These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#561 - 2014-11-11 18:18:41 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:

Seriously? effectively ungankable?
You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it.
It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves.

I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :)

"Effectively" does not mean perfectly ungankable. It means that you have 400k ehp and the kind of heroic measures someone has to go through to gank you is not just a big up-front expense, it's the type of time and manpower commitment that happens only once a year, during Burn Jita.

As it is this thing can be fit for max EHP with no loss to capacity, versus freighters that are rarely all-bulkhead fit. So take the number of taloses you see on the average freighter killmail and add at least 50% more. 18-20 taloses to be sure of killing this thing means unless you have some damn good reason to believe that there are officer-fit ships in there it's unlikely to pay off.

(Assuming that CCP is even able to get the fix for looting SMAs done by the time this gets into the game. Until that happens, go nuts with nanofiber and hyperspace rigs, nobody is going to bother.)
Warr Akini
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#562 - 2014-11-11 18:19:21 UTC
Sullen Decimus wrote:
three things.

A) yes the ehp bump is completely necessary. We're talking about a ship capable of holding 3 battleships. the main niche that will use this more than anything is incursions runners which they will be faction ships most likely. If you do a cargo scan and see 2 vindi's and a mach. you don't need to see their fitting to know there is a lot of value. Not to mention it's a shield ehp boost so at least you can bring support ships as a security convoy AS THE GAME WAS INTENDED.

B) Are people going to gank it not knowing the value? Hell yes. That's the most ridiculous argument i have ever seen considering how many freighters are suicide ganked already with NOTHING in the cargo hold simply for "the tears".

C) If the ONLY thing you find fun in this game is suicide ganking please go play another game. Your subs won't be missed.


Thanks for making your argument horribly flawed by adding the ad hominem attack at the end. Looks great, I tell you.

As for B), how many bulkheaded freighters do you see ganked with nothing in the hold just for 'the tears'? And for that matter, how many do you see ganked at all versus -the number that are flying around-?

And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#563 - 2014-11-11 18:26:37 UTC
Thank you for the much needed update in base stats.

The one thing I would ask for is a slight bump in warp speed, to lets say 1.5AU/s the reason I say this is because the orca has a 2.0 warp speed and the rorqual has a 1.5 au warp speed. Considering this ship is about half of the mass of a rorqual and still less than that of a freighter so I would only assume should have a base warp speed on par with the other ships in comparison.

Comparison
Ship WarpSpeed Mass

  • Bowhead 1.37 640,000,000.00
  • Orca 2.00 250,000,000.00
  • Rorqual 1.50 1,180,000,000.00
  • Charon 1.37 960,000,000.00
  • Rhea 1.50 960,000,000.00



Not saying the two stats have to be directly related, but perhaps we could get a bit of love in this regard.
Valterra Craven
#564 - 2014-11-11 18:26:56 UTC
Warr Akini wrote:


And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.


In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow.
Warr Akini
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#565 - 2014-11-11 18:29:04 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:


And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.


In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow.


I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise.
Valterra Craven
#566 - 2014-11-11 18:30:18 UTC
Warr Akini wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:


And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.


In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow.


I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise.


You are not permanently vulnerable in the same way that blinky is.
Warr Akini
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#567 - 2014-11-11 18:35:22 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:


And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.


In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow.


I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise.


You are not permanently vulnerable in the same way that blinky is.


Takes three clicks, hardly a difference.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#568 - 2014-11-11 18:38:56 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset.


I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with.

And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe.

That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career.

the instant EVE physics stop treating spaceships like submarines you can start talking about what "reality" says about what should happen
Terraniel Aurelius
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2014-11-11 18:40:15 UTC
I just wanted to point out that you had said in previous discussions that you would like to revisit the idea of letting capitals into high sec. Ostensibly the Bowhead is a replacement for moving fitted ships around that were previously moved by carrier. What would be the benefit to using this instead of a carrier or supercarrier should capitals be allowed in high sec? A super can hold almost 1 million m3 more than this bowhead, with considerably higher defensive capabilities. A carrier also has massively higher defensive capabilities, while being able to carry at least 5/8ths of what the Bowhead can manage. What would be the actual advantages of this ship? Will it be like the primae and be a niche ship that won't see widespread use when there are better options available?

Second - and this is more to do with current mechanics - it's fantastic that this ship can carry fitted ships, but an obelisk can carry 22 unfitted battleships, plus associated fittings. With much better ehp, it should be noted. In view of this, I would suggest an increase in the maintenance bay to accommodate a greater number of ships to increase the risk/reward ratio that this ship carries. I think with the current ehp, an increase to 2million base maintenance bay would be reasonable, allowing for 2.5million with maximum skills. That would allow for 5 fitted battleships maximum. At the very least, this would make using the ship somewhat more attractive. In it's current state I know I would rather move the battleships individually than put them on this death barge.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#570 - 2014-11-11 18:40:28 UTC
in my spaceship game where planets are stationary, gravity doesn't exist, spaceships have a maximum velocity that is nowhere near the speed of light, there is sound in space, and faster than light travel exists, what really gets my goat is how unrealistic the space politics of crime are
Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
#571 - 2014-11-11 18:47:34 UTC
Alt forum activated....

Ganking level is way over the top (for whatever reasons).

It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally).

Go play other game you say... ok... thats the shortsighted view.

I would very much prefer that those play Eve (spending money in Eve) than go play other games...

At this rate Eve dies not because of poor CCP decisons in design/gameplay but because they allow this to happen.


On topic... if this ship is fairly easy gankable no one is going to use it specially for its supposed task.
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#572 - 2014-11-11 18:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sullen Decimus
Warr Akini wrote:


Thanks for making your argument horribly flawed by adding the ad hominem attack at the end. Looks great, I tell you.

As for B), how many bulkheaded freighters do you see ganked with nothing in the hold just for 'the tears'? And for that matter, how many do you see ganked at all versus -the number that are flying around-?

And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.


If you can tie in something that would make the number of freighters flying around vs the number getting ganked relevant please bring it to the table. Honestly i don't know what your argument there is.

Valterra's comment has to do with the fact currently a ganker can sit in highsec kill ships/ pods, and all they have to do is turn in some damn tokens they either collected with an alt or bought with an alt and traded to the gank toon. If EVE only allowed one client to run at a time (which for the record i am not promoting!!) things would be different. But given that eve encourages having alts and hs gankers are completely supported by alts in other parts of space the entire criminal system is broken.

Finally, i hope other people can see the irony in a person complaining that there isn't enough "risk vs reward" when 60 gank fit catalyst cost a whopping 390mil total are capable of taking out a ship that the hull alone willl cost over a bill. BEFORE even including what's inside. Don't have the manpower? Use a bigger ship.... You might have to....... (gasp) RISK ships to kill the thing.... o my.....

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#573 - 2014-11-11 18:50:49 UTC
I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#574 - 2014-11-11 18:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Master Apollyon wrote:
Alt forum activated....

Ganking level is way over the top (for whatever reasons).
It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally).
No, and no, in that order.

Ganking levels are pathetically low since ganking has recevied nohting but nerf after nerf after nerf. It could stand to see a significant increase so it became possible to do without the silly amounts of organisation and effort that the two ganking groups operating in the game put into it.

New players are not affected in any way by ganking, other than if they believe the ignorant claims of those who scare them away. No new player flies the ships that are being targeted by ganks, nor do they have anything worth stealing.

Quote:
On topic... if this ship is fairly easy gankable no one is going to use it specially for its supposed task.
It is, by far, the least gankable ship in its class and among the most difficult to gank in all of highsec. So that is one hell of a silly claim to make. In fact, if these new calculations are correct, the Bowhead now needs a significant HP nerf to become reasonable again.

Sullen Decimus wrote:
I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait

You understand that the mechanisms behind the result you're asking for is the exact opposite to what you want them to be, right?
You have trouble finding expensive gank losses exactly because the risks have been ratcheted up to such unreasonable levels that no-one sane will ever attempt one without being almost assured that he'll end up in the black.
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#575 - 2014-11-11 18:52:47 UTC
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#576 - 2014-11-11 18:56:04 UTC
@Warr Akini

From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not.

Am I wrong?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#577 - 2014-11-11 18:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Marlona Sky wrote:
@Warr Akini

From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not.

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are effectively saying that just because you can mitigate a risk, it is zero. This is not the case. Everything put into the calculation is a risk. Just because you choose not to act on it does not mean the risk is removed — quite the opposite.
Lickem Lolly
ELUSH Rehab
#578 - 2014-11-11 19:02:33 UTC
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.
Sullen Decimus
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#579 - 2014-11-11 19:02:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Sullen Decimus wrote:
I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait

You understand that the mechanisms behind the result you're asking for is the exact opposite to what you want them to be, right?
You have trouble finding expensive gank losses exactly because the risks have been ratcheted up to such unreasonable levels that no-one sane will ever attempt one without being almost assured that he'll end up in the black.


Or the fact that risking anything for a gank is completely unnecessary so why bother in anything than a destroyer that outputs more dps than most cruisers?

CSM XI Member

Twitter: Sullen_Decimus

Tweetfleet: @sullen_decimus
Warr Akini
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#580 - 2014-11-11 19:04:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Warr Akini
Tippia wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
@Warr Akini

From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not.

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are effectively saying that just because you can mitigate a risk, it is zero. This is not the case. Everything put into the calculation is a risk. Just because you choose not to act on it does not mean the risk is removed — quite the opposite.


That's about right. And CCP has repeatedly increased the risk of failure/loss:


  • Kill rights accessible to all (risk to gankers of dying en route)
  • Looting a can you don't own makes you suspect (major risk to looters and therefore any profitability)
  • Security status tick nerf (increased time it takes to get back, and no one I know pays for tags - I sure as hell don't)
  • Movement of HP in freighters to armor/shield, making logistics more effective vs. us
  • Low slots (see: 690k EHP Anshars)
  • And more, naturally...


Please also note that these arguments apply to ganking for profit. We do also gank for strategic purposes. "Value" is not always what's in your hold.