These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#341 - 2014-11-10 23:05:09 UTC
Bertucio wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg.


Yeah I'd like to see some gankers in Uedama take some real risk for a change - like spend a billion ISK to take down a billion ISK freighter.

Oh yeah - *crickets*. I thought so.


isk is not a balancing factor.

and nor will it ever be, because that's ********.

also if you don't want to get ganked, don't go through uedama, and don't auto pilot, and don't make basic errors like most people who get ganked in obvious choke point systems.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2014-11-10 23:05:37 UTC
Candente wrote:
First of all. Has CCP clarified on whether the ships in the SMA of this ship will actually drop or no upon getting ganked? It's an important question on the whole risk vs reward scale.

Also, as someone already said in this thread, the greatest need for solo pilots to move multiple rigged BS in highsec are incursion runners moving between sites. If this group is CCP's intended target for using Bowhead, then obviously the ships maximum tanking capability needs to be increased (or else they'd use alternative methods of moving ships, which makes a lot of things pointless).

A simple solution is to create more dedicate modules to let pilot to choose the space vs tank vs travel time. The current modules are not enough. For example, make a module to reduce SMA space but to give the ship more EHP.

The bottom line is the new ship's function should not solely be introducing inferior ways to do things that other methods do better.
Maybe the intended use is ganker ghostriding?

Inconspicuous Bowhead pulls up next to a freighter and ejects 20 catalysts.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#343 - 2014-11-10 23:08:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
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.


Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so.


We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough.

Let's be honest here. High sec ganking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move.

I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears.
Dave Stark
#344 - 2014-11-10 23:11:10 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
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.


Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so.


We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough.

Let's be honest here. High sec tanking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move.

I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears.


yeah except this ship already has ~400k ehp, it's already equalling the orca's ehp.

there's literally no justification for more ehp than "i want to mindlessly overload my cargo with no negative repercussions for my stupidity".
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#345 - 2014-11-10 23:13:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
[quote]

isk is not a balancing factor.

and nor will it ever be, because that's ********.


You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#346 - 2014-11-10 23:13:19 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
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.


Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so.


We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough.

Let's be honest here. High sec ganking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move.

I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears.


The thing is, it's already at the point where it's not profitable to suicide gank with "just" 3 T2 fit battleships inside
Dave Stark
#347 - 2014-11-10 23:16:14 UTC
Bertucio wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
[quote]

isk is not a balancing factor.

and nor will it ever be, because that's ********.


You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk.


i didn't say it didn't.

try reading my post.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#348 - 2014-11-10 23:18:42 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Bertucio wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
[quote]

isk is not a balancing factor.

and nor will it ever be, because that's ********.


You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk.


i didn't say it didn't.

try reading my post.


try making sense other than pulling whatever you can out of your butt
Fruckton Haulalot
EREBOR Logistics
#349 - 2014-11-10 23:22:41 UTC
point blank.... if this TUG... or bowhead or what ever name ya give it... can not with stand a multiboxer with 40 suicide tornados then its worthless. plain and simple....


This ship will be used by lots of folks in high sec to move their fleets around in highsec.... and yes incursioners will be the number one users...

BUT NOT if the ship can not not be fitted or skilled in a way to make it next to impossible to gank before concord can show up to save it.
Fruckton Haulalot
EREBOR Logistics
#350 - 2014-11-10 23:29:09 UTC
Furthermore... i can tank out an ORCA and get over 450,000 EHP on it... this Tug boat will be hauling far more valuble cargo... thus should have an achievable tank well over 500,000 EHP other wise its worthless...


you really think incursioners.. your target market... are going to use this ship to move their multi billion isk battleships around with out there being some secruity that the ship will be stupidly hard to gank....



also the cargo should be closer to 10k not 5k.... or give it another bay for ammo that way mods and parts in the cargo bay... and ammo in the ammo bay
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#351 - 2014-11-10 23:37:02 UTC
We will probably need one too to scoop the ships that drop from all the anti-tanked variants that will autopilot trough the system. The option to insanely ubertank that ship so the anti-gank scrubs can't possibly kill it is highly appreciated. Thx

Evil RatKid
Randy Roid
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#352 - 2014-11-10 23:38:35 UTC
Having this thing viable for wormholes, would help reduce the sting of the jump travel when it comes to evictions
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#353 - 2014-11-10 23:41:51 UTC
Looks like a new shiny pinata for gankers....

Dear CCP Rise - I suggest you spend a few days making multi-billion ISK loot-filled freighter runs from Jita to Oursulaert or from Dodixie to Rens, before you finalize the stats on this new pinata. You should get a better idea of how much damage gankers can quickly and cheaply bring to bear, and how effective your new ship will be, in its designated role.

The in-game research may save you some time in rebalance passes, as well as from pages of complaints on the forums.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#354 - 2014-11-10 23:50:52 UTC
Give it an auto-ghostride feature.

While flying the Bowhead, if you access the SMB and select any ship, you can insta-switch to it without the hassle of ejecting the ship, ejecting yourself, boarding the ship before anyone points it (if IIRC the procedure).

For highsec (yawn) it would work as a pinata-shield. Assuming the Bowhead won't be too expensive, you can put a pinata-ship inside, by the time the gankers are about to pop the Bowhead you board the pinata. CONCORD is already on grid, you're safe (maybe)!

Out of highsec, opens up fun possibilites - maybe.

At least it would give the poor whale a unique feature...

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#355 - 2014-11-10 23:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
Querns wrote:


That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA.




no it is not

part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability.

if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise.

I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier.

o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#356 - 2014-11-10 23:54:36 UTC
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.

The problem is T2 fitted BS are the very cheapest BS's. If you are flying a BS, T2 fitting is barely more expensive than T1, either way nearly all your cost is in the base hull, and possibly T2 rigs if you have those.
BS with some faction fitting are the standard for BS anywhere outside a Null Sec doctrine fleet. And given even certain null groups have Navy BS fleets you are putting your price point for planning vastly too low, because you aren't addressing the actual reality currently in game.

I'm not wanting to say 'this ship shouldn't be gankable profitably'. But if you want to run the numbers you need to look at a realistic ship that actually would be moved around in highsec, and thats a Navy BS with limited faction fittings (Probably on the damage mods). That's pretty much the minimum anyone who is using BS's regularly in high sec to make money with uses. While Marauders and Pirate BS are also highly common as well. So you need to base your gank calculations off this actual reality rather than the T1 BS with only T2 fittings that is almost never seen after week 1 of running whatever it is you are.
Obviously if you are fitting a whole bunch of A/X type deadspace or officer you are going to become a juicy target.
Max Greene
Cantstandya's Human Fund
#357 - 2014-11-10 23:58:43 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?



It seems a bit low for what will be inside and the capacity. Its meant to be hauling hulls when stripped that are probably worth over 2 bill all together, so add in modules, rigs and that ups the value greatly.

Im not saying make them gank proof but make the gank cost enough on a "properly" tanked ship to deter gankers on to the weaker less tanked counterparts that will assuredly be out there.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#358 - 2014-11-11 00:00:23 UTC
dexington wrote:
Carriers got nerfed, but jump freighters didn't, logistics was not the reason why jump drives got nerfed. Using carriers to move anything now requires an alt to get around the fatigue mechanic, and takes forever because of the short jump range, it really would be nice to get a non-combat ship as an replacement for the pre-nerf suitcase carrier.


Jump freighters did in fact get nerfed as well, while BLOPs got buffed

o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#359 - 2014-11-11 00:04:57 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
I must admit I was surprised when CCP picked up this idea from F&I. I thought any implementation would, by necessity, be too fragile and slow to justify the cargo it would be carrying. But, I figured I'd wait and see if CCP pulled a rabbit out of its hat.

We are still rabbitless.

But hey, the work has been mostly done, so: Gankers, rejoice!
Celly S wrote:
The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in.

But it's irrelevant because acceleration is a percentage of top speed. So, whether the Bowhead goes 10m/s or 1000m/s, it's going to go into warp at the same moment. And whether it's webbed at 1m/s or 100m/s respectively, it will still go into warp at the same just as quickly. The only times when top speed matters on a hauler are a) gate crashing and b) those times when you warp to a station outside docking radius. If you're trying to do (A) with this, then you already screwd up royal and you'll die regardless of the 25% boost, and (B) can be taken care of with proper bookmarks, or is such a small percentage of transit time not to be worth considering.


I was under the impression that acceleration was constant unless there was a prop mod to boost thrust, if that's not the case, then that's fine, I stand corrected even though I'd still like to see agility as a skill bonus because sub-warp travel is usually not very far for me. :)

o/
Celly

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Fruckton Haulalot
EREBOR Logistics
#360 - 2014-11-11 00:06:39 UTC
Looking at this idea of your going to be ganked by a handfull of battle ships... is well unrealistic.... there are alot of mulitboxers face it... this TUG will be the number one target of the 40+ multi boxing players.... and they will just use battle cruisers or t1 battle ships ..... they do it now for normal frieghters and orcas....


if your going to give this TUG a remote chance of survival.. it will have to be able to with stand a multi boxer attack... not a few individual players with a few battle ships.