These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#181 - 2014-11-10 16:34:07 UTC
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
Querns wrote:
Christopher AET wrote:
With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious.

+1

We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs.

Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places?


Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do.

The ships in question are far more useful when amongst their peers, not sitting in lowsec doing nothing but cannoning nerds all over the place. Fatigue only exacerbates this by preventing the titan in question from joining its entourage at a moment's notice.

In order for this contrived vignette to work, you need dedicated pilots, ships, and accounts for the purpose. There's just no point to doing this when you can have a modest jump freighter fleet for several orders of magnitude less outlay and maintenance cost.

If jump freighters get kneecapped, perhaps we can revisit this ludicrous scenario.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Emma Muutaras
State War Academy
Caldari State
#182 - 2014-11-10 16:35:16 UTC
Pokket Sez wrote:
CCP Rise ... sorry for the spoiler I found a pic of the ship Idea


http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2011/pavel_m/pavel_m_02.jpg

Here is the one posted on Facebook and also on the Vegas Keynotes: (unskinned)

Tug Front

Tug Back


i think the first link is spot on thats all these ships will really be used for as they currently stand targets that will get ganked non stop
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#183 - 2014-11-10 16:37:07 UTC
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least.

Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all.


however unlike haulers this carries fitted ships, making it more like a carrier than a hauler, just saying.

except the vast difference between the two. So, not more like a carrier, but more like a hauler.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#184 - 2014-11-10 16:38:46 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

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


This sounds like a better bonus to me, maybe in low-value ships velocity bonuses are valuable for autopiloting, but a warp speed bonus or align time bonus for larger ships are much more useful at the moment due to freighter ganks causing pilots to actively navigate instead of with autopilot. (I would be more attracted to a warp speed bonus because having 2 seconds faster align time isn't going to save a ship from getting ganked 90% of the time, but having reasonably less time travelling overall via warp speed improvements could.)

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Goddess Amarr
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#185 - 2014-11-10 16:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Goddess Amarr
I'm actually really excited since I can't use my carrier to move ships without taking 50 years to do it I now have a replacement not as fast as a carrier used to be but who cares it looks really cool!! Ty CCP! Big smile

I just read some more posts and I realized how small the matinance bay is as well as how bad the tank is... And to be honest flying this in null is prob safer then in Hight due to bankers and people not having organized scouts. But then again it's harder to know who your enemy is exactly. In null its a lot easier, not blue or purple shoot tell diplo latter lol. The cost of rigged ships starts to get pretty high and this is a capital ship I would expect it to be a little bit tanker. And with that higher tank I would expect a bigger ship capacity I want more then 3 bs's. But I still like where this is going, just needs a little tweaking :)
Rashar Arji
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#186 - 2014-11-10 16:39:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rashar Arji
CCP Rise wrote:

Ore Freighter Bonus:
5% bonus to max velocity per level
5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level

CCP Rise wrote:

Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5)

Is it supposed to be Ship Maintenance Array or Bay? Since as far as I know SMA's do drop ships whereas SMBs don't.
Dave Stark
#187 - 2014-11-10 16:40:10 UTC
i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying.

it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP.

"but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship.
Jack Strom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2014-11-10 16:42:45 UTC
VOU METER TIRO NA CARA DESTES VERMES AI.


;,.;

Jack Strom
Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
#189 - 2014-11-10 16:43:13 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP with a DCU II, 2x reinforced bulkheads II, 3x Transverse bulkhead I

This is in the same range as tank-oriented freighters - I'm sure people using the hauler would want as much as possible but this range should be reasonable, yes?


I worry that the EHP is too low for the capacity. For a ship to be worth moving intact instead of selling or shipping packaged, it needs to be valuable. 1 or 2 pirate / tech 2 battleships inside make this a compelling gank target with current HP values.

And even a low risk of such a gank will discourage smart players from actually using it.

The alternative to the bowhead is redfrog or individual shipping/flying. Why would you train into and purchase this ship if it's too risky to use for your valuable ships and redfrog (or buying/selling) can handle transporting your cheap ships for next to nothing?

Love,

~Coelomate
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#190 - 2014-11-10 16:46:35 UTC
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do.


We'd still be taking two trillion isk of supercaps and making them useless except for this dumb chain and spending 13b on characters used exclusively for this dumb chain. That is still an absurd amount to do something worse than existing methods.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#191 - 2014-11-10 16:46:51 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Why not simply make them unscannable instead of a major EHP hike?


Also echoing sentiments that people aren't going to mess about hauling T1 BS just to save the T1 rig cost, FAR better of manually flying them, which leads us to the shinier stuff being the only thing "worth" hauling, yet simultaneously...not worth the risk of hauling.


And @CCP_Rise: Just because it is a transport and you dont want to hurt null logisitics - remember this ship doesnt exist. Therefore there is no "harm" done removing the "industrial" bonuses to fatigue. You cannot lose what you never had in the first place. Plenty of precedent on this in removing MMJD from ABC, for example.
Kaj'Schak
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#192 - 2014-11-10 16:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaj'Schak
with just 1.6m³ it is useless. If you need to relocate your corp or alliance, you need and escort fleet for a freighter that carries most of the things. A base shipbay like a titan(5.000.000m³)+bonuses. Also a hell of a tank so if you get tackled during a relocation op in 0.0 the attacker first has to kill the enemy fleet then the big thing. Maybe make it give the fleet some awekward high bonuses to the ship itself gets 95% resits while recieving fleet bonuses.
Because we need a defense fleet for 4-5 of them, likely carriers to carry more stuff, and our stuff moved at once for some hours. If it doesn't get a major advantage in shipbay over a carrier, why should one use that at all.

We as corp have some dozen fleet battleships in our corporation hangar, we can hardly ever relocate them to anywhere again until at least this thing is out. Still moving things will be even more time-destroying then before.

Time which I BTW don't have so all my 4 accs are now unsubbed .)

(NO ONE CAN HAZ MY STUFF, BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF YOUR REACH ANYWAY 8) )
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#193 - 2014-11-10 16:51:42 UTC
just remember, with highsec ganking being very focused on specific ships and fits, you can tank specifically for those damage types to increase survivability. If you notice gankers changing ships, switch tank. Gankers using split doctrines? back to omni tank, but with higher survivability due to less effective damage.

Not a guarantee (nothing ever is) but definitely an option.
LordTazou
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#194 - 2014-11-10 16:54:24 UTC
I would sure as hell use it. Would make moving my ships around easier...
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#195 - 2014-11-10 16:59:53 UTC
The EHP and the SMA capacity are fine I would say.

With respect to the EHP, this ship will get ganked in Uedama no matter what the EHP turns out to be. However, avoiding systems like Uedama (or anywhere else CODE. is operating), very few players/groups are going to have the incentive to gank a tank-fitted Bowhead unless you have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo. I say this after having done extensive research on what the safest hauler is--do some research on whether tank-fitted Orcas are ever ganked on a site like zbillboard, for instance. And, if you do have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo (you are moving incursion BSes for instances) then you should have an alt or friend webbing the Bowhead into warp. IF the ship is given more EHP, I would say make it around 10m/s slower for every 100k EHP added when tank fit, otherwise everyone will use this ship to afk haul.

With respect to the SMA capacity, if much more space is added the ship it starts to make subcap deployment too easy, especially given that the price of the Bowhead is going to be less than freighters.
chumbucket
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#196 - 2014-11-10 17:06:15 UTC
oh lookie another macherial magnet they will just be bumped into eternity and nailed with wave after wave of catalysts ccp needs to fix broken crap before adding more junk............ seriously tho ganking frieghters is a joke ccp needs to fix it its becoming an exploit once your bumped once these not jack all you can do and its way to cheap to do it it needs to be back up to 20+bs to do it like it used to be its an exploit now fix your broken junk first!
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#197 - 2014-11-10 17:06:43 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least.

Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all.


So no jump drives? Why are you guys focusing only on high-sec? While carriers can be used to move stuff in low-sec, why not open this up to everyone to use. If someone wants to specialize in hauling prefitted ships, why not let them? Give them a jump drive and let us use these ships in low/null.
Dave Stark
#198 - 2014-11-10 17:08:27 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
So no jump drives? Why are you guys focusing only on high-sec? While carriers can be used to move stuff in low-sec, why not open this up to everyone to use. If someone wants to specialize in hauling prefitted ships, why not let them? Give them a jump drive and let us use these ships in low/null.


there are no less than 4 ships that already fill that criteria.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#199 - 2014-11-10 17:14:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertucio
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
The EHP and the SMA capacity are fine I would say.

With respect to the EHP, this ship will get ganked in Uedama no matter what the EHP turns out to be.


No one is saying make the ship absolutely gank proof. Just that a billion ISK investment shouldn't be easily gankable. Even in Uedama.

Quote:

However, avoiding systems like Uedama (or anywhere else CODE. is operating), very few players/groups are going to have the incentive to gank a tank-fitted Bowhead unless you have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo.


Right - avoid systems like Uedama. Good luck. And yes, there are players out there that do fit tank to avoid the usual yahoo gankers with their cheap dessies who don't have to spend a billion ISK to do their ganking. So you tell me - who's paying a bigger price?


Quote:

I say this after having done extensive research on what the safest hauler is--do some research on whether tank-fitted Orcas are ever ganked on a site like zbillboard, for instance. And, if you do have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo (you are moving incursion BSes for instances) then you should have an alt or friend webbing the Bowhead into warp.


You mean have a scout for your tugboat in hi-sec? So anyone that wants to move her missioning/incursion ships around will not only have to spend a billion ISK for a tugboat, but also have a scout in hi-sec? What's the point then? The entire game should bow down to cheap dessy gankers because it ain't fun otherwise?

Quote:

IF the ship is given more EHP, I would say make it around 10m/s slower for every 100k EHP added when tank fit, otherwise everyone will use this ship to afk haul.


If people want to afk haul then let them. It takes a hell of a lot longer in game time to do so. There is already a cost. And in addition, even IF the EHP is boosted as most people are suggesting here on the thread, any large group can gank almost any freighter if they're determined to do so. You don't have to use just dessies to do it. The point here is to beef it up to do so the cost/benefit to gank is more in line to the guy hauling all his ships (their cost, and also the time the player put into building the ships that are being tugged) should be equal to what is being used to gank. Yeah - an AFK freighter should be a little more worried about possible gank - and should have to buff a lot more, but also it will be a lot slower getting his stuff around.

Quote:

With respect to the SMA capacity, if much more space is added the ship it starts to make subcap deployment too easy, especially given that the price of the Bowhead is going to be less than freighters.


The price of the Bowhead should be at least at freighter level if not more, given it's very useful role and utility that it will have. The whole point of the Bowhead is to make subcap deployment easier. Not necessarily fast, and not necessarily cheap. But also - the Bowhead shouldn't be so weak that it can carry almost nothing and it is easily gankable by a bunch of cheap dessies.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#200 - 2014-11-10 17:18:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
EDIT: After the buffs, this fit is up to 519k.

For people begging for buffs to an unreleased ships, here are some facts about the ship as originally specified. The maths to reach them is below if you're interested or doubt me:

  • Properly fitted (see below for fitting) this has 429k EHP.
  • Base all 5 alignment time is 29.2s
  • One MWD cycle is enough to enter warp
  • This ship when properly fitted is both more tanky than a freighter and more agile.
  • I don't care what the stats are with failfits and nor should you.

There is absolutely no need to buff this, people are just imagining gankers under their beds. Flown sensibly this will be reasonably safe.

MATHS BELOW

TANK:

First the fitting:

After 25% fitting skills we have 1687.5 MW and 268.75 tf to play with.

Damage Control II [1 MW, 30 tf]
Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf]
Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf]

Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I [1250 MW, 75 tf]
Thermic Dissipation Field II [1 MW, 44 tf]
Limited Kinetic Deflection Field I [1 MW, 36 tf]

Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration]
Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration]
Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration]

Total fitting parameters: 1255/1687 MW, 265/268 tf, 225/400 calibration

Now some readers are probably already recoiling in horror at T2 capital rigs, but let's take a brief detour to talk about the cost of those.

Although their current market price is over 200M/unit, there is no demand for them now. That will change with this ship. The actual material cost when inventing without a decryptor is http://evepraisal.com/e/3921936 74.6M. I have rough estimates for the amount of time per successful invention but let's just say that the final price is 100M each.

The cost of the fit therefore is around 300M, very reasonable considering that the hull should cost around as much as a freighter and it's meant to haul valuable cargo.

NOTE: I am also going to assume you are NOT AN IDIOT and have trained thermodynamics. The hardeners will be overheated for this calculation. Shield resistances after overheated hardeners are 12.5% EM 76.2% thermal 79% kinetic 56.25% explosive. Armor resistances I'll assume follow the gallente profile of 50/35/35/10, which after damage control is 57.5/44.75/44.75/23.5. 1 point of void damage (50% thermal, 50% kinetic) does 0.224 HP of damage to shields or 0.5525 HP of damage to armor.

Back to EHP calculation vs void:

HULL: 348091 = 36500 * 1.25 {mechanics} * 1.25^3 {rigs} * 1.25^2 {bulkhead modules} * 2.5 {60% resists from DCU2}
SHIELDS: 55803 = 10000 * 1.25 {shield management} / 0.224
ARMOR: 24887 = 11000 * 1.25 {hull upgrades} / 0.5525

TOTAL: 428782 EHP vs void, more than any freighter.

WARPING:

The base inertia modifier is 0.065, which is reduced by spaceship command (*0.9), advanced spaceship command (*0.75) and evasive maneuvering (*0.75). This ship has is a fairly significant SP and ISK investment, not having these skills maxed is your own damn fault.

The inertia modifier after skills is 0.0329.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Acceleration

Plugging the inertia modifier and mass in we get 29.19s = 0.0329 * 640 * -ln 0.25, a very reasonable alignment time, but it gets better with a 100MN MWD.

I forget the reference for this formula but propulsion modules follow this:

Actual max velocity bonus = stated max velocity bonus taking acceleration control into account * thrust / (ship mass + module mass)

For the tug:

100MN MWD velocity multiplier: 2.3587 = 1 + 6.25 * 150MN / (640M kg + 50M kg)
Fraction of MWD velocity required to enter warp after cycle ends: 0.75 / 2.3587 = 0.318

Going back to the acceleration time formula (using the mass including mass addition) we have time to reach 0.75 * normal velocity while under 100MN MWD:

8.69s = 0.0329 * 690 * -ln (1 - 0.318)

8.69s is significantly less than one MWD cycle so you will be able to enter warp after a single cycle with this, much like the orca. You don't even need to overheat.