These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Valterra Craven
#981 - 2014-11-13 18:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Masao Kurata wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold.


It's not their use on freighters that concerns me, it's ships whose primary cargo hold is of little importance such as combat ships (affects how many cap charges you can carry, that's all), deep space transports (fleet bay is unaffected), orcas (fleet bay, smb, ore bay) and now the bowhead. There is no tradeoff there at all, it's just free tank.


Well really the only case people should realistically be using them is on freighters, and orcas. That being said, don't knock that cargo loss on the orca.

This is honestly a problem CCP created by pigeon holing these ships with such large amounts of hull rather than shield and armor and giving them slot layouts that are most conducive to haul tanking.

You don't hull tank combat ships for a reason, getting resist on hull without a suitcase is none existent. Same goes for deep space transports, that whole class has proper slots and proper HP in their respective niches. So while you can hull tank both its completely inefficient way to get your HP up.

Given prior convention of ORE ships I honestly believe that the HP and the slot layout on the bowhead needs to be adjusted to make it a shield tanking ship (much like a roq).
Valterra Craven
#982 - 2014-11-13 18:41:27 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this...

CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from.


Given the nature of the beast I'm not sure that you can factually make this claim. I'm not per se saying you are wrong, just that I don't believe their is enough evidence to make that claim. I see plenty of bait blinky yellows around minnie systems that have lots of traffic in it. All crimewatch has done is condition people not to be stupid enough to shoot those blinky players given the way the mechanics of assistance are so foolishly laid out.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#983 - 2014-11-13 18:47:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
Valterra Craven wrote:
Masao Kurata wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold.


It's not their use on freighters that concerns me, it's ships whose primary cargo hold is of little importance such as combat ships (affects how many cap charges you can carry, that's all), deep space transports (fleet bay is unaffected), orcas (fleet bay, smb, ore bay) and now the bowhead. There is no tradeoff there at all, it's just free tank.


Well really the only case people should realistically be using them is on freighters, and orcas. That being said, don't knock that cargo loss on the orca.


I'll knock it all I like, all your special bays including the general purpose fleet bay are entirely unaffected and the main cargo bay is irrelevant to many uses for the orca.

Quote:
You don't hull tank combat ships for a reason, getting resist on hull without a suitcase is none existent.


Um, obviously you fit a damage control. Everyone does that anyway, it's just that good. As for nobody hull tanking combat ships, haven't you seen any solo brutix fits lately? I just looked up navy brutix losses on zkill and the most recent two were both hull tanked.
Valterra Craven
#984 - 2014-11-13 18:56:01 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:

As for nobody hull tanking combat ships, haven't you seen any solo brutix fits lately? I just looked up navy brutix losses on zkill and the most recent two were both hull tanked.


K, now go look up all the combat ship kills and compare those to the amount of kills that were hull tanked. They probably died for a reason.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#985 - 2014-11-13 18:58:27 UTC
Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP

shield/armor/hull

10750/6900/46000 orca

21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead

90000/30000/250000 rorqual

14000/40000/110000 obelisk

It depends on how you look at it and where you think it fits in the spectrum of ships, I suppose. If it fits capital rigs then I would assume that it will have the structure to hold them and then the hull needs some thickening. If it is a distant cousin of the Orca then I would say the cap rigs are inappropriate.

Some of you have compared it to the Rorqual (poor things really need to be looked to) but it is no where near it in tank.

So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#986 - 2014-11-13 19:02:12 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this...

CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from.


Given the nature of the beast I'm not sure that you can factually make this claim. I'm not per se saying you are wrong, just that I don't believe their is enough evidence to make that claim. I see plenty of bait blinky yellows around minnie systems that have lots of traffic in it. All crimewatch has done is condition people not to be stupid enough to shoot those blinky players given the way the mechanics of assistance are so foolishly laid out.


The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse.

If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now.

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.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#987 - 2014-11-13 19:03:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
Mike Azariah wrote:
Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP


And as far as I can tell you didn't answer. Base HP is irrelevant, what you get when it's fitted matters. If Rorquals were allowed into highsec, none would ever die except to amazing stupidity, and I don't mean bad fits. All the highsec restricted ships are completely imbalanced for highsec rules of engagement and have nothing to do with discussion of the bowhead.

EDIT: Was your "answer" meant to be a lore answer? Lore can be made up to suit anything.
Rodric O'Connor
Dark Evolved Industries
Dark Taboo
#988 - 2014-11-13 19:12:07 UTC
1. i think it needs to look like a flying dry dock
2. whats the skills to build the ship and what the cost of the BPO and what dose it need to build it
3. will you seed it for the first week or so
4. how many will be going pop in the first 10 minuets of the ship going on the jita market lol

Jean-Paul Sartre once said “People are like dice. We throw ourselves in the direction of our own choosing.” these words are so true in eve
Cyndrogen
The Greatest Corp in the Universe
#989 - 2014-11-13 19:17:36 UTC
Freighter?

BLEH! Not interested AT ALL in this big lug...

Give us T3 modular battleships to deal with incursions. I don't want to carry ships in a ship, just subsystems.

Vindi / Basi T3 equivalent, then I might be interested.

Waste to see this being developed.

Every day in every way I improve my skills and get better.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#990 - 2014-11-13 19:20:56 UTC
Cyndrogen wrote:
Freighter?

BLEH! Not interested AT ALL in this big lug...

Give us T3 modular battleships to deal with incursions. I don't want to carry ships in a ship, just subsystems.

Vindi / Basi T3 equivalent, then I might be interested.

Waste to see this being developed.


TIL ("Today I Learned"): If it doesn't fit Cyndrogen's exact specifications it's a waste of time.


Quick CCP, HIre this man before someone else does! What's that? You're not interested CCP? Oh, I understand.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#991 - 2014-11-13 19:24:39 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP

shield/armor/hull

10750/6900/46000 orca

21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead

90000/30000/250000 rorqual

14000/40000/110000 obelisk


Not really useful without considering low + mid slots, fitting room, and rigs, not to mention baseline cost. The fact that 1/2 to 2/3 of an Orca's tank is a Damage Control II matters given its pitiful slot allotment. The fact that a freighter can't even fit a Damage Control I significantly reduces the potential tank it gets from all that hull.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Valterra Craven
#992 - 2014-11-13 19:36:01 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:


So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca

m


I think this is a poor line of thought. Freighters as a whole need to be re-thought and redone to be more like haulers. Aka they should have their own niche tanks (shield or armor) and not hull. I don't think CCP really did a good job with the stats of them when they were redone with slots and a more holistic approach needs to be taken to the class. Keep in mind that if they were redone it would be possible to tank them via shield or armor if you only give it enough fitting for resits mods etc and not cap size repair mods. That should keep them in balance.

That being said, Both the orca and roq do need a lot of looking at. But given that I think the orca is the closest cousin to the bowhead and the orca is wrongly setup as a hull tanked ship as well, things start to get complicated. So I guess my point is A. why try to compare this ship to other known broken ships and B. why not just try to do it right the first time?

I still think that the bowhead should be re-balanced to have a shield tank with an appropriate slot layout.
Valterra Craven
#993 - 2014-11-13 19:39:20 UTC
War Kitten wrote:


The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse.

If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now.


Frankly I think it seems more central to your argument than you are making it out to be. But other than that and "kill rights", I still don't think you have any real data to back up your point. I've seen no decrease in hi sec ganking/high sec griefing activity despite all the changes over the past year or two.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#994 - 2014-11-13 20:02:21 UTC
Orchid Fury wrote:

you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank.


This is so misguided a statement that it's not even wrong. You can absolutely take precautions against a gank. Red Frog has a whole portion of their website devoted to them. These precautions may, however, require you to change the way you fit and fly your ships, or involve effort on your part to get friends to assist you.

It's like getting away from a marauding bear.
You don't have to outrun the bear - you just have to outrun the guy next to you.

Ganking is much the same. You don't have to be ungankable - you just need to be a less attractive target than the other bazillion freighters moving around. It's not exactly hard.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#995 - 2014-11-13 20:04:58 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP

shield/armor/hull

10750/6900/46000 orca

21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead

90000/30000/250000 rorqual

14000/40000/110000 obelisk

It depends on how you look at it and where you think it fits in the spectrum of ships, I suppose. If it fits capital rigs then I would assume that it will have the structure to hold them and then the hull needs some thickening. If it is a distant cousin of the Orca then I would say the cap rigs are inappropriate.

Some of you have compared it to the Rorqual (poor things really need to be looked to) but it is no where near it in tank.

So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca

m


I think due to mass and sheer volume of ships it is designed to cary over orca it should have better structural integrity.

How much cant guess pure capital no it doesnt cary that much.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#996 - 2014-11-13 20:09:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
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.


if they made it a 3 strikes and your sec is unfixable per account .. then that would work as a deterrant i would think... and any further accounts using the same computer should be affeted the same.. too stop trial accounts/secound accounts expoting the rule.


You just killed eve for families/students ect who share a computer and anyone who pvps in low sec plus anyone who accidentaly shoots things in high sec thinking its low sec and people who wish to give up their life of crime. Meanwhile the people who are neg ten all the time anyway are not impacted.

Please take these terrible ideas to another threadout back and shoot them.


FYP Baltec. Hope you don't mind.

DON'T GANK ME BRO!

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#997 - 2014-11-13 20:16:05 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
War Kitten wrote:


The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse.

If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now.


Frankly I think it seems more central to your argument than you are making it out to be. But other than that and "kill rights", I still don't think you have any real data to back up your point. I've seen no decrease in hi sec ganking/high sec griefing activity despite all the changes over the past year or two.


You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time....

CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd** it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it.


** - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again.



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.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#998 - 2014-11-13 20:18:58 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
Orchid Fury wrote:

you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank.


This is so misguided a statement that it's not even wrong. You can absolutely take precautions against a gank. Red Frog has a whole portion of their website devoted to them. These precautions may, however, require you to change the way you fit and fly your ships, or involve effort on your part to get friends to assist you.


You said the E word. People don't like the E word.

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.
Valterra Craven
#999 - 2014-11-13 20:23:10 UTC
War Kitten wrote:


You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time....

CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd** it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it.


** - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again.



*Sigh* Why is it so hard to be civil to others when trying to make a point?

As to your point, I've already stated numerous times that I don't believe high sec should be completely safe and I don't think criminality should be completely removed from the game. What I have said is that the balance for this activity is STILL not there and in my opinion needs work. So considering that I already agreed with the point you're trying to make and that I made it long before you even posted this response, it appears that you are the one that is arguing for the sake of it.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#1000 - 2014-11-13 20:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertucio
War Kitten wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
War Kitten wrote:


The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse.

If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now.


Frankly I think it seems more central to your argument than you are making it out to be. But other than that and "kill rights", I still don't think you have any real data to back up your point. I've seen no decrease in hi sec ganking/high sec griefing activity despite all the changes over the past year or two.


You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time....

CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd** it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it.


** - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again.






This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec.