Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Cloak + mwd only fails because of the brick tank preventing you from aligning quickly.

If you don't get that, you've not used the maneuver when it actually matters enough to generate real experience with it.

It actually never fails if you do it right. Anyway, a mach. even with some plates, is still gonna align much faster than a clunky hauler. Which also doesn't matter, because 99% of the gankers can't get enough dps to punch through a 300k+ tank in 20 seconds...and you can't trap a mach through bumping. Result - no ganking.

Now please explain why a bowhead should expose incursion runners to more than the 0% risk they face now????

Incursion runners do not fit ships like this, I'm starting to think you don't do incursions at all. At the very least I know you don't fit your ships yourself and most likely use battleclinic because that fit is just horrid.

That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk.

But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata.

Well just today I did a minor deployment to be there for a little action, so moved some ships for this, having one of these with my logistics toon and my self in a webbing ships would be the approach. There was 1 BS and multiple fitted cruisers, of course people outside Incursion runners will run them.

But here is the issue, 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS, we are talking about 205 to 270m ISK say per BS, but lets step back and add some cruisers, a Loki with factin webs, 750m , or a Vagabond, 190m, and of course we can get a lot more in and their hull costs are similar to a T1 BS, yet you can fit in a lot more of them.

If CCP is using a benchmark of 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS then they are under-estimating the required tank, simple as.

---

Baltec and others have said that ganking has gone down, and in truth they are technically right because they compare to the massive campaigns of ganking that went on in the past, but the real comparison is ISK value and with the ganking of freighters rather than paper thin mining ships the actual cost is way up even if the actual number of ganks is down. Of course I cannot prove what I said as I am not CCP and neither is Baltec, however it does not take that many full freighters or JF's does it to beat ISK values of Hulks....

The principle still applies — your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great — that doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others.

I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed.

The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking.

Hell, we can measure it right now — I, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward.

Actually we made more with the mining interdictions because the hulks were not where the profit was being made.

It isn't CCP's job to enforce player fits. If players want to increase their risk by fitting modules that reduce their tank to increase their efficacy at another role, that's fine, but you make a conscious decision when doing so to increase your exposure to a suicide gank event.

So, the gankers don't have enough hulls and pilots to gank a battleship with less EHP, but they do with bowheads?

I'm confused.

Im still trying to get my head around how he can manage to fail in every goal he had with this ship.