These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Slevin-Kelevra
brotherhood of desman
#121 - 2014-11-10 14:54:05 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
Yes, You need a few guys with these and you can move your 200 man harpy blob to anywhere in New Eden with tiny amounts of fatigue. GG CCP nerf something and then create a solution straight away,


You have to put all your eggs in one basket to do so.

CCP is hoping to encourage strikes at choke points as evidenced by the push to use stargates more. A good portion of the complaints made by people about these types of changes always seem to neglect geographical strategy.


I am talking about null sec jump bridges mate. With the 90% reduction you can move your whole fleet across the map using jump bridges, and gain very little fatigue doing so.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2014-11-10 14:54:31 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:

Says "we aren’t really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application",
gives it 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation.

In other words, "We nerfed jump bridges but we feel bad so use this to move your ships with much less fatigue".
For reference 1.6 Mill m3 is 96 fitted harpies, and yes I used harpies for a specific reason.


so what you're saying is that if everyone buys one of these ships they can carry like 80+ harpies to every deployment and there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to join every harpyfleet ping and move them where they're needed very rapidly due to the role bonus?


Yes, You need a few guys with these and you can move your 200 man harpy blob to anywhere in New Eden with tiny amounts of fatigue. GG CCP nerf something and then create a solution straight away,


It's a fair concern.





ALSO - as it is a "capital", can we have a HIC infinipoint stopping it [gate] jumping please?.
Dave Stark
#123 - 2014-11-10 15:02:21 UTC
Aloh wrote:
Ask yourself why orcas have fallen out of favor for ship transport

they have?
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#124 - 2014-11-10 15:17:41 UTC
Could we refit from it please? Just like the orca and rorqual. Big smile

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#125 - 2014-11-10 15:24:47 UTC
Zappity wrote:
But I want a ship transporter, not a repurposed mining hull. Enough to haul a couple of fit T3s and a battleship without being ganked. This wouldn't achieve that.


I think you're playing the wrong game.

Nobody moves 4 billion ISK worth of cargo risk free.

Come to think of it, imagine if the hauler pilot lost 200k SP (a single subsystem worth from IV to V) for each T3 destroyed in their SMB. Now that'd be interesting...
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#126 - 2014-11-10 15:27:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Darirol wrote:
why do all those industrial ships have a speed bonus?


Because travel speed is one of the most important characteristics for haulers. Capacity, gank resilience and travel speed are basically it.


not sure "travel speed" means what you think it means, rise.


Exactly.

Speed changes that don't improve align time or warp speed have essentially 0 value on a hauler. Nobody really cares how fast their providence autopilots from Dodixie to Jita.
Novalis X
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2014-11-10 15:27:48 UTC
Can you make it like a normal freighter with fitting and module layout, as this just sets up people to start whinging about not having the same fitting ability on the other freighters.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#128 - 2014-11-10 15:27:55 UTC
It lives!

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#129 - 2014-11-10 15:32:01 UTC
So, we can move ships again without adding too much fatigue to the pilots via titan bridge. Wonderful. Your foresight has seen better days, Rise. Roll

-1 to the fatigue bonus.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Javajunky
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2014-11-10 15:35:05 UTC
Again a Rorqual makeover completely skipped, 3B so you can boost and compress in null sec after losing its travel utility. Couldn't even squeak the same type of freighter out that would offer 1.6M ore bay so at least we could get a solid mining fleet hauler out of the expansion?

The war on null sec players continues.

Disappointing.
David Kir
Hotbirds
#131 - 2014-11-10 15:38:19 UTC
Arden Elenduil wrote:


Actually, webbing into warp does work, quite well even. It's simply that you let a ship build up a certain amount of speed (doesn't need much), slap a double web on it and that reduces the max velocity in such a way, that the ship is already at the required 3 quarters of max speed threshold of slipping into warp by virtue of having that tiny little period of unwebbed acceleration(try it out if you don't believe me).


...but he didn't say it doesn't work...

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#132 - 2014-11-10 15:42:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertucio
Good to see more ships, keep them coming.

BUT ... 3 BS capacity is paltry. Give players something they want, bump it up - don't be stingy. Think big and do big stuff for Eve. If you don't want to bump it up, why not a T2 version of the Tug with greater capacity and a more gank proof EHP?

Cheap destroyer ganking is a problem in hi-sec. Who wants to invest a billion ISK in a tug-boat only to have it ganked by a bunch of yahoos in Uedama?
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
#133 - 2014-11-10 15:43:11 UTC
Triple the hitpoints.

Give it capacity for 4-5 bs.

╦......║...╔╗.║.║.╔╗.╦║.╔╗╔╦╗╔╗

║.╔╗╔╗╔╣.╔╗╠..╠ ╠╗╠╝.║╠ ╠╝║║║╚╗

╩═╚╝║.╚╝.╚╝║..╚╝║║╚╝.╩╚╝╚╝║.║╚╝

Got Item?
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#134 - 2014-11-10 15:46:37 UTC
One of the biggest issues I've seen with freighters and ganks is that they can be effectively pointed indefinitely by a single ship through bumping. Being able to cycle a MWD is pretty meaningless when a frig can continue bumping you out of alignment until the gankers show up.

Instead of adding EHP to the ship, add the ability to use a MJD. MJD+MWD means that a person actually at their keyboard would not be easily-ganked by anything but alpha ships (which would raise the cost to gank quite significantly over simply putting out a few dozen Catalysts). Doing this without raising the EHP of the ships would also leave it much easier to gank the autopiloting ships.

So making the ship MJD-capable gives active pilots a strong defense against gankers, all while keeping inactive pilots at a heavy risk.

Win-win for everyone.

 Talk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.
Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#135 - 2014-11-10 15:48:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, we're talking about it here and think there's probably no good reason not to raise the HP some. Where do you guys think it needs to be to make say, three t2 fit BS, inefficient to gank?

And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me.


Damage Control II + Reinforced Bulkheads II + Large Transverse Bulkhead II x 3 = just shy of 400,000 on an Orca.

It would be nice to see a completely max-tanked fit break 500,000 with the Bowhead.

I think that's reasonable without overdoing it.
Jedediah Arndtz
Jedediah Arndtz Corporation
#136 - 2014-11-10 15:50:39 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
the 400-500k range seems much more favourable to seeing this getting used, as opposed to just following the current methods, pilot the battleships, or freighter haul hulls.

However, I'm still confused about something; if you want to encourage the players to escort and defend their industrials, why do you then make this ship hull tanked? There are no effective remote hull repair ships for high sec (assuming you had capital remotes for your carrier, and even that isnt efficient) , but if this had its primary hp in shields, then at least a gang of logistics would be able to defend it against heavy dps, without slave implant sets blowing the hp out of proportion. Opens up options.


This.

Also, since it can only hold 3 bs, I don't really see the point in requiring a second account for a webbing alt, when at the current EHP levels, it'd be almost as fast, and far safer for those two chars to fly the BSs themselves with a tank fit, and have one of them carry a leopard to go back and get the third. So please bump the fitted ehp to at least the 400k range, if not 500.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#137 - 2014-11-10 15:52:48 UTC
Remove the fatigue bonus. Don't need 4 guys moving around 384 fully fitted harpies via jump bridge, as that's just bad.
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
#138 - 2014-11-10 15:54:00 UTC
It needs a name that isn't so reminiscent of 1980s sorority girls and their fashion disasters.
Saikron
Crazy Leftist Loons
#139 - 2014-11-10 15:54:04 UTC
It holds 3 battleships, but then it would need an escort, but its EHP is at such a level that an escort can't do much except watch it get talosed. I think it's been designed so that it can't do anything right. Just have your escorts fly your battleships and logi to the destination themselves and don't bother with this ship.
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
#140 - 2014-11-10 15:54:26 UTC
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
the 400-500k range seems much more favourable to seeing this getting used, as opposed to just following the current methods, pilot the battleships, or freighter haul hulls.

However, I'm still confused about something; if you want to encourage the players to escort and defend their industrials, why do you then make this ship hull tanked? There are no effective remote hull repair ships for high sec (assuming you had capital remotes for your carrier, and even that isnt efficient) , but if this had its primary hp in shields, then at least a gang of logistics would be able to defend it against heavy dps, without slave implant sets blowing the hp out of proportion. Opens up options.


This.

Also, since it can only hold 3 bs, I don't really see the point in requiring a second account for a webbing alt, when at the current EHP levels, it'd be almost as fast, and far safer for those two chars to fly the BSs themselves with a tank fit, and have one of them carry a leopard to go back and get the third. So please bump the fitted ehp to at least the 400k range, if not 500.


don't forget the base cost of three battleships is in the order of 500m. Add decent fittings and you're easily over 2-3b. I am not sure what even 500k is going to accomplish.

Heck, what's the point of the slots if you're basically forced to use those slots on DCU + 2 bulkhead + 3 transverse to not make it die as soon as something looks at it anyway?

╦......║...╔╗.║.║.╔╗.╦║.╔╗╔╦╗╔╗

║.╔╗╔╗╔╣.╔╗╠..╠ ╠╗╠╝.║╠ ╠╝║║║╚╗

╩═╚╝║.╚╝.╚╝║..╚╝║║╚╝.╩╚╝╚╝║.║╚╝

Got Item?