These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Invisusira
Escalated.
OnlyFleets.
#1221 - 2014-11-14 21:01:51 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard

good lord man, are you trying to paint a target on your face?

EVE Music
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1222 - 2014-11-14 21:04:05 UTC
Querns wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves.

So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard.

Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile?

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.


Stop playing dumb. What they do with freighters is bump them to prevent align to....then warp in the -10s and gank so they get the full 20 seconds. Then, if not dead...they keep bumping, and hit again 15 minutes later.

With a battleship, bumping doesn't work, so they need to point right away, drawing CONCORD...and by time gankers land and lock only 10 seconds left - almost impossible to pull off.

Hence the campaign against freighters...or against autopiloting battleships where scram not needed, and mods off too.

Check the killboards - freighters are dying - travel fit battleships are not.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1223 - 2014-11-14 21:04:11 UTC
Besides, Cloak + MWD trick is hardly perfect safety. I've successfully caught several covert nullified T3s in nullsec, which move faster and have half to a third of the align time that a Cloak + MWD trick BS has (minimum 10 seconds.)

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
#1224 - 2014-11-14 21:04:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


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.


You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2...

Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit.


Skills forced a very minor compromise....will be fixed soon.

Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves.

So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard.

Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile?


Speed is everything with the MWD trick. You want to get into warp faster not slower.

Also the tactics used on freighters are not the same as used on subcaps.


Please show me the battleships miniluv has been killing.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1225 - 2014-11-14 21:07:00 UTC
Invisusira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard

good lord man, are you trying to paint a target on your face?


Nah...the targets in highsec are people who use officer mods (I don't). For the effort to get 20 nados together with + security status (talk to PASTA) they are looking for 20 + bil in mods.

The rest of the gankers focus on easier targets - AFK miners, AFK haulers, etc.... Travel fit brick tanked battleships + cloak + mwd essentially never die.

The question remains though - why should the Bowhead create a loot pinata ship in highsec just to give more content to suicide gankers? Is that what Eve needs?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1226 - 2014-11-14 21:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Veers Belvar wrote:


Please show me the battleships miniluv has been killing.


Travel fit battleships do not fit 3 billion in mods. They arn't there because fits like yours dont exist.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1227 - 2014-11-14 21:08:35 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

With a battleship, bumping doesn't work, so they need to point right away, drawing CONCORD...and by time gankers land and lock only 10 seconds left - almost impossible to pull off.

Says you.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Check the killboards - freighters are dying - travel fit battleships are not.

Well obviously you're going to find more dead freighters than battleships — freighters are wildly more popular in highsec! They're also typically carrying a lot more loot than a battleship.

Freighters are also more likely to be autopiloting due to the mind-numbing drudgery that is flying one. Autopiloting makes the gankers' job a LOT easier.

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
#1228 - 2014-11-14 21:09:59 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

The question remains though - why should the Bowhead create a loot pinata ship in highsec just to give more content to suicide gankers? Is that what Eve needs?

Your implication is that creating a high-value target is the only thing the Bowhead can do. That's just silly.

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
#1229 - 2014-11-14 21:10:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:


Please show me the battleships miniluv has been killing.


Travel fit battleships do not fit 3 billion in mods.


They do when carrying incursion equipment.

But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.

If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.
Valterra Craven
#1230 - 2014-11-14 21:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Querns wrote:

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.


But did they? My response to you was not colored by your affiliations, therefore I must be capable of seeing past them. To be frank I watch what people say and make judgement based on that. I measure people by their postings and then if they act like a majority of their friends, put them under that banner. If I didn't do that I wouldn't be able to see exceptions like you or myrra (I really need to figure out how to spell his name)

Querns wrote:

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.


*Shrug* You are a better person and a more effective debater. I have no qualms admitting that. I don't have the skills that you do, therefore asking people to back up their arguments is not inherently a bad strategy.

Valterra Craven wrote:

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.


Ok, I can easily agree that adding EHP to a ship has a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. I think that is almost universally agreed upon, otherwise people wouldn't be asking for the bowhead to have more HP.

What I fail to see is how that is related to things like crime watch and kill rights changes etc.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1231 - 2014-11-14 21:14:15 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.

If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.

Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/

Also, your implication is facile.

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
#1232 - 2014-11-14 21:15:20 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.


So explain to us how a ship with 450-700k ehp with 1.8 bil in scannable pirate battleships in the hold is at more risk than you in your "300k ehp" mach with over 3 bil in mods not including the other fittings in your hold?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1233 - 2014-11-14 21:16:52 UTC
Querns wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.

If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.

Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/

Also, your implication is facile.


Oh well done, its even travel fitted.
Valterra Craven
#1234 - 2014-11-14 21:17:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

That ganking is unchanged over the years.


I never said that ganking has gone unchanged over the years. What I did say is that I believed that changes to crime watch and kill rights havent had a meaningful impact in the incidence rate of ganking.

baltec1 wrote:

Compared to a good fit.


Well would you care to show me what you would call a good fit since I took the time and effort to look up my loss mail?


baltec1 wrote:

He isnt wrong, you can get more tank. I am also not wrong, you can reduce the tank to well below what they used to have.


I was just pointing out that you one of you said the changes were a nerf and of you said they were buff.

I was part of that discussion too sadly. But I don't remember the numbers being as lopsided as an 175% improvement.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1235 - 2014-11-14 21:17:50 UTC
Querns wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.

If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.

Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/

Also, your implication is facile.


Not a travel fit....proving my point for me.....with full tank mods those 26 ships would have been nowhere near enough dps.

While travelling a brick tanked cloak + mwd battleships has very near to a 0% chance of being ganked.

A bowhead, which can be trapped through bumping, has a much higher gank chance.

I mean, this is trivial stuff.....at some point you just need to admit that you are wrong.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1236 - 2014-11-14 21:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
baltec1 wrote:


So explain to us how a ship with 450-700k ehp with 1.8 bil in scannable pirate battleships in the hold is at more risk than you in your "300k ehp" mach with over 3 bil in mods not including the other fittings in your hold?


Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1237 - 2014-11-14 21:20:24 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Querns wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.

If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.

Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/

Also, your implication is facile.


Not a travel fit....proving my point for me.....with full tank mods those 26 ships would have been nowhere near enough dps.

While travelling a brick tanked cloak + mwd battleships has very near to a 0% chance of being ganked.

A bowhead, which can be trapped through bumping, has a much higher gank chance.

I mean, this is trivial stuff.....at some point you just need to admit that you are wrong.


It has three inertia stabs on it, thats to get it into warp faster. Thats what a travel fit requires. Brick tanking is not a travel fit, its brick tanking.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1238 - 2014-11-14 21:22:07 UTC
Also, how do the bumpers keep the ship locked down without giving the target a weapons timer, which attracts CONCORD (which, by your own admission, makes the gank significantly more difficult?) Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped?

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
#1239 - 2014-11-14 21:22:20 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:


Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius.


Your battleship has a huge sig radius thanks to your fit, a dreadnought wouldn't have issues hitting you. Your battleship is easier to kill and will provide a provit. The bowhead is harder to kill and provides a loss to the ganker.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1240 - 2014-11-14 21:23:17 UTC
Querns wrote:
Also, how do the bumpers keep the ship locked down without giving the target a weapons timer, which attracts CONCORD (which, by your own admission, makes the gank significantly more difficult?) Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped?


Or just have a guy in a web ship.