These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#821 - 2014-11-12 16:28:36 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well.


I'm assuming you mean packaged?


no, he means packaged... the nerf to size will allow you to carry a lot more packaged ships, at the cost of capacity for packaged ships.

not sure i agree with that one, personally.
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#822 - 2014-11-12 16:37:44 UTC  |  Edited by: FunGu Arsten
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.


You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads.

yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once.
You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster for the average 3 BS +logi +CS + scout ,In his present version
So this ships need a bigger SMA + more warpspeed and EHP ...


i just dont get why you do 90 jumps in the bowhead and only 30jumps on the bs...

by my fast look at this you need to do:
30jumps with the bowhead vs 30 x3 BS + 30 x 3 travelback with leopard...
added:
or 90j with bowhead vs 90 x 3 bs + 90x 3 back with leopard. (bowhead: 5670s vs bs+leopard:11070s by your own average times)


incase you have an alt:
you also need to take into account that with a bowhead alt you can move 3 bs while your main already is flying a logi/T3 in the actual incursion....
+ as you only move them in your bowhead, your alt does not have to be able to fly all those ships and saves you skilltime.

have you actualy done the math at how long it would take if you would have 10+ ships in that bowhead??


I dont see why people are against this ship, other then yes it will be easier to move your intire shiphangar... Though we're going to see hilarious killmails....
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#823 - 2014-11-12 17:05:35 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi"

edit, 64m per hull. so 40 hulls are 2.5bn isk already. this is before we even get in to fittings. that's not an insignificant cost...


If you have 40 people, why would you use tornados and not catalysts?
Have a bowhead (the irony) with fitted catalysts and have your people refit.

One cruiser will keep the bowhead away from warping while you send a few waves a cheap ships to kill it.
Valterra Craven
#824 - 2014-11-12 17:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Dave Stark wrote:


know how the ganker brought his friends?
well so can the bowhead pilot.

we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long.


I've seen this argument before and I have no idea why people insist on it.

The problem with ganking is that they have all the advantages. They determine the time, the place, and what their thresholds are. They have the element of surprise and they can have over whelming force.

I know people hate real life analogies here, but I want you to image what life would be like if in every civilized country (US, All the EU nations, Japan, etc) that in order to transport goods via a high speed route like a highway you would have to get an escort to do so. Think about the economic burden that would be placed on just trying to move things. Keep in mind I'm not talking about low sec or null sec right now, which the Somali pirates would be a good comparison to make there. The problem with the mechanic as it exists now is that if people like gankers exist that continually preyed on business etc like they do in eve, they would be systematically hunted down and dealt with. The free flow of goods is vitally important to any economy, and frankly your argument just isn't practical to that end.
Dave Stark
#825 - 2014-11-12 17:21:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
S'No Flake wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi"

edit, 64m per hull. so 40 hulls are 2.5bn isk already. this is before we even get in to fittings. that's not an insignificant cost...


If you have 40 people, why would you use tornados and not catalysts?
Have a bowhead (the irony) with fitted catalysts and have your people refit.

One cruiser will keep the bowhead away from warping while you send a few waves a cheap ships to kill it.


because the point is that logi reps can keep up with catalysts sufficiently long enough to allow a concord response. even more so with the bowhead than a normal freighter, as the bowhead can fit invulns and various hardeners to increase the repping power unlike normal freighters that are stuck with the base resist profiles.
unlike tornados just taking the ship off the grid before reps can be a factor.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


know how the ganker brought his friends?
well so can the bowhead pilot.

we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long.


I've seen this argument before and I have no idea why people insist on it.

The problem with ganking is that they have all the advantages. They determine the time, the place, and what their thresholds are. They have the element of surprise and they can have over whelming force.

I know people hate real life analogies here, but I want you to image what life would be like if in every civilized country (US, All the EU nations, Japan, etc) that in order to transport goods via a high speed route like a highway you would have to get an escort to do so. Think about the economic burden that would be placed on just trying to move things. Keep in mind not I'm talking about low sec or null sec right now, which the Somali pirates would be a good comparison to make there. The problem with the mechanic as it exists now is that if people like gankers exist that continually preyed on business etc like they do in eve, they would be systematically hunted down and dealt with. The free flow of goods is vitally important to any economy, and frankly your argument just isn't practical to that end.


sure they choose all those things.
but the pilot can choose not to be a target by not overstuffing his cargo or going in to systems that are the home of known gankers who do it "for the lulz".

if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.
Valterra Craven
#826 - 2014-11-12 17:31:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Dave Stark wrote:


if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.


So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?

Edit: now that I think about it that also a pretty crappy argument from another point. IMO the victim should never be blamed for criminal acts. That's the same as telling a women, well if you don't want to be sexually assaulted make sure to cover everything and have your burrca on!
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#827 - 2014-11-12 17:40:27 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well.


I'm assuming you mean packaged?


no, he means packaged... the nerf to size will allow you to carry a lot more packaged ships, at the cost of capacity for packaged ships.

not sure i agree with that one, personally.


yes, I mean Packaged ships like 50km3 battleships. With the jump changes its harder to move stuff around and ships are some of the, if not the, largest items in the game. It would be a freighter for only ships.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#828 - 2014-11-12 17:41:01 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.


So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?

confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#829 - 2014-11-12 17:42:00 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:

yes, I mean Packaged ships like 50km3 battleships. With the jump changes its harder to move stuff around and ships are some of the, if not the, largest items in the game. It would be a freighter for only ships.

how would this be any better than just using a normal freighter
Valterra Craven
#830 - 2014-11-12 17:49:30 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:

how would this be any better than just using a normal freighter


To be honest the entire concept of this ship is entirely asinine. The ONLY reason its being made is because CCP can't get its stuff together and allow people to put assembled ships inside a normal cargo bay. There is no logical reason a bs could not fit inside a freighter. Packaged or not.
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#831 - 2014-11-12 17:56:21 UTC
I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could)

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#832 - 2014-11-12 17:59:13 UTC
TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote:
I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could)


pretty sure they both have three lowslots
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#833 - 2014-11-12 18:08:34 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote:
I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could)


pretty sure they both have three lowslots


You're right, but the statement still is valid that the rorqual warps faster than this proposal.
Apaolo Miros
Talking In Stations Corporation
#834 - 2014-11-12 18:26:04 UTC
Lickem Lolly wrote:
MMOs die for a number of reasons. The main reason is lack of new players. Highsec ganking, in general, is killing Eve; whether it is killing newbs or killing slightly more experienced carebears in freighters. Some people play online games to relax and have fun, without getting abused.

Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP. It should be restricted to lowsec and nullsec, where people who are there have chosen to accept the risk.

Making ships ungankable and cargo unscannable helps a little, but it doesn't solve the problem.

CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players.





There is value in breaking up enemy logistics, even in hisec. Perhaps "no loot" drops on ganks in hisec would solve both. Just have it all blow up with the ship. You can still ransom.

Pirating is a BIG part of EVE. It keeps the economy going and adds value to everything not ganked. I've never done it for profit or fun - 'collecting tears" is so base when you have all this amazing complication around you.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#835 - 2014-11-12 19:00:36 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.


So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?

confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded


This seems entirely reasonable.

Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps.

And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships.

What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things.



I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Valterra Craven
#836 - 2014-11-12 19:03:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
War Kitten wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.


So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?

confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded


This seems entirely reasonable.

Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps.

And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships.

What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things.





Your arguments are disingenuous. No where did I state that I believe this ship should have more EHP. For the record giving ships more EHP to combat douchewaffles doesn't work. There are always more douchewaffles. However what I did argue was that making people have to play with a gang of others just to move junk around in high sec is silly.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#837 - 2014-11-12 19:22:47 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.


So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?

confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded


This seems entirely reasonable.

Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps.

And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships.

What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things.





Your arguments are disingenuous. No where did I state that I believe this ship should have more EHP. For the record giving ships more EHP to combat douchewaffles doesn't work. There are always more douchewaffles. However what I did argue was that making people have to play with a gang of others just to move junk around in high sec is silly.


Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#838 - 2014-11-12 19:26:25 UTC
Most of the problems discussed in this thread would go away if the ship maintenance bay simply wasn't scannable.

Yes - there will be killmails upon first release but it will die down to an average # of kills each month. There needs to be more risk involved for those who want to gank. Right now there's too little risk for gankers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#839 - 2014-11-12 19:32:45 UTC
Bertucio wrote:
Most of the problems discussed in this thread would go away if the ship maintenance bay simply wasn't scannable.

Yes - there will be killmails upon first release but it will die down to an average # of kills each month. There needs to be more risk involved for those who want to gank. Right now there's too little risk for gankers.


All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned.
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#840 - 2014-11-12 19:36:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bertucio wrote:
Most of the problems discussed in this thread would go away if the ship maintenance bay simply wasn't scannable.

Yes - there will be killmails upon first release but it will die down to an average # of kills each month. There needs to be more risk involved for those who want to gank. Right now there's too little risk for gankers.


All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned.

ATM,yes but soon enought that will be adressed as specified by Rise.