These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Syllabus Memoriae
Into the Ether
Out of the Blue.
#1501 - 2014-11-19 19:38:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Syllabus Memoriae
baltec1 wrote:
Syllabus Memoriae wrote:
Love the idea of the ship itself, but after reading 4-5 pages of repeated ideas, the only thoughts I could add constructively would be that the only real problem with this ship is the suicide gank capability. Best solution I thought was the increase to shields and overheat effectiveness, to many variables to fix one issue. Take the idea though and make it a module that takes up multiple slots and does something like add 500000 shield for 30 seconds and when activated 180 of no moving depleted capacitor and cannot jump threw gates for 1m, or something like that, maybe call it a emergency shield fortifier or something and lock it to that ship for fit only. Would put a damper on suicide gankabilty, but would not cause to much of other changes. Give the player the option to choose and the ganker can figure ways around it, and won't screw up the future thought of nullsec potential. I least I think...

Now must continue reading.


It gets more tank than any other freighter.



Well you could give it to all the freighters but then suicide ganking would die all together of the freightor verity the idea itself could be a taplateacher for something else maybe similar to it also makes sense sacrifice all power and fry your ship for a min or two to power surge the shields still would leave you vulnerable but would strive off 30 second kills cause concord would clean them up, mechanic playing on mechanic but really would know if it would work until tested. The idea to me is a sketch at best, would need work to be a real suggestion.

EDIT: I just realized your saYing it has enough tank, but that's talking in an all round aspect, I make this suggestion to mitigate high damage insta pops that I myself have seen and been apart of, 6-8 talos with t2 g/a wound end one of these things in less than a minute, in general that's just a flaw/exploit of mechanics to me [opinion] but adding something that could save you from this but cripple you for a few minutes and could possibly only be used once would put a twist on high sec and might even prove intereating in lower security, summary overall tank does not matter it's a freighter and it can already take a beating, the only thing that proves to be a threat to the idea of the ship is suicide ganking, did I forget to change my clone home again?
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1502 - 2014-11-19 20:04:15 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Gank a bowhead in your catalyst- get pop by concord - board bling battle ship dropped as loot and fly off - win win.


You've never actually been criminal in highsec, have you? The result of attempting to do that will be a bling battleship lossmail to CONCORD. All CONCORD responses apply to any ships you board during the criminal timer, including the remote warp drive disabling.
Sli Anasazi
#1503 - 2014-11-19 21:24:09 UTC
I like it! However it definitely should be given a significant boost to shields, armor, and structure for sure if it's going to be transporting other ships. Perhaps half again of current levels I think would be good enough to make it worth while at that point.
Maybe a few more slots as well so it's not just a flying tank or brick for that matter. Armor and shield boosts are good but I would like to see it have the ability to equip mods to help prevent warp jams and such. rather than having to choose between them. Twisted
ashley Eoner
#1504 - 2014-11-19 22:40:26 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Gank a bowhead in your catalyst- get pop by concord - board bling battle ship dropped as loot and fly off - win win.


You've never actually been criminal in highsec, have you? The result of attempting to do that will be a bling battleship lossmail to CONCORD. All CONCORD responses apply to any ships you board during the criminal timer, including the remote warp drive disabling.

Yup that's why you're supposed to have a neutral alt there to loot. Going suspect is no big deal especially if you already have safe spots (which you should).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1505 - 2014-11-19 23:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that..
The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .


Tell that to BL.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1506 - 2014-11-19 23:53:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that..
The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .


Tell that to BL.


Not sure the rhetoric matches the reality. And note that nothing in this plan relied on Bowheads...it seems that nullsec logistics are doing just fine without them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1507 - 2014-11-20 00:00:38 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that..
The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .


Tell that to BL.


Not sure the rhetoric matches the reality. And note that nothing in this plan relied on Bowheads...it seems that nullsec logistics are doing just fine without them.


It will do even better with them.
ashley Eoner
#1508 - 2014-11-20 00:11:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that..
The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .


Tell that to BL.


Not sure the rhetoric matches the reality. And note that nothing in this plan relied on Bowheads...it seems that nullsec logistics are doing just fine without them.


It will do even better with them.

There's a lot of drivel in the conversation between you and Veers. So I was just wondering if you could sum up what your argument is in relation to the bowhead.

Are you stating that it's overpowered in a null environment?
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1509 - 2014-11-20 00:48:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:


Whether or not null will use it (and dont get me wrong, im happy for ya about the 90% reduction) is irrelevant in respect of a stated goal of transporting fitted and insured ships in highsec.

In which, given the reality of fits flying around in high, the ships speed and so on, it is still 'meh'.


Its faster than manually flying the three battleships and gankers cannot blow it up and make a profit on a cargo of three t2 fit battleships.


Round and round...

You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1510 - 2014-11-20 01:05:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that..
The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .


Tell that to BL.

Seriously, that is the best you can do?
Although your link failed to post correctly, the corresponding story in no way shows coalitions have a future. In fact it really shows the large coalitions are failing.
The die hard members of the large coalitions may like to tell themselves they will survive unscathed but reality is, as nulsec changes so will the need to and viability of having all your neighbors blue.

I think as do many others, things in nulsec need a change up.
Big coalitions = minimal content.
We have all had enough of static nulsec, time to let it burn

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Lil' Brudder Too
Pistols for Pandas
#1511 - 2014-11-20 01:14:49 UTC
Sooo, a ship that is nothing but a single huge maintenance bay....is built using only cargo bays and ZERO maint bay parts....interesting...nice troll CCP (like they are even still watching this thread)

New Icon SiSi feedback thread that got wholly ignored!

An example of that a good ship icon set looks like.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1512 - 2014-11-20 09:22:05 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Seriously, that is the best you can do?


You said large CFC deployment wont happen again. We deployed the CFC the very same day you made that comment. Big, organised powerblocks are not going away, hence why CCP are rebuilding nullsec with large groups in mind.

Barton Breau wrote:


Round and round...

You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place.






I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met.

ashley Eoner wrote:


Are you stating that it's overpowered in a null environment?


No, its just fine as it is. What I am arguing against is people trying to make it overpowered.
Regithros Raylanar
Outfit 418
Blue Loot Not Included
#1513 - 2014-11-20 11:33:23 UTC
Will there be a t2 variant coming? An Ore Jump Freighter that can hold fitted ships?
Thomas Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#1514 - 2014-11-20 12:48:44 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, added quite a bit of base hp (mostly in shield, some in structure) and changed the max velocity bonus to agility. OP is updated with new numbers.


i'd still rather have had a warp speed bonus...

also GJ caving to whiners.


Apparently they didn't cave in to all the whiners.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1515 - 2014-11-20 17:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Barton Breau
baltec1 wrote:

Barton Breau wrote:


Round and round...

You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place.


I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met.



Source? Since no, the simple reality that the bowhead will be able to carry 3xbs while having a given tank for the fits you specify does not count as "stipulating", especially considering the tank was already raised.

And for the record, im in no way arguing for the ship to have more ehp, in general anything goes, we have basically a freighter with 1/7 of space just offering a questionable convenience you are unlikely to use when it counts: expensive hulls with expensive rigs.

For example higher warp speed would make sense, since the cargo hauled is just big in volume, not in mass - unpackaged.
BuddhaMancer
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1516 - 2014-11-20 18:06:53 UTC
so i just checked the bowhead out on SISI, and im a bit curious about the component requirement for building it. Im just wondering if it was finalized, because it seems strange that a freighter that focuses on ship maintenance bays doesnt require any ship maintenance components for building. Meanwhile theres a huge requirement on cargo bay components for a ship that has a 4km3 hold.
at first i thought CCP just used another freighters industry tab as a template but the bowheads doesnt match any of the other freighters, so CCP made the bowheads component list without a single dev deciding to have it make sense. i fully expect CCP to be changing it to a more ship maintenance bay heavy component list( if not then thats just strange).
im sure there some freighter builder out there that have begun to stock up components for the bowheads release, but it sucks for them if a few days before rhea patch CCP finally finalizes the bowheads industry tab and the frieghter builders stocked the wrong components, itd be a bad day for them. just saying that the industry tab should be close to final before it goes on sisi cause a lot of players will use the info there to try and get an early start on production of new ships.
and again if it is already finalized then its just plain strange and logically the cargo bays should be replaced with ship maintenance bays.

im not trying to say anything bad about the devs, their doing an awesome job, keep it up.
Just pointing out something i found strange
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1517 - 2014-11-20 18:56:17 UTC
BuddhaMancer wrote:
so i just checked the bowhead out on SISI, and im a bit curious about the component requirement for building it. Im just wondering if it was finalized, because it seems strange that a freighter that focuses on ship maintenance bays doesnt require any ship maintenance components for building. Meanwhile theres a huge requirement on cargo bay components for a ship that has a 4km3 hold.
at first i thought CCP just used another freighters industry tab as a template but the bowheads doesnt match any of the other freighters, so CCP made the bowheads component list without a single dev deciding to have it make sense. i fully expect CCP to be changing it to a more ship maintenance bay heavy component list( if not then thats just strange).
im sure there some freighter builder out there that have begun to stock up components for the bowheads release, but it sucks for them if a few days before rhea patch CCP finally finalizes the bowheads industry tab and the frieghter builders stocked the wrong components, itd be a bad day for them. just saying that the industry tab should be close to final before it goes on sisi cause a lot of players will use the info there to try and get an early start on production of new ships.
and again if it is already finalized then its just plain strange and logically the cargo bays should be replaced with ship maintenance bays.

im not trying to say anything bad about the devs, their doing an awesome job, keep it up.
Just pointing out something i found strange


As for every change in the game, trying to get a head start on something comes with the potential of profit and the risk of being burned with the wrong things. See rigs on freighter for example.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1518 - 2014-11-20 20:47:33 UTC
BuddhaMancer wrote:
so i just checked the bowhead out on SISI, and im a bit curious about the component requirement for building it. Im just wondering if it was finalized, because it seems strange that a freighter that focuses on ship maintenance bays doesnt require any ship maintenance components for building. Meanwhile theres a huge requirement on cargo bay components for a ship that has a 4km3 hold.
at first i thought CCP just used another freighters industry tab as a template but the bowheads doesnt match any of the other freighters, so CCP made the bowheads component list without a single dev deciding to have it make sense. i fully expect CCP to be changing it to a more ship maintenance bay heavy component list( if not then thats just strange).
im sure there some freighter builder out there that have begun to stock up components for the bowheads release, but it sucks for them if a few days before rhea patch CCP finally finalizes the bowheads industry tab and the frieghter builders stocked the wrong components, itd be a bad day for them. just saying that the industry tab should be close to final before it goes on sisi cause a lot of players will use the info there to try and get an early start on production of new ships.
and again if it is already finalized then its just plain strange and logically the cargo bays should be replaced with ship maintenance bays.

im not trying to say anything bad about the devs, their doing an awesome job, keep it up.
Just pointing out something i found strange



SISI is testing everything on sisi that is not on live right now is subject to change. That includes but is not limited to the skills required to fly the ship, where bpc/bpo are found/acquired, build materials/cost/time, stats of the ships, look of the ship.

Any changes to sisi might not make it to the next version of live. This is the whole point of sis the test server is to find bugs but also to see how things work and change them before live.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1519 - 2014-11-20 20:50:10 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Barton Breau wrote:


Round and round...

You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place.


I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met.



Source? Since no, the simple reality that the bowhead will be able to carry 3xbs while having a given tank for the fits you specify does not count as "stipulating", especially considering the tank was already raised.

And for the record, im in no way arguing for the ship to have more ehp, in general anything goes, we have basically a freighter with 1/7 of space just offering a questionable convenience you are unlikely to use when it counts: expensive hulls with expensive rigs.

For example higher warp speed would make sense, since the cargo hauled is just big in volume, not in mass - unpackaged.


Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now.
Yume Ookami
Cognitive Disonance
#1520 - 2014-11-20 21:13:53 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:


Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now.



the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk