These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1581 - 2014-11-23 21:42:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dwissi wrote:


That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap.


It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships.



You are still trying to loop the discussion : Quote from CCP Rise in OP 'There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.'

High sec (which includes incursions) is the main intended application. Your statement and others earlier point already to better usage anywhere else but high sec - that cries for a redesign.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1582 - 2014-11-23 23:12:46 UTC
I don't see myself using this ship in Null Sec because a carrier is still way better. The JF is way safer when moving stuff from highsec to Null Sec (the JF never has to make that gate jump from high to low or null, unlike this ship). I would not use it in highsec because it's more effort and risk than moving my ships via Redfrog courier contract or simply flying them. Unless it gains some more resistance to suicide attacks, I don't see it seeing much use anywhere. A t2 tanked version - before implants - should be able to haul at least 2 billion worth of stuff in relative safety. Otherwise it is essentially useless.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1583 - 2014-11-24 01:40:33 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dwissi wrote:


That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap.


It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships.



You are still trying to loop the discussion : Quote from CCP Rise in OP 'There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.'

High sec (which includes incursions) is the main intended application. Your statement and others earlier point already to better usage anywhere else but high sec - that cries for a redesign.

I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree.

I seem to remember similar conjecture when freighters were first proposed. Too slow, too easy to gank, plus (in their case) can't be fit (at the time).

I have little doubt that although they will not be as common as freighters in high sec, sighting one will be commonplace.

You might consider that your argument about their main use being in null sec due to the jump fatigue bonus. If your premise were true you would also have to include all haulers in that statement as well (as it is now a role bonus for all industrial s), and that really doesn't make much sense now does it.... Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Rosira
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1584 - 2014-11-24 02:17:49 UTC
RoAnnon wrote:
Lidia Caderu wrote:
Quote:
5% bonus to max velocity per level

What is that for?


Going faster...Cool


Can we paint it red?
Myrkul Nightshade
Doomheim
#1585 - 2014-11-24 02:17:58 UTC
So when would you want to haul a bunch of fitted ships?

1 - When your corp is headed off to war, and you want lots of prefitted ships in your base for players to grab and use.

2 - Because you have Shield/Armor/ETC rigging to IV, and you want to bring rigged ships to market at Jita. (Because apparently players can buy those ships and use them with the rigs despite not having their own skills to IV.)

3 - Because you're a mission runner, and you want to move your mission running fleet to a new system.

4 - Any other reasons?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1586 - 2014-11-24 02:46:46 UTC
Myrkul Nightshade wrote:
So when would you want to haul a bunch of fitted ships?

1 - When your corp is headed off to war, and you want lots of prefitted ships in your base for players to grab and use.

2 - Because you have Shield/Armor/ETC rigging to IV, and you want to bring rigged ships to market at Jita. (Because apparently players can buy those ships and use them with the rigs despite not having their own skills to IV.)

3 - Because you're a mission runner, and you want to move your mission running fleet to a new system.

4 - Any other reasons?


When you want to move your incursion fleet across the galaxy to the next high sec incursion. Personally, when I ran Incursions, I had jump clones spread all over space with a small cache of ships with each clone. That meant I never had to actually fly that far to keep getting content.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1587 - 2014-11-24 03:28:12 UTC
Myrkul Nightshade wrote:
So when would you want to haul a bunch of fitted ships?

1 - When your corp is headed off to war, and you want lots of prefitted ships in your base for players to grab and use.

2 - Because you have Shield/Armor/ETC rigging to IV, and you want to bring rigged ships to market at Jita. (Because apparently players can buy those ships and use them with the rigs despite not having their own skills to IV.)

3 - Because you're a mission runner, and you want to move your mission running fleet to a new system.

4 - Any other reasons?

2 is no longer true.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1588 - 2014-11-24 06:06:28 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dwissi wrote:


That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap.


It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships.



You are still trying to loop the discussion : Quote from CCP Rise in OP 'There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.'

High sec (which includes incursions) is the main intended application. Your statement and others earlier point already to better usage anywhere else but high sec - that cries for a redesign.

I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree.

I seem to remember similar conjecture when freighters were first proposed. Too slow, too easy to gank, plus (in their case) can't be fit (at the time).

I have little doubt that although they will not be as common as freighters in high sec, sighting one will be commonplace.

You might consider that your argument about their main use being in null sec due to the jump fatigue bonus. If your premise were true you would also have to include all haulers in that statement as well (as it is now a role bonus for all industrial s), and that really doesn't make much sense now does it.... Smile


I never said anything about main usage being null - very much the opposite actually. Hence the quote from the OP

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1589 - 2014-11-24 07:42:10 UTC
Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1590 - 2014-11-24 10:18:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
baltec1 wrote:
Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships.



If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design.

No one keeps you from hopping into whatever you like to - but that should account for both groups. Null sec has already carriers to perform that kind of job - high sec has nothing comparable as capitals are not allowed for a good reason in it. Every time new ships and designs are introduced its mostly null sec that claims ownership of adjustments and design changes constantly awarding them more than others. If a ship intended for high sec is not following design wishes of that player group it needs to be redesigned or better not introduced at all.

Edit: A simple change would be a no-bonus in jump fatigue to make it less interesting for null right away. And the statement '...wanting a ship like that most...' is utterly entertaining. Faction warfare, incursions, industry operations - the list of people in high sec areas wishing for a ship like this will most definitely exceed your group - just because they are less organized than null sec alliances and don't voice as concentrated as those does not mean they are less interested or less in need.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1591 - 2014-11-24 10:43:12 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships.



If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design.

No one keeps you from hopping into whatever you like to - but that should account for both groups. Null sec has already carriers to perform that kind of job - high sec has nothing comparable as capitals are not allowed for a good reason in it. Every time new ships and designs are introduced its mostly null sec that claims ownership of adjustments and design changes constantly awarding them more than others. If a ship intended for high sec is not following design wishes of that player group it needs to be redesigned or better not introduced at all.

Edit: A simple change would be a no-bonus in jump fatigue to make it less interesting for null right away. And the statement '...wanting a ship like that most...' is utterly entertaining. Faction warfare, incursions, industry operations - the list of people in high sec areas wishing for a ship like this will most definitely exceed your group - just because they are less organized than null sec alliances and don't voice as concentrated as those does not mean they are less interested or less in need.


Every hauler gets that bonus.
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1592 - 2014-11-24 10:51:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dwissi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships.



If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design.

No one keeps you from hopping into whatever you like to - but that should account for both groups. Null sec has already carriers to perform that kind of job - high sec has nothing comparable as capitals are not allowed for a good reason in it. Every time new ships and designs are introduced its mostly null sec that claims ownership of adjustments and design changes constantly awarding them more than others. If a ship intended for high sec is not following design wishes of that player group it needs to be redesigned or better not introduced at all.

Edit: A simple change would be a no-bonus in jump fatigue to make it less interesting for null right away. And the statement '...wanting a ship like that most...' is utterly entertaining. Faction warfare, incursions, industry operations - the list of people in high sec areas wishing for a ship like this will most definitely exceed your group - just because they are less organized than null sec alliances and don't voice as concentrated as those does not mean they are less interested or less in need.


Every hauler gets that bonus.


You forgot to add 'so far' - nothing wrong in not applying it to this one

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1593 - 2014-11-24 11:04:39 UTC
Why would we not have it apply?
Dwissi
Miners Delight Reborn
#1594 - 2014-11-24 11:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwissi
baltec1 wrote:
Why would we not have it apply?


Simply to prevent this '...It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' Your and other peoples statement should worry CCP by now that its application will be to circumvent the jump changes.

Edit: The usage of 'we' as a player not being part of CCP actually made me think a bit...

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1595 - 2014-11-24 11:59:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Dwissi wrote:



If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design.



it doesnt fail its design purpose, it still moves fitted ships through hi-sec and we are welcoming it too.

edit- I've never been much of an incursion runner and ive been asking for these since before incursions.

you tards arent the only ppl in hi-sec you know...

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1596 - 2014-11-24 13:20:21 UTC
Dwissi wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Why would we not have it apply?


Simply to prevent this '...It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' Your and other peoples statement should worry CCP by now that its application will be to circumvent the jump changes.

Edit: The usage of 'we' as a player not being part of CCP actually made me think a bit...


We would still use it without the bonus so removing it does nothing.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1597 - 2014-11-24 14:09:34 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree.


This is in a way the main point of disagreement, people ask why should they strip down their faction battleships to reduce the appeal to gankers and put them into a slow freighter when they can fit them for ehp/agility/warpspeed/warpstrength/mwdcloak and travel quite safely and fast, even with 1-2x bs and a orca for small ships, with 10s align...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1598 - 2014-11-24 14:28:02 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree.


This is in a way the main point of disagreement, people ask why should they strip down their faction battleships to reduce the appeal to gankers and put them into a slow freighter when they can fit them for ehp/agility/warpspeed/warpstrength/mwdcloak and travel quite safely and fast, even with 1-2x bs and a orca for small ships, with 10s align...


Because as we showed earlier if you have a large number of ships using the bowhead is faster. You also cannot scan the fits of the ships inside the hold so nobody but you will know how they are fitted.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#1599 - 2014-11-24 15:00:19 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree.


This is in a way the main point of disagreement, people ask why should they strip down their faction battleships to reduce the appeal to gankers and put them into a slow freighter when they can fit them for ehp/agility/warpspeed/warpstrength/mwdcloak and travel quite safely and fast, even with 1-2x bs and a orca for small ships, with 10s align...


did you know its safer to move items in a Maller than a freighter?

but ppl use freighters because it saves a **** load of time and effort.

risk/reward.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Myrkul Nightshade
Doomheim
#1600 - 2014-11-24 15:22:10 UTC
I've been wondering about this. It still seems like, if you want to move ships around fast, you would dissassemble them, and then put both them and their modules into a normal freighter.

The only real advantages of a big ship bay would seem to be if they have rigs. That and saving time if you've already got them fit how you want (so you don't have to keep doing it again and again.)

The inability to see the modules on a scan might be a side advantage too, I guess. But if they're expensive ships, then probably a high sec pirate will assume the rigs are expensive too.

At least the ship adds some variety. I thought the Prospect was going to be a big waste of space, but then I trained an alt on it and tried it out and it's actually a pretty useful ship for the role I give it (not it's intended role).