These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1141 - 2014-11-14 18:48:28 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Incursion ships die too. Freighters die. Sure titans die - but extremely rarely, and almost always due to gross stupidity. With triage carrier support, they virtually NEVER die. And that's fine. The game doesn't require every ship to be at significant risk of dying whenever it flies. So if Goonswarm titans can mosey around Deklein and NEVER die...that's fine for the game. Same thing if Bowheads would be able to mosey around highsec and NEVER die, the game would be perfectly fine. In no way does Eve require ships to constantly be at risk.


We lost one in Dek the other week.


Compared with how many freighters you killed in HS?


If freighters had the same security as our titans you would see the numbers ganked drop to near killed titan levels.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1142 - 2014-11-14 18:48:40 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You could tank concord back then.


And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way.

Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.

Please stop.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1143 - 2014-11-14 18:50:32 UTC
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You could tank concord back then.


And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way.

Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.

Please stop.



Funny how these people never back themselves up with any evidence yet demand the world from us.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1144 - 2014-11-14 18:51:53 UTC
Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1145 - 2014-11-14 18:53:33 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You could tank concord back then.


And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way.


You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?

Here's a challenge for you. Go find anyone that regularly ganks using battleships.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1146 - 2014-11-14 18:54:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Because its a freighter without a cloak + mwd...and it's slow enough to be trapped by bumping. That makes it vastly easier to gank than a mach.


Mach can be alpha'ed rather easily. The same cannot be said for a well tanked bowhead.


You are never locking it up because of cloak + mwd...not to mention that travel fit is close to 300k ehp and basically never gets suicide ganked.


Feel free to post this fit.


cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp
Valterra Craven
#1147 - 2014-11-14 18:57:03 UTC
Querns wrote:


Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.

Please stop.


No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves..
Valterra Craven
#1148 - 2014-11-14 18:58:06 UTC
Querns wrote:
Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement.


Oh, you mean just like I did with baltec's false statements about mOo. I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1149 - 2014-11-14 18:58:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


This happened before much of what we have now. No KMs, few external sites and a smattering of info on the eve wiki.



So what you are saying is that you are too lazy to validate the claims you make? I only had vague inklings of memories of mOo, but I still managed to find some information on them instead of waving my hand and saying it couldn't be done.


M0o is the single most influential corp to have ever existed in EVE. I shouldn't have to go hunting around for you.


Oh I'm not saying that you should. I'm just saying I didn't try to pass it off as an impossible task to someone else, nor did I try to make claims that I hadn't looked into myself. I merely validated your claims as false for myself. Though I'm not sure I'd agree that they are the single most influential corp, given the likes of your alliance and founding. I'd easily put money down on goonswarm as being the most influential and I'm saying that as a former BoB member! Whether or not that thats a good thing, *shrug* don't really care either way.


We didn't change the way concord works.


You did ruin the sov holding part of null on a fundamental level in incremantal steps... making it basically unplayable.... causeing most players to play afk by ping or lose interest all together and leave for mech warrior. Don't be bashful. You earned it. Step up and tak a bow.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1150 - 2014-11-14 18:59:01 UTC  |  Edited by: S'No Flake
baltec1 wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:
Querns wrote:
The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game.


With this ship, you can't evade anything.

While you can do that with an orca by using mwd+cloak or, drop some ecm drones and get a lucky break and warp away from the tackler (if they have one only) with bowhead you can't do anything at all. Just hope and prey they do a mistake and concord arrives while you are still alive.


No ship can evade everything. The cloak mwd trick doesn't work on an orca vs anyone competent and ECM drones also wont work with the tactics used in high sec gate camps.


Mwd + cloak does wonders.
Yes it can fail, you can be uncloaked and pointed but, it's still is something you can do.

ECM might get the first tackle or, you can land an ecm jam and get some (little) dps off field.
It's not much but, it is something.

Bowhead can't do anything at all.
There is basically nothing you can do... Just jump in and hope that in those 10 seconds your mwd is cycling nothing will point you.
Valterra Craven
#1151 - 2014-11-14 18:59:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?


You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1152 - 2014-11-14 19:03:06 UTC
If there was one of these worth ganking with escorts the escorts would be alphad and the ship bumped.

Of course anyone dumb enough to load that much into it.....


That said, I'll almost certainly never use it.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1153 - 2014-11-14 19:03:14 UTC
Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity).
xKOMODOx
#1154 - 2014-11-14 19:03:24 UTC
Confirmed by CCP Seagull

"If a Bowhead is destroyed, there is a chance that assembled ships can be found amongst the wreckage."

read more at Rhea
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1155 - 2014-11-14 19:03:33 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:


Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.

Please stop.


No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves..

Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful — you're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions.

I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework.

Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1156 - 2014-11-14 19:05:12 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:
Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement.


Oh, you mean just like I did with baltec's false statements about mOo. I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on.

No, not really. You just did the same thing you always did — declare yourself the winner because a niggling portion of what you talk about did not have its requisite reams of paperwork. Please, just stop.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1157 - 2014-11-14 19:06:07 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp


1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1158 - 2014-11-14 19:06:32 UTC
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:


Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.

Please stop.


No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves..

Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful — you're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions.

I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework.

Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence.


I just tell the guy he's stoopit in a sideways manner he won't understand and move on. Remember, it takes 2 (or 3 in this case) to tango.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1159 - 2014-11-14 19:06:35 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity).

As long as interceptors shed their warp bubble immunity and jump freighters are nerfed, I concur. Trying to nerf one form of power projection while leaving a vastly superior one in place is hypocrisy.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1160 - 2014-11-14 19:07:42 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?


You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it.


So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history?