mercy-killing because… moros.
you dont even bother to read what i write… so yeah… i think im done with you.
ps. dogs are pretty smart tbh.
You forgot to add, "But only if it’s buffer fit, and poorly at that, " probably because it is difficult to keep track of all of the amendments, conditions, exceptions, and special cases you’ve had to tack on every time someone has pointed out how stupid your previous scenario was.