These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#581 - 2014-11-11 19:06:06 UTC
Lickem Lolly wrote:


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.



You've accepted the risk of pvp by undocking in any security status. You're in the wrong thread if you think otherwise... wrong game in fact.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
#582 - 2014-11-11 19:06:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.


Dont put words in my text. I never wrote that it was happening. I wrote that "It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally)". You shouldnt be so fast criticizing others opinion. Ill make it a bit more clear to you... They knowing that this is possible is enough to think twice about playing Eve... and thats a fact.

I dont care what level of organization is needed (not much judging by some killmails where its easy to see ISboxer at work).

About my comment to the Bowhead again youre too fast criticizing my phrase. I was just pointing the obvious... for those who think its EHP is too much.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#583 - 2014-11-11 19:06:15 UTC
Lickem Lolly wrote:
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.
How is it in any way killing EVE?

Quote:
Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP.
This is 100% incorrect. Highsec, like all space (and, indeed, a lot of in-station activities as well), is entirely designed for non-consensual PvP.

Quote:
CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players.
You don't attract new players by offering them a watered down version of what they've read about that only feebly replicates an experience they can have in a bajillion other games.

Sullen Decimus wrote:
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?
Neither of these assertions have any connection to reality.
Jesterspet
Creative Research and Production Services
#584 - 2014-11-11 19:06:18 UTC
FINALLY! Something I have been asking for for a decade now!
Luigi Thirty
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#585 - 2014-11-11 19:07:54 UTC
I think CCP should add a PvP flag. A literal flag on your ship. Think of it, we can all have little flags stuck to our ships at all times and CCP can sell like $100 monocle flags. The bonus is it would be a big flag so it would make your ship easier to see against the blackness of space. This might be a nerf to recon ships (how are you going to cloak a flag???) but I don't really care because who is suicide ganking with a recon ship anyway?
Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
#586 - 2014-11-11 19:08:45 UTC
Lickem Lolly wrote:

CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players.


So much this! No doubt about that.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#587 - 2014-11-11 19:10:16 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, added quite a bit of base hp (mostly in shield, some in structure) and changed the max velocity bonus to agility. OP is updated with new numbers.


Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me.


1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for?



You expecting these ships to be "stoned" TO DEATH?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#588 - 2014-11-11 19:10:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Master Apollyon wrote:
Dont put words in my text.
Good thing that I didn't then.

Quote:
I never wrote that it was happening. I wrote that "It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally)".
So is it happening or isn't it?

Quote:
They knowing that this is possible is enough to think twice about playing Eve... and thats a fact.
They only “know“ this because people who should know better keep perpetuating this very nonsensical myth, rather than teach them the hilariously and trivially easy methods that can be employed by anyone to make themselves 100% safe from ganks.

Quote:
About my comment to the Bowhead again youre too fast criticizing my phrase. I was just pointing the obvious.
No, you made up a completely nonsensical claim that goes directly against the facts and history of the game, not to mention the explicit mention of those who are already planning to use it.
Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
#589 - 2014-11-11 19:12:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players.
You don't attract new players by offering them a watered down version of what they've read about that only feebly replicates an experience they can have in a bajillion other games.



You obviously dont know/play other MMO´s
Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
#590 - 2014-11-11 19:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Master Apollyon
Tippia wrote:
Stuff


Ahahahah. Right... wahtever makes you happy.

What you like more... trolling or ganking?
Master Apollyon
BLACK REGIMENT
#591 - 2014-11-11 19:19:27 UTC
Dont feed the troll Valterra
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#592 - 2014-11-11 19:22:08 UTC
I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell — I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Valterra Craven
#593 - 2014-11-11 19:24:44 UTC
Querns wrote:
I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell — I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited.



Well to be fair, it depends on how far you want to take the argument high sec is a requirement. Its not like you start the game in null sec with all the tutorials there...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#594 - 2014-11-11 19:28:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Master Apollyon wrote:
You obviously dont know/play other MMO´s

You mean those other games that consistently fail almost instantly because they offer nothing new and only ape whatever is already on the market? No, I don't play those and neither do most new players for the very reason I listed. Trying to join that crowd is not a particularly intelligent way to go…

EVE did the impossible and survived for a over a decade by deliberately and specifically not doing that. There is absolutely no reason why it should start now, especially given the ample evidence that it will kill the game in a heartbeat.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Your flare for exaggeration aside, what is your supporting evidence/argument to make that work? I'm pretty sure that if you compared the destruction amounts from hi sec ganking to low sec and null sec destruction that the numbers would be laughably far apart. If you are going to make that claim then by all means prove it.
It has nothing to do with what is destroyed where (and incidentally, highsec systems sit at the top of the list of destroyed capital, see the FF2012 economy presentation) — it has to do with how you cannot allow one part of the game that level of safety without breaking the industrial-economical balance or the core design principle of letting players dictate how they play and where.

We have only very recently made strides towards letting players actually make that choice, free of moronic and damaging restrictions that have long proven to suffocate the game. What you are suggesting is that they not only return, but are made worse than ever.

Quote:
Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way?
No. Answer his question: why?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#595 - 2014-11-11 19:37:04 UTC
CCP could give the damn thing the same tank as the veldnought and they would still bleat that its not enough.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#596 - 2014-11-11 19:38:29 UTC
When first hearing about this thing i was hoping for something a bit bigger / better. It appears this is being balanced towards high sec, is there any chance of another of this class that is bigger better and oriented more towards null?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#597 - 2014-11-11 19:41:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
CCP could give the damn thing the same tank as the veldnought and they would still bleat that its not enough.


The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.

And the only way to give it a good chance to not end up like the blown up freighters is

1) a brink tank

AND

2) the ability to withstand being pinned down by bumping.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#598 - 2014-11-11 19:41:41 UTC
GeeBee wrote:
When first hearing about this thing i was hoping for something a bit bigger / better. It appears this is being balanced towards high sec, is there any chance of another of this class that is bigger better and oriented more towards null?


Cant let one ship literally transport entire fitted fleets around null. This is as big as it is going to get.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#599 - 2014-11-11 19:43:22 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
CCP could give the damn thing the same tank as the veldnought and they would still bleat that its not enough.


The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.

And the only way to give it a good chance to not end up like the blown up freighters is

1) a brink tank

AND

2) the ability to withstand being pinned down by bumping.


And yet, a 450k ehp tank is not enough for some.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#600 - 2014-11-11 19:44:59 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.
The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account.