These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#321 - 2014-11-10 22:05:46 UTC
Bearcastle wrote:

As for the T2 I mentionned, it should have jump capabilities.


No, 1000 times NO



a jump drive is useless in high sec and if you're in low sec or null you have carriers.



people seriously stop trying to get a reduced fatigue carrier already


again, I'm not trying to be an ass, but there are close to 1000 pages in 2 other threads where people went back and forth about this and CCP said NO


Honestly, instead of trying to get back what you had, learn to use what you have and be happy with it.



o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#322 - 2014-11-10 22:08:02 UTC
Rowells wrote:

Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed.


The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in.

The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO

:)

Celly Smunt


Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#323 - 2014-11-10 22:10:35 UTC
With all the demands by the never happy high sec risk averse doomsdayers, the people who, for some reason, want the ship to not be used by null sec while having no play or interest in null other than to wish misery upon them for some ******** reason, I'd like to suggest to CCP to remove the plans for the ship. **** these people. Take it off the drawing board.
TiberiusBravus
Solaris Research and Production
#324 - 2014-11-10 22:10:59 UTC
YAY . A ship shipping ship shipping ships!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#325 - 2014-11-10 22:12:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Celly S wrote:
Rowells wrote:

Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed.


The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in.

The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO

:)

Celly Smunt



I agree the agility bonus would be better, but the max speed has no affect on agility. Only mass and inertia modifier. if you take two interceptors and fit one with cargo ecpanders (slower speed) and one with overdrives (higher speed) align time is the same. That is the purpose behind using 100mn MWD on capitals to get into warp faster.

E: technically yes, the warp drive minimum speed is increased, but the time to reach that speed is unchanged.
Juvenius Drakonius
#326 - 2014-11-10 22:15:41 UTC
This will be the most ganked ship in the game after that patch, a true SPACE PIÑATA with no guns and full of ships. A Good Idea and a needed Ship, but if it can't tank well. Here's an IDEA, make a HI-SEC Carrier! No jumpdrive, but it can have some drones to defend it self Or at best a NEW module "CONCORD DIRECT PATCH LINE" to make concord instantly appear in the event of a gank.

There is no shame in saying you don't know something, and there is no glory in keeping knolege to yourself.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#327 - 2014-11-10 22:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
Rowells wrote:
Celly S wrote:
Rowells wrote:

Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed.


The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in.

The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO

:)

Celly Smunt



I agree the agility bonus would be better, but the max speed has no affect on agility. Only mass and inertia modifier. if you take two interceptors and fit one with cargo ecpanders (slower speed) and one with overdrives (higher speed) align time is the same. That is the purpose behind using 100mn MWD on capitals to get into warp faster.

E: technically yes, the warp drive minimum speed is increased, but the time to reach that speed is unchanged.


I never said it did, I simply commented on Santa's post/question about the result of a higher max speed being taking longer to go into warp, which is a bad idea in my opinion and evidently in his as well.

o/
Celly Smunt

PS. not talking about the mwd trick, just base ships only differing in the pilot's skills.

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#328 - 2014-11-10 22:19:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Komi Toran
I must admit I was surprised when CCP picked up this idea from F&I. I thought any implementation would, by necessity, be too fragile and slow to justify the cargo it would be carrying. But, I figured I'd wait and see if CCP pulled a rabbit out of its hat.

We are still rabbitless.

But hey, the work has been mostly done, so: Gankers, rejoice!
Celly S wrote:
The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in.

But it's irrelevant because acceleration is a percentage of top speed. So, whether the Bowhead goes 10m/s or 1000m/s, it's going to go into warp at the same moment. And whether it's webbed at 1m/s or 100m/s respectively, it will still go into warp at the same just as quickly. The only times when top speed matters on a hauler are a) gate crashing and b) those times when you warp to a station outside docking radius. If you're trying to do (A) with this, then you already screwd up royal and you'll die regardless of the 25% boost, and (B) can be taken care of with proper bookmarks, or is such a small percentage of transit time not to be worth considering.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#329 - 2014-11-10 22:19:12 UTC
Celly S wrote:
people seriously stop trying to get a reduced fatigue carrier already
Don't really need reduced fatigue.

Nor the combat capabilites of a carrier.

Just a 10LY ship hauler.


Cyno chains are boring. *snores*

Using a mighty Archon to haul is... sad. *sheds a tear*

Want a jump-capable ship hauler. *looks at CCP with big round eyes*

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#330 - 2014-11-10 22:24:46 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Celly S wrote:
Rowells wrote:

Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed.


The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in.

The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO

:)

Celly Smunt



I agree the agility bonus would be better, but the max speed has no affect on agility. Only mass and inertia modifier. if you take two interceptors and fit one with cargo ecpanders (slower speed) and one with overdrives (higher speed) align time is the same. That is the purpose behind using 100mn MWD on capitals to get into warp faster.

E: technically yes, the warp drive minimum speed is increased, but the time to reach that speed is unchanged.


I never said it did, I simply commented on Santa's post/question about the result of a higher max speed being taking longer to go into warp, which is a bad idea in my opinion and evidently in his as well.

o/
Celly Smunt

PS. not talking about the mwd trick, just base ships only differing in the pilot's skills.

I'm trying to tell you that higher speed =\= longer time to get into warp
Riikard Thexder
ThexCorp Pty-Ltd
Cup Of ConKrete.
#331 - 2014-11-10 22:44:28 UTC
So it is effectively a JF with more cargo room?
How far can it jump because if it is only as far as a carrier...might as well use a carrier.
If on the other hand its cargo was a lot more then 3 fitted BS say 4-5 then I could see it being used.

That being said...any new ships are welcomed
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#332 - 2014-11-10 22:46:23 UTC
Pretty cool and all, this fills a good niche.

My biggest question, pretty pertinent to the ship's general operation and lifespan, is regarding looting mechanics. As I recall, ships like carriers, Orcas, and Titans don't actually ever drop anything from their ship maintenance bays when they go down. What will be the story here? Will it only drop from cargo to match current (I think) mechanics? Or will it provide a wreck with launchable ships like a pos maintenance array? If the latter, are we also going to see a difference in behavior for other ships with maintenance bays?

Thanks for your work as always.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#333 - 2014-11-10 22:51:23 UTC
Riikard Thexder wrote:
So it is effectively a JF with more cargo room?
How far can it jump because if it is only as far as a carrier...might as well use a carrier.
If on the other hand its cargo was a lot more then 3 fitted BS say 4-5 then I could see it being used.

That being said...any new ships are welcomed

There is no jump drive
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2014-11-10 22:52:35 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Riikard Thexder wrote:
So it is effectively a JF with more cargo room?
How far can it jump because if it is only as far as a carrier...might as well use a carrier.
If on the other hand its cargo was a lot more then 3 fitted BS say 4-5 then I could see it being used.

That being said...any new ships are welcomed

Sadly, there is no jump drive SadSadSad
FTFY

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Lachesiss
Perkone
Caldari State
#335 - 2014-11-10 22:55:36 UTC
Sooooo....

Plastic wrap ship with tank?...

Cmon Ccp Rise. Tell us how much you wanted a full rack of blasters on that Big smile

On the third day after your birth myself and my sister's will come to you and decide your fate.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#336 - 2014-11-10 22:57:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertucio
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
The demands of risk-adverse players are rampant in this thread. Give it 500k EHP!! Give it 600k EHP!! Allow it to carry 4-5 fitted battleships AND give it 600k EHP!!! But as many people have reasonably pointed out, just because you can carry X does not mean you should have a tank that makes it necessarily unprofitable to be killed while hauling X.

The more convenient / useful something is in EVE, the more potential risk it should involve. Moving a fitted battleship manually, the old way, is less convenient than hauling a few in the Bowhead--the Bowhead should Not *also* be safer as well, as that completely reverses the risk-reward balance. The Bowhead is going to make life a lot easier for many groups, including solo players such as myself. As a result though, it should bring with it great potential risk, such as being a prime target for ganks.


I'm not sure what your definition of risk is here. You spend a billion ISK on a hi-sec freighter (assuming you buy the right buff mods etc). You put in near a billion worth of ISK of ships to freight around. And you get ganked by 10-20 cheap dessies in Uedama.

So who is doing all the risk and who isn't?

Gwanker: when you can't gank a 2 Billion ISK freighter for virtually free in hi-sec - and swear up and down the freighter pilot isn't taking enough risk.
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#337 - 2014-11-10 22:57:12 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
A jump drive would be nice.


No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers...

(not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy)

and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!!

*wink*

o7
Celly Smunt


Carriers got nerfed, but jump freighters didn't, logistics was not the reason why jump drives got nerfed. Using carriers to move anything now requires an alt to get around the fatigue mechanic, and takes forever because of the short jump range, it really would be nice to get a non-combat ship as an replacement for the pre-nerf suitcase carrier.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Dave Stark
#338 - 2014-11-10 22:59:14 UTC
Bertucio wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
The demands of risk-adverse players are rampant in this thread. Give it 500k EHP!! Give it 600k EHP!! Allow it to carry 4-5 fitted battleships AND give it 600k EHP!!! But as many people have reasonably pointed out, just because you can carry X does not mean you should have a tank that makes it necessarily unprofitable to be killed while hauling X.

The more convenient / useful something is in EVE, the more potential risk it should involve. Moving a fitted battleship manually, the old way, is less convenient than hauling a few in the Bowhead--the Bowhead should Not *also* be safer as well, as that completely reverses the risk-reward balance. The Bowhead is going to make life a lot easier for many groups, including solo players such as myself. As a result though, it should bring with it great potential risk, such as being a prime target for ganks.


I'm not sure what your definition of risk is here. You spend a billion ISK on a hi-sec freighter (assuming you buy the right buff mods etc). You put in near a billion worth of ISK of ships to freight around. And you get ganked by 10-15 cheap dessies in Uedama.

So who is doing all the risk and who isn't?

Sigh. Gankers - they are the biggest cry babies in Eve when they can't gank your 2 Billion ISK freighter for free in Hi-Sec. And they swear up and down that you're not taking enough risk


gankers, the biggest cry babies in eve.

said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg.
Candente
Navy Veteran Club
#339 - 2014-11-10 23:01:57 UTC
First of all. Has CCP clarified on whether the ships in the SMA of this ship will actually drop or no upon getting ganked? It's an important question on the whole risk vs reward scale.

Also, as someone already said in this thread, the greatest need for solo pilots to move multiple rigged BS in highsec are incursion runners moving between sites. If this group is CCP's intended target for using Bowhead, then obviously the ships maximum tanking capability needs to be increased (or else they'd use alternative methods of moving ships, which makes a lot of things pointless).

A simple solution is to create more dedicate modules to let pilot to choose the space vs tank vs travel time. The current modules are not enough. For example, make a module to reduce SMA space but to give the ship more EHP.

The bottom line is the new ship's function should not solely be introducing inferior ways to do things that other methods do better.
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
#340 - 2014-11-10 23:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertucio
Dave Stark wrote:


said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg.


Yeah I'd like to see some gankers in Uedama take some real risk for a change - like spend a billion ISK to take down a billion ISK freighter.

Oh yeah - *crickets* I thought so.