These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1161 - 2014-11-14 19:08:42 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.


agreed
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1162 - 2014-11-14 19:11:00 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Serendipity Lost wrote:


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.


Null was broken long before goons were a thing. We have managed to get a few things changes, such as tracking titans and tech moons but M0o impacted some very core aspects of the game such as untankable concord, getting tracking introduced on turrets, stacking penalties on weapons and hardeners, gate guns, NPC navies on gates.
Valterra Craven
#1163 - 2014-11-14 19:12:57 UTC
Querns wrote:

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.


Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed.

And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#1164 - 2014-11-14 19:14:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


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.


Null was broken long before goons were a thing.


You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff.
Valterra Craven
#1165 - 2014-11-14 19:15:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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?


Does barge ganking encompass all ganking? Did crimewatch have anything to do with it? Did other changes in the game BESIDES given those ships better tank contribute to that? Or are you saying that giving barges more tank was the right way for CCP to handle the situation of barge ganking? And if so would that not also apply to other ships?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1166 - 2014-11-14 19:15:47 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:


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.


Null was broken long before goons were a thing.


You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff.


Added more.

We did some good things but nothing like M0o managed.
Pippan
MongStars
#1167 - 2014-11-14 19:16:17 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters.

It will use capital rigs.

I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not.

I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you.



I do not understand why this would be an SOE ship instead of an Interbus ship. Seems the obviouss choice to me..Big smile
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1168 - 2014-11-14 19:17:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
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.


6??????

Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1169 - 2014-11-14 19:21:44 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:

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.


Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed.

And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven?

Obviously I can't — no one compiles information like that. That is why your tactics are so disingenuous — you set up complicated scaffoldings that imply that the points require an impossible level or quality of evidence, then go on about how without this evidence, the whole thing falls down. There's more nuance to conversations than this, and you can't just demand evidence about barely related things all the time and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Like, I have no idea why you even WANT that information! I have no idea why it even remotely relates to the discussion of Bowhead EHP. Can you even backtrack this conversation to re-assert your initial point?

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
#1170 - 2014-11-14 19:21:52 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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?


Does barge ganking encompass all ganking? Did crimewatch have anything to do with it? Did other changes in the game BESIDES given those ships better tank contribute to that? Or are you saying that giving barges more tank was the right way for CCP to handle the situation of barge ganking? And if so would that not also apply to other ships?


Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box.

Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer.

Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1171 - 2014-11-14 19:24:32 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


6??????

Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.


Nope, 6.

I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1172 - 2014-11-14 19:29:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box.

Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer.

Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago.

FYI, this is what we in the posting biz refer to as "evidence." This stuff comes right out of patch notes.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1173 - 2014-11-14 19:30:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


6??????

Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.


Nope, 6.

I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help.


Your numbers are WAAAAAAAAAAAY off....your nado is maxing out at about 12k a volley (unless you start using real expensive implants, but that is a huge risk that gankers don't take). So 6 is giving you 72k volley (assuming 100% damage which ain't happening against decent transversal), or 144k total damage (only getting 2 volleys in a 0.5) versus a 300k+ ehp tank (and it cant go a lot higher if you get best armor rigs). Not to mention gate guns, facpo, the mach shooting back, etc.....

Try again. And anyway you are never locking to begin with because of cloak + mwd trick. Don't believe me? Go look through zkill to see how many travel machs suicide ganked - and then compare to freighters. Even with the buffed ehp, Bowhead is still going to be a vastly higher risk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1174 - 2014-11-14 19:33:03 UTC
If we want some more numbers on ganking then we can look at the number of freighters getting killed. On average this year more freighters were killed via war decs than were ganked. So, there are literally more dumb people undocking their freighters into a war than are getting killed out of the blue by a gank.

Going back to last year so far shows the same result.
Valterra Craven
#1175 - 2014-11-14 19:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Querns wrote:

Obviously I can't — no one compiles information like that. That is why your tactics are so disingenuous — you set up complicated scaffoldings that imply that the points require an impossible level or quality of evidence, then go on about how without this evidence, the whole thing falls down. There's more nuance to conversations than this, and you can't just demand evidence about barely related things all the time and expect anyone to take you seriously.


So you are saying its disingenuous to make a disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on.

Querns wrote:

Like, I have no idea why you even WANT that information! I have no idea why it even remotely relates to the discussion of Bowhead EHP. Can you even backtrack this conversation to re-assert your initial point?


Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use?

Baltec did make a good point earlier about barge ganking going down. But the question is WHY did it go down? Was it because of all the other changes or was it because of adding HP to the ship and/or making it more tankable? In fact I'd like to take my data request even further, it would be nice to see all of this data aggregated out by ship just to see how much an effect the changes have had as a whole and in part since most of the other ships that have been changed haven't had substantial changes to their HP unlike barges. And this is where the bowhead comes in. If it can be shown that the ONLY deterrent to ganking is ship HP, then why is asking for more HP on the ship a bad argument? For the record, I don't think adding more HP is the right answer, I just think that CCP hasn't gone far enough to curb ganking yet.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1176 - 2014-11-14 19:42:16 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


6??????

Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.


Nope, 6.

I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help.


Your numbers are WAAAAAAAAAAAY off....your nado is maxing out at about 12k a volley (unless you start using real expensive implants, but that is a huge risk that gankers don't take). So 6 is giving you 72k volley (assuming 100% damage which ain't happening against decent transversal), or 144k total damage (only getting 2 volleys in a 0.5) versus a 300k+ ehp tank (and it cant go a lot higher if you get best armor rigs). Not to mention gate guns, facpo, the mach shooting back, etc.....

Try again. And anyway you are never locking to begin with because of cloak + mwd trick. Don't believe me? Go look through zkill to see how many travel machs suicide ganked - and then compare to freighters. Even with the buffed ehp, Bowhead is still going to be a vastly higher risk.


We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1177 - 2014-11-14 19:44:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


6??????

Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.


Nope, 6.

I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help.


Then just add 2 more nandos for the 120k difference in EHP
If 6 are enough for 300k then 9 should be enough for 420k

With hulls dropping from bowhead and a rigged, empty, pirate BS hull going for about 750mil (more for a vindi), if 2 hulls drop, ignoring mods and who knows what else is in there, you are isk positive :P
Heathkit
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1178 - 2014-11-14 19:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Heathkit
I think the real problem is ganking, as it currently is, is just bad gameplay. There needs to be some response to getting ganked other than "carry less stuff". Something more active and preferably combat oriented.

For example, if bumping near gates flagged you as a suspect, that would give the victim a chance to pull in a defense fleet and respond. Of course, I think that's actually a heavy handed solution and would have other bad consequences. But it would be nice if hi-sec ganking stayed about the way it is, but with crimewatch adjusted so victims get a chance to actively defend themselves.

Though, I suppose if you had friends willing to defend your freighter, they could gank the bumpers the way things are today, and I haven't heard of anyone doing that.

Or maybe something like a rig that blocks cargo scanners, but halves your EHP.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1179 - 2014-11-14 19:46:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention.


Roll

Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec....but freighters, haulers, JFs, even empty ones, do. Making a gankable Bowhead is exposing incursion runners to more risk, without much in the way of the real reward. I favor reducing that risk as much as possible to preserve the status quo ante. Obviously the Goons, CODE, gankers, etc... disagree. Thankfully CCP seems to have realized that a good tank for this kind of ship is a necessity, as the reasons for it's creation was to assist logistics in highsec, not create a shiny loot pinata.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1180 - 2014-11-14 19:46:31 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:

Then just add 2 more nandos for the 120k difference in EHP
If 6 are enough for 300k then 9 should be enough for 420k

With hulls dropping from bowhead and a rigged, empty, pirate BS hull going for about 750mil (more for a vindi), if 2 hulls drop, ignoring mods and who knows what else is in there, you are isk positive :P


If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible.