These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1401 - 2014-11-17 21:45:31 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD.


Keep holding your breath....

Did you do your homework yet and figure out why your linked KM was of a bumping mach and not a travel mach?


Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling.

Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship.
ashley Eoner
#1402 - 2014-11-17 22:00:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

You're dumb if you're ganking freighters in higher sec then .5. Every major trade route has at least one .5.


PvP doesn't just belong in 0.5 systems. You're basically admitting to me that it does take large numbers of people, in all but specific situations.

So thanks for that.

I'm admitting that it's easier / smarter to do in certain systems. The .5 systems also tend to be choke points which makes it even smarter to camp.

Ganking in a .6 or .7 just requires an extra pilot or two. If you preposition concord you won't even need an extra pilot in those cases. I've ganked freighters on my own in .8 space. I see no reason to engage in .9 or 1.0 since those are severely limited areas and the other lower sec systems outnumber them.

Ganking isn't real pvp it's basically a PVE level of activity. There's no risk involved and the target is unable to defend itself.

In the end you can qualify mining as a pvp activity as you're actively competing against other players for ore and such. I'm not even sure if there's an activity in this game that you couldn't technically define as pvp.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1403 - 2014-11-17 22:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD.


Keep holding your breath....

Did you do your homework yet and figure out why your linked KM was of a bumping mach and not a travel mach?


Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling.

Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship.


Cute:)

Yes, pulling a fleet together to suicide gank the bumper is a counter to bumping. It requires a few friends willing to become criminals and suicide gank, some reasonably expensive ships, and good combat skills. It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.

Had you known anything about highsec you would realize that Jenn is a leading anti ganker and bumping mach killer. You would also have realized that the mach was speed optimized, not travel optimized. But that would have required actual competence and knowledge, not just Goon talking points. Can't say I expected much from ya, so I'm not really disappointed.

Your repeated attacks on my fit demonstrate once again that you literally know nothing about highsec...stick to Deklein...you are just making yourself look foolish.
ashley Eoner
#1404 - 2014-11-17 22:05:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD.


Keep holding your breath....

Did you do your homework yet and figure out why your linked KM was of a bumping mach and not a travel mach?


Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling.

Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship.


Cute:)

Yes, pulling a fleet together to suicide gank the bumper is a counter to bumping. It requires a few friends willing to become criminals and suicide ganks, some reasonably expensive ships, and good combat skills. It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.

Had you known anything about highsec you would realize that Jenn is a leading anti ganker and bumping mach killer. You would also have realized that the mach was speed optimized, not travel optimized. But that would have required actual competence and knowledge, not just Goon talking points. Can't say I expected much from ya, so I'm not really disappointed.

Your repeated attacks on my fit demonstrate once again that you literally know nothing about highsec...stick to Deklein...you are just making yourself look foolish.

One of the smartest things I've done since I came back to this game was to make gank alts on all my accounts. I now have 14 characters who with a mere 2 months of training (I went with 3 months because nado/talos/t2cata) are capable of being used to make life horrible for those I choose to target.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1405 - 2014-11-17 22:05:56 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.


You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend.

And having to actually fight back is not broken, either.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1406 - 2014-11-17 22:22:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.


You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend.

And having to actually fight back is not broken, either.


Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. And yes, I am the good guys....I've never once committed a criminal act in the game. Keep trying.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1407 - 2014-11-17 22:50:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken.


It's not broken. It's a dystopian society. You know, the entire game setting?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1408 - 2014-11-17 23:00:38 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD.


Keep holding your breath....

Did you do your homework yet and figure out why your linked KM was of a bumping mach and not a travel mach?


Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling.

Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship.


Cute:)

Yes, pulling a fleet together to suicide gank the bumper is a counter to bumping. It requires a few friends willing to become criminals and suicide gank, some reasonably expensive ships, and good combat skills. It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.

Had you known anything about highsec you would realize that Jenn is a leading anti ganker and bumping mach killer. You would also have realized that the mach was speed optimized, not travel optimized. But that would have required actual competence and knowledge, not just Goon talking points. Can't say I expected much from ya, so I'm not really disappointed.

Your repeated attacks on my fit demonstrate once again that you literally know nothing about highsec...stick to Deklein...you are just making yourself look foolish.


Said the guy who fits billions of isk on a ship that is meant to be travel fit yet moves slower than a roaming dreadnought.
Yume Ookami
Cognitive Disonance
#1409 - 2014-11-17 23:07:55 UTC
seems like it is time to trim the topic again of bickering/trolling
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1410 - 2014-11-17 23:42:21 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.


You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend.

And having to actually fight back is not broken, either.


Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. And yes, I am the good guys....I've never once committed a criminal act in the game. Keep trying.

You might want to go tell that to about half of the americans. Massive chunk of them own guns for the sole purpose that they believe it is ultimately their responsibility to keep themselves and their friends/family safe. And this is modern society. No need to wait for a dystopian future . Although some would argue we are in one. You'll find them with the tinfoil on their head.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1411 - 2014-11-18 00:05:54 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.


You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend.

And having to actually fight back is not broken, either.


Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. And yes, I am the good guys....I've never once committed a criminal act in the game. Keep trying.

You might want to go tell that to about half of the americans. Massive chunk of them own guns for the sole purpose that they believe it is ultimately their responsibility to keep themselves and their friends/family safe. And this is modern society. No need to wait for a dystopian future . Although some would argue we are in one. You'll find them with the tinfoil on their head.


People who defend themselves against break ins are not criminals, they are simply acting in a law abiding fashion. Bumping (a form of entrapment) is already a crime under US law. Demanding that PvE players engage in criminal suicide ganking to protect themselves against bumpers is contrary to the principles of the game, where non-criminals are able to lawfully operate in highsec with CONCORD protection.

Anyhow - this is irrelevant to the thread. Point is travel fit battleships are essentially 100% safe, whereas the bowhead is quite vulnerable. I for one will be checking out the killboard for the first few days post-release, and except to see quite a few ganks of this "unkillable" ship.
Ned Thomas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1412 - 2014-11-18 00:18:24 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Bumping (a form of entrapment) is already a crime under US law.


You owe me a new monitor because I spit my drink out laughing at this and I don't feel like cleaning it.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1413 - 2014-11-18 01:25:14 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Bumping (a form of entrapment) is already a crime under US law.


You owe me a new monitor because I spit my drink out laughing at this and I don't feel like cleaning it.

I'm gonna start calling the cops every time a fatass hogs the hallway.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1414 - 2014-11-18 04:00:32 UTC
I don't think the Bowhead is a bad idea. As long as the cost to gank it is reasonably high when it's fitted for tank, it should be pretty useful. Just remember that fitted battleships can cost north of 300m now, and it seems reasonable to expect to be able to carry a load of T2-fit BS around without becoming an economically-viable gank target.

I still don't think that these should be the only highsec hull transport option, though. I seriously think you guys should re-think your stance on allowing capitals into highsec. It's great that you're introducing a low skill requirement, basic hull-hauler for highsec use, but I think capitals should be allowed to participate in this role as well. The nut-shot you guys have given jump-travel and the complete impracticality of traversing empire space through lowsec (hello, 70-jump routes that still require the use of the jump drive here and there because some places literally don't have a lowsec-only route) would make allowing caps through highsec a major quality of life improvement. Also, you'll have to re-do POSes soon anyway, so any concerns about capitals being used in highsec POS warfare (not that I'm sure these are valid to begin with: people in all other kinds of space manage to get by with caps attacking their POSes just fine) could soon be addressed through a POS shakeup anyway.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1415 - 2014-11-18 05:36:54 UTC
Rowells wrote:

I'm gonna start calling the cops every time a ****** hogs the hallway.

I believe you will find the relevant law under kidnapping in most countries.
Removed by force from where you want to be and prevented by force from returning to that area or leaving the person in question.

However there is no good computer mechanic to determine bumping intent thus it can never be flaggable in EVE without being utterly abusable.

Anyway, are you lot having fun arguing round and round in circles and both sides making themselves look really stupid by this point? Since both sides have had their arguments shot to utter dust, and are still somehow clinging to them as if they are immovable objects.
St'oto
Hell's Death Squad
#1416 - 2014-11-18 06:31:40 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Rowells wrote:

I'm gonna start calling the cops every time a ****** hogs the hallway.

I believe you will find the relevant law under kidnapping in most countries.
Removed by force from where you want to be and prevented by force from returning to that area or leaving the person in question.

However there is no good computer mechanic to determine bumping intent thus it can never be flaggable in EVE without being utterly abusable.

Anyway, are you lot having fun arguing round and round in circles and both sides making themselves look really stupid by this point? Since both sides have had their arguments shot to utter dust, and are still somehow clinging to them as if they are immovable objects.


lol just sit back and eat popcorn bud. It's a inevitability that comes from discussing one topic over and over again for hours on end. By the end of it, any onlookers laugh their asses off while the people invested shake their heads and still try to cling to their desperate arguments while wondering why the onlookers are laughing said asses off.

On Topic : I think this ship could definitely be useful. Even as a general fitted hauling "service." So I'm glad it's making it's way into the game till capitals are allowed into highsec. I won't even touch on the gank possibilities as it's way out of my expertise. I don't gank, nor do I worry about ganking as I usually don't fly alone or fly AFK when I do.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1417 - 2014-11-18 06:33:49 UTC
This thread was supposed to introduce a new ship and discuss the ship and its usage. After 70 pages one can safely summarize that roughly half of this thread has been a discussion about ganking and how to destroy other ships in high sec.

CCP please take notice of this - it shows that you missed to adjust other game parameters when you started introducing more t2 and t3 ships over the years.

Eve used to be a story rich game - a 'half-way' safe high sec was part of that story as it is heavily policed and regulated. The in-place mechanics dont take that into account as any kind of anti-empire action is only reflected in a concord destruction of the aggressors - thats clearly too weak a response. Security hits and standing losses need to be reconsidered to be in line with the story again.

No introduction of any further ship will change or improve the situation - it will always just be a temporary effect. We have 3 distinctive levels of policed and regulated space in Eve - but the mechanics are not in line with the available ships anymore. Ganking is too simple in high sec, tanking gate guns in low sec is too simple - face it it requires immediate adjustment.

All that said i think no further adjustment on the bowhead is needed as it doesnt really matter how the stats in the end will be. With current mechanics it will be easy to find ways to overcome whatever the stats will be.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Rhoaden
Australia Federal Police
#1418 - 2014-11-18 06:49:25 UTC
TBH I was really hoping for a roquarl that could transport combat ships. I think some one said it can carry 92 ? harpys that's a little under 3billion isk and its only carrying t2 fit AF. so its carrying nearly 3x what a standard freighter would carry and its got less tank and well proably cost more. I don't don't understand why we could just get a roqaul - the jump drive that could carry combat ships seems much easier to me.
Crevtran Sbatiol
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1419 - 2014-11-18 07:15:42 UTC
Someone fill me in on how this doesn't ruin one of the remaining niches of carriers.
Is it CCPs plan to reduce carriers to oversized logis?

Alice: Geez, Bob, you taunted the Goons and now they want to kill you. Bob: Should I call the police? Alice: In game, Bob, kill you in game. Bob: Ah, so petition it and call the police?

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1420 - 2014-11-18 07:45:33 UTC
Highsec is already very, very safe. In fact it is probably safer than it ought to be, and it might be arguable that it is safe to an extent that is unhealthy for the game. That the only real problem players have is in certain chokepoint systems, and even then, the problem is small-scale, infers to me that highsec is very safe indeed.

Yes, I know, that is only my opinion and I have nothing substantial or statistical to back it up. It's just what I've observed.
(cue the "that's just, like, your opinion man" from Lebowski)

That aside, I think the EHP on the Bowhead could use to be reverted back to the original numbers (~350k if properly fitted, if I recall correctly). I don't think gank profitability is of any relevance in this discussion, as it is a question of motive and not of the mechanics of the act, and right now it's highly questionable if profitability is even a [major] driving factor behind ganking at this time (how many times have I seen a thread titled something along the lines of "Help CCP! Empty freighters being ganked!!!"?). So putting that aside, the original EHP numbers were powerful and perfectly usable*.

*Caveat: like others have mentioned earlier in the thread, having the majority of EHP in shield is a great idea to encourage logi support.

But EHP plus or minus, it most likely won't directly effect me since I am unlikely to be able to partake in taking one down either through gank or through wardec. No, my main beef with this vessel is another point already driven home by other posters and while I know it won't change, I have to say it just the same - having yet another industrial skill that only effects one ship is just bullpocky. I'd rather see the ship rolled in with Capital Industrial Ship (someone said earlier it would have XL rigs, right? Well, isn't that capital? Well then it's an industrial ship that's capital and needs to be a part of that skillbook).