These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#721 - 2014-11-12 06:26:36 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
So we have the entire goon forum division with their Rapid Tear Launchers overheated with their FC Tippia sitting at 0 with whineosural beacon lit. If goons cry, it must be something they cannot exploit, which means it's a good design.

what can i say, we're naturally attracted to snuff out entitlement and rank hypocrisy

No, you just see hisec as a big organised scawy-scawy enemy of yours, and crying in fear every time it stands to gain something. The pattern has been repeating itself for over a year already.

Want a sample?
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
This little comment is kind of eye opening. I mean, everyone knows the Devs like to cater to hisec players. But you really want to balance something so that people ganking it wont make any money?

If you really want to make it unprofitable, then don't let it drop anything. There.


Or take this example of propagoonda:
baltec1 wrote:
More like lazy bears. Its got a 420k tank plus a mwd just using t2 mods and t1 rigs which is more than enough. What these idiots want is a ship that they can overstuff with the most expensive hulls and face zero risk. Thats not going to happen. They keep on whining about how they will die to a 40 man fleet yet refuse to work with other incursion pilots to protect themselves.

What's quite obviously going on here, fear-posting and crying aside, is a futile attempt to confuse people with truth-like trap about zero risk. As it stands currently, Bowhead faces about twice the risk of a freighter hauling just hulls it is intended for, with no fittings at all. What it needs is about 100k EHP more to face risk equal to that of a freighter ganked for profit, and we may start talking about actually hauling fit battleships, provided it won't be ganked for grief, which isn't really counterable either.
You may argue that I took linear approach in EHP scaling vs gank profitability and it actually is not linear and increases at a steeper rate with EHP growth, so it needs less EHP buff than 100k I stated; that at least would be valid argument, though it won't change the fact it doesn't have enough survivability to share equal risk with that of a freighter while hauling just hulls. What you shouldn't do is crying in fear every time hisec gains anything, it's been nerfed enough already tbh, and the overwhelming advantage of a ganker playstyle to all others in all aspects that matter (risk, profitability, effort, investment) should be addressed some day.

By the way, Rise, what is this ship's packaged volume? As I see it now, the only way for it to pass uedama is not passing uedama, will it fit in a JF, or can it be double-wrapped? Using it as an incursion ship hauler seems dubious, using it as a mining support vessel hauling exhumers and providing a setup of anti-gank ships on grid seems more viable, but it would take one being delivered to an operation area, and that means passing those systems we all know as the lazy gankbear dens you can't avoid (all the entitlement talk should really never come from gankers who feel entitled to have those systems).

How is the cost of polarized weapons (aka yet another gank buff) going? How soon are we expected to see it on Taloses coming for us?


yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns...

This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on?

Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them.
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#722 - 2014-11-12 06:27:43 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying.

it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP.

"but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship.


you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. besides not flying a gank target, at which rate we might aswell not introduce the ship. if the target audience is incursion runners, yeah they are not gonna use it in the proposed form. the low ehp and slow travel (align/warpspeed) arent worth it over moving the ships solo. give it a bigger bay and more ehp so groups like red frog can use it to offer ship hauling services.

also what was the need for an entire new ship class? (besides a new skill that doesnt suit ore and a new model) we already have racial carriers, which you know were designed to err carry ships. and they can take gates now. just let them enter highsec while disallowing triage, figthers, drone controls and capital logistics. its not like other ships capable of highsec can not reach carrier level ehp.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#723 - 2014-11-12 06:36:30 UTC
Orchid Fury wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying.

it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP.

"but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship.


you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. besides not flying a gank target, at which rate we might aswell not introduce the ship. if the target audience is incursion runners, yeah they are not gonna use it in the proposed form. the low ehp and slow travel (align/warpspeed) arent worth it over moving the ships solo. give it a bigger bay and more ehp so groups like red frog can use it to offer ship hauling services.

also what was the need for an entire new ship class? (besides a new skill that doesnt suit ore and a new model) we already have racial carriers, which you know were designed to err carry ships. and they can take gates now. just let them enter highsec while disallowing triage, figthers, drone controls and capital logistics. its not like other ships capable of highsec can not reach carrier level ehp.


This ship is not aimed at incursion runners, its aimed at anyone who needs to move a small personal fleet from one deployment zone to another without destroying the rigs. The vast bulk of this demand is out in null space. Incursion runners using this ship are going to be a tiny minority.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#724 - 2014-11-12 06:37:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns...

This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on?

Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them.


Yeah let's pick one question out of the whole post and pick on it as if it's a statement. This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about.

You have little to no idea of what I know about ganking, you have even less idea of what math is it seems, since I have to explain to you that risk calculation is 50% of haul value divided by investment it takes to make it drop. If you can't go from that point yourself, it's you who's got no idea.

If the incursion group can move in convoy there is no need for the said ship.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#725 - 2014-11-12 06:49:42 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns...

This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on?

Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them.


Yeah let's pick one question out of the whole post and pick on it as if it's a statement. This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about.

You have little to no idea of what I know about ganking, you have even less idea of what math is it seems, since I have to explain to you that risk calculation is 50% of haul value divided by investment it takes to make it drop. If you can't go from that point yourself, it's you who's got no idea.

If the incursion group can move in convoy there is no need for the said ship.


We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank.

As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people.
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#726 - 2014-11-12 06:50:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Orchid Fury wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying.

it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP.

"but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship.


you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. besides not flying a gank target, at which rate we might aswell not introduce the ship. if the target audience is incursion runners, yeah they are not gonna use it in the proposed form. the low ehp and slow travel (align/warpspeed) arent worth it over moving the ships solo. give it a bigger bay and more ehp so groups like red frog can use it to offer ship hauling services.

also what was the need for an entire new ship class? (besides a new skill that doesnt suit ore and a new model) we already have racial carriers, which you know were designed to err carry ships. and they can take gates now. just let them enter highsec while disallowing triage, figthers, drone controls and capital logistics. its not like other ships capable of highsec can not reach carrier level ehp.


This ship is not aimed at incursion runners, its aimed at anyone who needs to move a small personal fleet from one deployment zone to another without destroying the rigs. The vast bulk of this demand is out in null space. Incursion runners using this ship are going to be a tiny minority.


yes with the fatigue reduction bonus i agree that it will be used in that meta. it leaves me puzzled tho if that is ccp's vision, given the initial anouncment.
Koniforous
Tauren Transit
#727 - 2014-11-12 06:51:27 UTC
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#728 - 2014-11-12 06:54:19 UTC
Orchid Fury wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Orchid Fury wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying.

it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP.

"but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship.


you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. besides not flying a gank target, at which rate we might aswell not introduce the ship. if the target audience is incursion runners, yeah they are not gonna use it in the proposed form. the low ehp and slow travel (align/warpspeed) arent worth it over moving the ships solo. give it a bigger bay and more ehp so groups like red frog can use it to offer ship hauling services.

also what was the need for an entire new ship class? (besides a new skill that doesnt suit ore and a new model) we already have racial carriers, which you know were designed to err carry ships. and they can take gates now. just let them enter highsec while disallowing triage, figthers, drone controls and capital logistics. its not like other ships capable of highsec can not reach carrier level ehp.


This ship is not aimed at incursion runners, its aimed at anyone who needs to move a small personal fleet from one deployment zone to another without destroying the rigs. The vast bulk of this demand is out in null space. Incursion runners using this ship are going to be a tiny minority.


yes with the fatigue reduction bonus i agree that it will be used in that meta. it leaves me puzzled tho if that is ccp's vision, given the initial anouncment.


That highsec comment was a mistake that has lead to a number of incursion runners and professional bears thinking this ship is aimed at only them. personally I would remove it as its only causing problems such as this neverending whine on grr gankers.
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#729 - 2014-11-12 06:55:33 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns...

This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on?

Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them.


Yeah let's pick one question out of the whole post and pick on it as if it's a statement. This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about.

You have little to no idea of what I know about ganking, you have even less idea of what math is it seems, since I have to explain to you that risk calculation is 50% of haul value divided by investment it takes to make it drop. If you can't go from that point yourself, it's you who's got no idea.

If the incursion group can move in convoy there is no need for the said ship.


i bow down to the king of maths and highsec ganking.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#730 - 2014-11-12 07:26:50 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:

Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta.


There are different ships in an HQ incursion fleet. Depending on whom you fly with there will be snipers, dps, logi, and the drone bunny. Yes some of them will be pirate hulls (nightmare, mach, vindi) but you can also see the occasional hyperion, rokh, TFI. etc. Unless you are talking multiboxers you are very apt to see a mix of ships and styles and if you wan the best chance of being called up you will have an assortment handy so you can step into any role.

So you bring a couple of BS's and maybe a cruiser or two.

This is why I asked for this ship and why I am trying to follow this thread (aside from the debate societies additions)

So . . . the basic stats. Is it big enough? Does it fullfill the stated role? Is the tank sufficient?

I am NOT asking if it shoudl have jumpdrive, doomsday, hammer4 fittings.

Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'.

m


People are asking for crazy stuff because it is 'meh' as it is now, a 1.6m m3 freighter.

According to my finger math, with 2x fitted bs, T3 and a T2 logi, you will very likely be past the treshold of profitability.

But maybe it is exactly that what you have wanted, dunno, i do not see it as the highsec equivalent of a suitcase carrier, and not because of the inability to jump.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#731 - 2014-11-12 07:32:31 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:





Rise, don't release any pics of this thing, the only pic that needs to be released is a pic of the wreck it will leave.





Don't go and ruin the surprise

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#732 - 2014-11-12 07:34:16 UTC
Dreiden Kisada wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, we're talking about it here and think there's probably no good reason not to raise the HP some. Where do you guys think it needs to be to make say, three t2 fit BS, inefficient to gank?

And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me.


This little comment is kind of eye opening. I mean, everyone knows the Devs like to cater to hisec players. But you really want to balance something so that people ganking it wont make any money?

If you really want to make it unprofitable, then don't let it drop anything. There.



Wanna hear a cool story ship maint bays as of now don't drop anything....

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Orchid Fury
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#733 - 2014-11-12 07:38:49 UTC
Candente wrote:
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.


they said they wont and it will be "fixed" later, which kinda makes no sense. might aswell spend the time now as it isn't even in game yet.
the same goes for ship hauling contracts that would fit in the bay tbh.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#734 - 2014-11-12 07:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Anonymous Forumposter
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Wanna hear a cool story ship maint bays as of now don't drop anything....


I've got a better story.

CCP Rise wrote:
Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters.

It will use capital rigs.

I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not.

I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you.


Reading is hard yo.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#735 - 2014-11-12 07:49:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank.

Good girl! Now invent some math.
Hint: there is a difference between "actually not profitable" and "less than 1 billion per hour, meh, not profitable", which you intentionally avoid.

baltec1 wrote:
As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people.

You need more escort than ships you can stuff inside this whale, thus there is no point in using it, period. Training into travel fits doesn't take much nowadays - you don't need all those gunnery skills to fly it from A to B, so if you have people to escort, you have people to actually fly them, and since escort+bowhead is at least equal to 3 bs flying by themselves, there is no point in Bowhead, unless it can offer something flying 3 bs doesn't, like less gank vulnerability, faster travel, or anything else to make it stand out.

What's risk free here is ganking it: if you have sufficient force, you win, if you don't, you don't gank.

Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option. As it stands now, flying bs themselves is less risk, hauling them in freighters is less risk - which basically means that at current values the Bowhead is the most risk option, since it's risk free to gank it. I'd even say it's a suicide option at current values.

It should stand out to be used or it might as well not exist. With a risk-free gank on it, no advantages in speed, and requiring more escort than it hauls there is just nothing in it which is useful outside of blue donut.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#736 - 2014-11-12 07:52:52 UTC
Sounds like I'm one of the very few who are actually looking forward to using one of these things. The change on the bonuses is a nice one, velocity bonuses on a large ship like this feel too weak to be of use.

Strangely, if you look into the past with the forums, people have practically begged on their knees for this exact ship for years...now, everyone seems to be pissed or sad-panda to see it finally arrive.

You people worry me sometimes.Sad

"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."
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#737 - 2014-11-12 07:58:15 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Sounds like I'm one of the very few who are actually looking forward to using one of these things. The change on the bonuses is a nice one, velocity bonuses on a large ship like this feel too weak to be of use.

Strangely, if you look into the past with the forums, people have practically begged on their knees for this exact ship for years...now, everyone seems to be pissed or sad-panda to see it finally arrive.

You people worry me sometimes.Sad


They're sad panda because they're not convinced this solution delivers the solution they actually wanted.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#738 - 2014-11-12 08:01:11 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:


People are asking for crazy stuff because it is 'meh' as it is now, a 1.6m m3 freighter.

According to my finger math, with 2x fitted bs, T3 and a T2 logi, you will very likely be past the treshold of profitability.

But maybe it is exactly that what you have wanted, dunno, i do not see it as the highsec equivalent of a suitcase carrier, and not because of the inability to jump.


I want it to be the decision of the owner of the Bowhead. Overload it and take a chance of gank or fit sensibly and be a lot safer. You should have the option of fitting/filling badly and paying the price for greed.

Yeah, I am a carebear . . .

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#739 - 2014-11-12 08:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Anonymous Forumposter
Mike Azariah wrote:
I want it to be the decision of the owner of the Bowhead. Overload it and take a chance of gank or fit sensibly and be a lot safer. You should have the option of fitting/filling badly and paying the price for greed.

Yeah, I am a carebear . . .

m


I haven't really seen people argue against this mentality. The unfortunate reality with it's current limitation on capacity is that it's near impossible for it to make sense for what's it's been promoted as being intended for. There is a real desire for a means to move 2 Faction BS's + 1 or 2 logi + misc without being a glorious loot pinata for little to no risk or loss . The problem lies in the tiny room for balance on the scale of maxing out at 3 BS's. Providing more room for people to overstuff would ease the balance of opportunity to stuff beyond reasonable levels while still offering reasonable protection for it's desired niche, however, it also exacerbates the force projection factor.

It's a very tight squeeze to make this ship practical on all fronts. SOMEONE is going to be disappointed with the end result, It would just make more sense for it to not be the intended pilots. Otherwise the time and energy of everyone that worked on making it happen becomes devalued.

I feel there is a strong need to seriously evaluate the practicality of removing the jump fatigue bonus as it doesn't provide any benefit for its proposed purpose (High sec) and opens up a large opportunity to circumvent the efforts of the jump fatigue changes. Unless this is an intended and planned use of the ship that is.

I propose people debate on the premise of adding more cost, SMB capacity, more tank and removing the jump fatigue. If the target audience is incursion runners, a 2bil isk ship to move everything they own safely in one trip is pocket change. For specialized pilots focusing on moving fitted and rigged ships, it's a small investment yet again. Especially if players were no longer provided the ability to plastic wrap rigged ships into freighters.

The larger cost will help justify the capacity and defenses while also providing more opportunity for people to be greedy and overstuff. I also feel like treating this as a neutered carrier or rorqual makes more sense than treating it as a niche freighter.
Dave Stark
#740 - 2014-11-12 08:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Mike Azariah wrote:
I want it to be the decision of the owner of the Bowhead. Overload it and take a chance of gank or fit sensibly and be a lot safer. You should have the option of fitting/filling badly and paying the price for greed.

Yeah, I am a carebear . . .

m


it'll fall on deaf ears, mike.

it's crap unless it's a gank proof hauler that can move trillions with 0 risk.


Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
I haven't really seen people argue against this mentality.

so, you haven't read half of the posts in the thread?