These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#781 - 2014-11-12 11:09:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve ....


sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another.
just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling.

sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay.


Why won't we such ships maintain a 150 K ehp or higher
....+ clone jumpings for moving isn't really a bother for most pilots for only 1 slots change aka PDS or RC 2 and only for the most extreme of them assuming full skill full genolutions clone ...


so 150k ehp is fine? good, that mean the bowhead's 400k+ ehp is more than acceptable.

i was more pointing out that you've then got no skill hardwirings or pirate implants. etc.




The more you post, the more convinced I become that you're not very attuned to what incursion communities are actually like.
Dave stark
#782 - 2014-11-12 11:11:20 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve ....


sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another.
just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling.

sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay.


Why won't we such ships maintain a 150 K ehp or higher
....+ clone jumpings for moving isn't really a bother for most pilots for only 1 slots change aka PDS or RC 2 and only for the most extreme of them assuming full skill full genolutions clone ...


so 150k ehp is fine? good, that mean the bowhead's 400k+ ehp is more than acceptable.

i was more pointing out that you've then got no skill hardwirings or pirate implants. etc.




The more you post, the more convinced I become that you're not very attuned to what incursion communities are actually like.


really? cos that's how i make most of my isk on this character.
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#783 - 2014-11-12 11:13:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Nya Kittenheart
baltec1 wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
Quote:
In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven.

Another nice tentative to troll and to make the thread derail ....6 trips are indeed faster at 5 au/s or more than 2 trip at 1.37s do the math i'm pretty sure such a veteran as yourself as heard about warpspeed change and their effect on accelerations ....


Assuming you are moving 30 jumps to a new spot then we get the sum of 90 jumps for the bowhead fleet vs 390 for manually piloting all the ships. Yes, the bowhead fleet is faster even without using any warp speed tools. On top of the faster speed of the operation you also have the fact that the bowhead fleet is effectivly unkillable thanks to having 200k more ehp than the battleships they carry and if you have a full incursion group moving you will have at least 10 logi in support.


Assuming someone would add to the lose of a bow head the cost of full highgrade ascendancy clone the best warspeed reachable is to 2.2 au/s consult this chart for such numbers warspeed chart
its simply much faster to move ships by ships and burn back in extremely fast shuttle ... than to do your endless 90 jumps.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#784 - 2014-11-12 11:19:09 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
Quote:
In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven.

Another nice tentative to troll and to make the thread derail ....6 trips are indeed faster at 5 au/s or more than 2 trip at 1.37s do the math i'm pretty sure such a veteran as yourself as heard about warpspeed change and their effect on accelerations ....


Assuming you are moving 30 jumps to a new spot then we get the sum of 90 jumps for the bowhead fleet vs 390 for manually piloting all the ships. Yes, the bowhead fleet is faster even without using any warp speed tools. On top of the faster speed of the operation you also have the fact that the bowhead fleet is effectivly unkillable thanks to having 200k more ehp than the battleships they carry and if you have a full incursion group moving you will have at least 10 logi in support.


Assuming someone would add to the lose of a bow head the cost of full highgrade ascendancy clone the best warspeed reachable is to 2.2 au/s consult this chart for such numbers warspeed chart
its simply much faster to move ships by ships and burn back in extremely fast shuttle ... than to do your endless 90 jumps.


Im the last person you should be trying to lecture on the use of warp speed tools. 390 jumps vs 90. Even at base warp speed the bowheads will be faster and in a convoy they sport a defence that cannot be broken by gankers.
Ben Ishikela
#785 - 2014-11-12 11:20:20 UTC
Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean.
There might be the possiblility to:
1. package the carrier.
2. put into bowhead.
3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge
3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux)
4. assemble the carrier and fit it.
5. undock and jump to engagement.

Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc)
- remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead.
- add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue
- let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk)
- add 24h Twisted (or lessRoll) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]

i like that ship.
+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#786 - 2014-11-12 11:21:52 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean.
There might be the possiblility to:
1. package the carrier.
2. put into bowhead.
3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge
3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux)
4. assemble the carrier and fit it.
5. undock and jump to engagement.

Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc)
- remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead.
- add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue
- let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk)
- add 24h Twisted (or lessRoll) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]

i like that ship.
+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)


Packaged ships can't be put into Ship Maintenance Bay's.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#787 - 2014-11-12 11:22:34 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean.
There might be the possiblility to:
1. package the carrier.
2. put into bowhead.
3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge
3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux)
4. assemble the carrier and fit it.
5. undock and jump to engagement.

Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc)
- remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead.
- add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue
- let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk)
- add 24h Twisted (or lessRoll) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]

i like that ship.
+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)


It cant carry packaged shipsBlink
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#788 - 2014-11-12 11:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nya Kittenheart
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2340+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#789 - 2014-11-12 11:42:11 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.


You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. Suprise suprise this works out as around 1800-1900 s. So like I said, they are faster.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#790 - 2014-11-12 11:48:32 UTC
Warr Akini wrote:
The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here...
"hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."

What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#791 - 2014-11-12 11:50:49 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here...
"hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."

What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.


Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code.
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#792 - 2014-11-12 11:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nya Kittenheart
baltec1 wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.


You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads.

yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once.
You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster for the average 3 BS +logi +CS + scout ,In his present version
So this ships need a bigger SMA + more warpspeed and EHP ...
Dave stark
#793 - 2014-11-12 11:56:05 UTC
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.


You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads.

yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once.
You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster.


actually, it fits 3 vindicators or nightmares with your skills at IV, maybe even III (too lazy to check, besides IV shouldn't be that long of a train anyway).
it won't fit 3 machariels at V anyway but, why are you carrying 3 of the same ship to begin with, if we're talking specifically about incursions?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#794 - 2014-11-12 11:56:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here...
"hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."

What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.


Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code.

I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#795 - 2014-11-12 11:57:51 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.


You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads.

yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once.
You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster.


I just showed you that they are faster. Look at those numbers again, the bowhead fleet is a good deal faster per run than manually piloting the ships.

I assumed that you made an honest mistake and I give you this chance to say as such. Dont try to bullshit your way out of this mistake.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#796 - 2014-11-12 12:00:11 UTC
Zappity wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here...
"hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."

What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.


Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code.

I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid.


Code are ganking randomly because of the nerfs to ganking. Nerfing it more will just reduce the activity as a viable way to make isk and make more people just gank randomly in protest.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#797 - 2014-11-12 12:05:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Warr Akini wrote:
The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here...
"hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."

What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.


Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code.

I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid.


Code are ganking randomly because of the nerfs to ganking. Nerfing it more will just reduce the activity as a viable way to make isk and make more people just gank randomly in protest.

And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?

It is silly and shortsighted.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#798 - 2014-11-12 12:07:03 UTC
Zappity wrote:
And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?

It is silly and shortsighted.


I don't think any argued that CODE we're particularly inspired in their methods. ;)
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#799 - 2014-11-12 12:09:48 UTC
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:
Zappity wrote:
And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?

It is silly and shortsighted.


I don't think any argued that CODE we're particularly inspired in their methods. ;)

Yes. Good point. :)

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Dave stark
#800 - 2014-11-12 12:10:00 UTC
Zappity wrote:

And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?

It is silly and shortsighted.


to be fair, if people don't want empty freighters getting ganked because of a blacklash from a subset of players due to changes that come about from the whining about freighter ganking... perhaps freighter pilots should have just stopped overstuffing their cargo rather than whining on the forums, cos how's that working out for them now 'more' freighters are being ganked so 'easily'?

but that's rhetoric, as this isn't the place for such a discussion.