These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Paranoid Loyd
#381 - 2014-11-11 01:37:36 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear.

Been looking for a new sig, thank you sir.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#382 - 2014-11-11 01:47:12 UTC
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
I gotta say, that name is really bad.

As opposed to say… "Humpback", "Minke" or "Sperm"?
Yeah, Bowhead is just fine.


Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale.

Bowhead sounds like someone saying Towelface. It's like two words who never should have been together had a "thing" at EVE Vegas and now have to live with the consequences.


The bow of a ship is the front. Thus a whale with a head that looks like the front of a ship certainly deserves the name "bowhead", especially when that head is used to break through layers of ice up to 60cm thick.

So not "bow" the stringed arrow-launcher, but bow the front of a ship (or bow, the action performed in formal greetings or acceptance of applause)

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#383 - 2014-11-11 01:52:23 UTC
These kinds of ships, incl. freighters and JFs, should be gankable by a BS or BC gang, but not by a mob of cheap dessies or cruisers (which has become too common these days).

Any chance that the generally-useless TSB module can be "fixed" to have some value in this role, particularly on this new ship?
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#384 - 2014-11-11 01:54:00 UTC
What I want to know is...

How can I turn this into a carrier?

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#385 - 2014-11-11 02:06:04 UTC
Querns wrote:

No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality.




I can assure you that I'm doing no such thing, just the same as I can assure you that carriers were not nerfed because of their combat ability (or as you stated previously their tank...)


I am more than willing to consider your statement if it were at all factual or relevant.


all combat ships travel distance was nerfed, not just carriers, Jump freighters were not nerfed as hard because CCP stated that while the JFs were not where they wanted them to be, they were where they needed to be in relation to the current industry in null/low sec.

Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them.

you can start here

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
#386 - 2014-11-11 02:10:17 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Querns wrote:
That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality.
Well said! Whatever that actually means.


rofl...

my thought exactly

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.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#387 - 2014-11-11 02:15:09 UTC
I like it. Pretty useful ship imho... sure does make it a lot easier to go on away missions if you typically operate from a central hub. I'd gripe for more hanger space, but I think for the individual pod this is a pretty handy ship. ...sort of a mobile mini base. Wouldn't it be cool if it could fit a clone bay? Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#388 - 2014-11-11 02:15:46 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them.


Do you understand that jump freighters, which already are in the game, can move more ships then a bowhead?

Adding a T2 version of the bowhead would not drastically change the game, it just gives low/null players the option to move ships with freighters without being forced to repackage them.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#389 - 2014-11-11 02:20:43 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Querns wrote:

No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality.




I can assure you that I'm doing no such thing, just the same as I can assure you that carriers were not nerfed because of their combat ability (or as you stated previously their tank...)


I am more than willing to consider your statement if it were at all factual or relevant.


all combat ships travel distance was nerfed, not just carriers, Jump freighters were not nerfed as hard because CCP stated that while the JFs were not where they wanted them to be, they were where they needed to be in relation to the current industry in null/low sec.

Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them.

you can start here

o/
Celly Smunt.



Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rautha Harkonnen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#390 - 2014-11-11 02:29:01 UTC
Totally unnecessary addition to the game. May as well just save up for a freighter.
Sigh, Another ganked to hell ship for marmite to drool over.


Its ORE. Evrything ORE should be mining related entirely. Bring an 8 strip mining mega barge to the game. Make miners feel like industry gods. Lol


Anyway if a bowhead is gunna be in game wheres arrowhead for pvp players looool
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#391 - 2014-11-11 02:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Spc One
CCP Rise wrote:

Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500

I think this is low EHP, even with modules, it will be very easy to gank.
So if someone puts 2 t-1 battleships in there and both drop, gankers can make some pretty nice isk.

Also T-2 version of this ship would replace "old version" carriers for jumping ships to 0.0.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#392 - 2014-11-11 02:32:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
dexington wrote:
Celly S wrote:
Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them.


Do you understand that jump freighters, which already are in the game, can move more ships then a bowhead?

Adding a T2 version of the bowhead would not drastically change the game, it just gives low/null players the option to move ships with freighters without being forced to repackage them.


I understand that.. what I'm saying is that there's already a ship in low and null to move assembled ships, and CCP has stated this new ship is to primarily be a high sec ship, so no jump drive needed.

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
#393 - 2014-11-11 02:34:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
Querns wrote:

Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim.


you're right, I evidently need to link you to the threadnaught that preceded that thread that has CCP's own statements about force projection...

give me a bit and I will

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=376666

here you go...


also, I really <3 this one
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5182521#post5182521

LMAo

have fun

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.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#394 - 2014-11-11 02:55:05 UTC
Fruckton Haulalot wrote:
also the cargo should be closer to 10k not 5k.... or give it another bay for ammo that way mods and parts in the cargo bay... and ammo in the ammo bay


Ammo can be stored inside assembled ship in the ship hangar.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#395 - 2014-11-11 02:55:19 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Querns wrote:

Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim.


you're right, I evidently need to link you to the threadnaught that preceded that thread that has CCP's own statements about force projection...

give me a bit and I will

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=376666

here you go...


also, I really <3 this one
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5182521#post5182521

LMAo

have fun

o/
Celly Smunt

Once again, you've failed to provide any evidence that the carrier's inclusion into the default fatigue ship set was due to its SMA. Or, really, for any factor at all. I enjoy onanism as much as the next Eve player, but do try to keep it on topic.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#396 - 2014-11-11 03:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Celly S
Querns wrote:

Once again, you've failed to provide any evidence that the carrier's inclusion into the default fatigue ship set was due to its SMA. Or, really, for any factor at all. I enjoy onanism as much as the next Eve player, but do try to keep it on topic.


I never said it was nerfed because of its SMA, please don't put words in my mouth.

you stated it was nerfed because of it's tank, then you said it was due to it's combat abilities, neither one of which were true, but neither one of which had even one iota of relevance to my statement that there were already jump capable ships in low and null that could move assembled ships.

my comment was based in fact and your statements as to the reason carriers were nerfed are not, I SAID that force projection is the reason for the nerfs CCP implemented recently (that IS in the links i provided, and that does in fact back up what I said in reply to your erroneous assertions, not what you're now claiming I said), now, If a player wishes to continue to use their ships in the manner they did previously, there is a jump timer and fatigue consequence they have to pay...
again, if you are going to make a point....

so, I will state again that asking for one of these new ships to have a jump drive is basically asking for an un nerfed carrier since there's no reason to have that aside from circumvention of the recently changed mechanics...


I hope that's clearer for you
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.
Dreiden Kisada
State War Academy
Caldari State
#397 - 2014-11-11 03:20:32 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
I gotta say, that name is really bad.

As opposed to say… "Humpback", "Minke" or "Sperm"?
Yeah, Bowhead is just fine.


Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale.

Bowhead sounds like someone saying Towelface. It's like two words who never should have been together had a "thing" at EVE Vegas and now have to live with the consequences.


The bow of a ship is the front. Thus a whale with a head that looks like the front of a ship certainly deserves the name "bowhead", especially when that head is used to break through layers of ice up to 60cm thick.

So not "bow" the stringed arrow-launcher, but bow the front of a ship (or bow, the action performed in formal greetings or acceptance of applause)


That is correct, the front of the ship is called the Bow.

It still sounds silly. May as well call it Flipperside. Or Tailend. Or Bellybottom.

Actually, bellybottom sounds kinda cool.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#398 - 2014-11-11 03:21:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Anonymous Forumposter
Dear CCP Rise:

Here's a few thoughts I've had on this fantastic ship.

Now that we have a ship dedicated to moving ships around, Do you think it's time to address the plastic wrapped ship exploit?

There is a TON of debate going on around the jump fatigue bonus on this ship, I'm of the belief that it warrants a reasonable amount of internal and possible external discussion if for nothing more than to demonstrate your commitment to improving the status quo in terms of force projection. Convince us that you care and that you took the time to make a good decision on the matter.

Being this ships role is to move ships from point A to point B, perhaps giving it a "Deployed" state (which uses fuel and provides bonuses to defense) if you wish to interact with any of the ships in the hangar. This would force players using this asset to deploy ships to a fight to commit this ship in the same way Marauders, Dreadnaughts, Rorquals, etc get committed to their advantages. This would also give the Bowhead a means of hunkering down to endure a gank attempt.

Get more bang for your developmental buck by giving us an ore (Ice, Ore, etc..) hauling variant. It's makes complete sense lore wise, It gives more value to training the skill that's only used for this one ship. You've already made the model, make a small variation and twice the mileage for the money invested in the development of the asset.

A more advanced concept would be to give the bowhead an interchangeable core, One for larger ship hangar, One for Defense (Think deployable state from above) and one for hauling ore.

Just some food for thought. I fully expect some people to praise and others to rage and flame over these ideas, I don't care as long as people are discussing them :)
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#399 - 2014-11-11 03:23:16 UTC
Celly S wrote:

I never said it was nerfed because of its SMA, please don't put words in my mouth.

you stated it was nerfed because of it's tank, then you said it was due to it's combat abilities, neither one of which were true, but neither one of which had even one iota of relevance to my statement that there were already jump capable ships in low and null that could move assembled ships.

my comment was based in fact and your statements as to the reason carriers were nerfed are not, I SAID that force projection is the reason for the nerfs CCP implemented recently (that IS in the links i provided, and that does in fact back up what I said in reply to your erroneous assertions, not what you're now claiming I said), now, If a player wishes to continue to use their ships in the manner they did previously, there is a jump timer and fatigue consequence they have to pay...
again, if you are going to make a point....

so, I will state again that asking for one of these new ships to have a jump drive is basically asking for an un nerfed carrier since there's no reason to have that aside from circumvention of the recently changed mechanics...


I hope that's clearer for you
o/
Celly Smunt


Uhhh

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


Celly S wrote:
Querns wrote:


That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA.




no it is not

part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability.

if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise.

I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier.

o/
Celly Smunt


How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#400 - 2014-11-11 03:24:48 UTC
RoAnnon wrote:
Lidia Caderu wrote:
Quote:
5% bonus to max velocity per level

What is that for?


Going faster...Cool


You get that each time Aura says "Skill training completed". Duh.

In all seriousness, I would rather this be an HP bonus, considering where the HP totals are to begin with.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."