These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#801 - 2014-11-12 12:12:03 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

Incursions are meant to be run in pirate faction ships. Using T1 hulls renders you unable to win contests and means your rewards are far inferior to blitzing L4s. To the extent this ship was meant to help incursion runners, the relevant metrics involve putting pirate hulls inside.

Edit - meant to as in because of the competitive nature of them in highsec, T1 battleships put you at a hopeless disadvantage and are no the proper doctrine.

no, this is what you think incursions demand, not what they actually demand



I have to agree here, as an incursion FC (not on this toon obviously) I can tell you that a T1 battleship can be used and has been used multiple times by many players.
thinking that you must have the best bling to win is not accurate.

does it help in some respects to fly blingy ships?, sure it does, I won't sit here and tell you it doesn't, but it is most definitely NOT required to succeed or to win against the competitiveness of other groups.

we used to run VGs with 10 man fleets in 5 to 6 minutes each, most of our ships were T1 ships with the occasional T3 pilot, we ran assaults, HQs, and even the mom site with the same ships, just different fits for each site and the proper amount of logistics on the field.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#802 - 2014-11-12 12:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
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.


What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves.

CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#803 - 2014-11-12 12:28:56 UTC
baltec1 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.


What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves.

CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea.

I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.

Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.

Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#804 - 2014-11-12 12:31:19 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:

Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option.



Actually, yes it should be more risky. It should be more convenient, and the price for that is more risk.

As it currently stands, it is over-tanked and under-sized. One side of the equation claims they wont use it, the other side claims they wont gank it.

Clearly it is pointless in current form - CCP Rise, you're not there yet....

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Dave Stark
#805 - 2014-11-12 12:34:22 UTC
Zappity wrote:
baltec1 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.


What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves.

CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea.

I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.

Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.

Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.


you'd have a point if code started ganking everything before the nerfs, not in response to them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#806 - 2014-11-12 12:37:46 UTC
Zappity wrote:
baltec1 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.


What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves.

CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea.

I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.

Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.

Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.


What other option do they have?
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#807 - 2014-11-12 12:48:03 UTC
Zappity wrote:
But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.

Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.

Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.


Responsible transport behaviour includes webbing your space truck into warp. Short of being incredibly unlucky, you're not going to get bumped or ganked.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Dradis Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#808 - 2014-11-12 13:14:11 UTC
Mm mm the tears on this thread make me happy.

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three
Dave Stark
#809 - 2014-11-12 13:19:58 UTC
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
Mm mm the tears on this thread make me happy.


in. not on.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#810 - 2014-11-12 13:30:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.
The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account.


How?
You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot.
You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits.

Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it.
There is literally nothing he can do.
Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something.
Dave Stark
#811 - 2014-11-12 13:38:05 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.
The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account.


How?
You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot.
You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits.

Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it.
There is literally nothing he can do.
Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something.


know how the ganker brought his friends?
well so can the bowhead pilot.

we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#812 - 2014-11-12 13:41:23 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Suicide Smith wrote:
I've got it!

A Solution to make everyone unhappy.

Cut the EHP of the ship.. AND remove all 0.5 bottleneck systems in Highsec. Either by adding some additional gates to go around them, or changing them to say 0.7 systems..

There, now you get the easier kill, and we get to not be required to go through the most vulnerable systems in Highsec to move about. And now you actually have to hunt your prey, rather than just sit in a system where you know they have to go through just to move from A to B.

These routes already exist

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Amarr:Jita:-Niarja
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Dodixie:Jita:-Uedama

e: hahaha okay nevermind these go through each other as a result


There is no way of going from Amarr to Jita avoiding Niarja and Uedama unless you go via low sec.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Amarr:Jita:-Niarja:-Uedama

S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#813 - 2014-11-12 13:56:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:



Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things.


Incursion runners don't really use rattles. Standard runner using this would have mach + vindi + nightmare....not very cheap hulls.

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


In HQs at least, you go in with about 40 people.
An incursion fleet needs 8 to 10 logistics about 15 to 20 vindis and about 10 to 15 snipers.

You don;t always have the perfect number of ships in each category.
Sometimes you need more snipers and sometimes more DPS.
Sometimes you have too many Scimis and you need a Basilisk ... or the other way around.

Many incursion runners can fly all the needed ships so, if the FC needs more vindis and it's late and you can't find people to invite, some guy in the fleet will reship ... if he has the hull.

Usually the logistics guys have it easy. An orca can fit enough hulls, drones, ammo, etc :)
With DPS/Snipers, unless you have 2 characters it's complicated.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#814 - 2014-11-12 14:00:09 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:

An incursion fleet needs about 15 to 20 vindis

ahahahaha
Dave Stark
#815 - 2014-11-12 14:00:45 UTC
you can somewhat predict what's is and isn't going to be in demand, mind you. that's why i've flown my nightmare more recently than my machariel.

i love the mach but the NM just gets invites so much easier than the mach does.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#816 - 2014-11-12 14:24:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.
The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account.


How?
You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot.
You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits.

Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it.
There is literally nothing he can do.
Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something.


know how the ganker brought his friends?
well so can the bowhead pilot.

we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long.



Its the clash of lone wolf versus the ccp drive for team play built into the game. Latter is odd I know, a MMO that says why not try playing with others a bit. Don't know wtf ccp was thinking there....Roll

Ship not even in game to be proven a failure the funny thing. Me...I see some entrepreneurs running these with logi support I mentioned way back in a tangential way. Will you pay a few isk more for this? I will say yes. Collateral it, you get paid if lost. Not lost...a few bs moved just like that in one contract. Latter alone very appealing. I know I have had fun helping friends move and going umm....break your contract dude and try again. I said charon at freighter 4....... (this was old scheme pre frieghter mod change, my m3 limits were very cut and dry).


I see them making this work. Will the independent 1 man shows have an issue? Sure, they do now. Since they want eve to cater to lone wolf tendencies. Several guys with a plan versus 1 lone wold blind jumping gates since....what is the worst than can heppen?
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#817 - 2014-11-12 14:32:50 UTC
Love the edited numbers Rise. Now it's worth it.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#818 - 2014-11-12 16:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Zan Shiro wrote:



Its the clash of lone wolf versus the ccp drive for team play built into the game. Latter is odd I know, a MMO that says why not try playing with others a bit. Don't know wtf ccp was thinking there....Roll

Ship not even in game to be proven a failure the funny thing. Me...I see some entrepreneurs running these with logi support I mentioned way back in a tangential way. Will you pay a few isk more for this? I will say yes. Collateral it, you get paid if lost. Not lost...a few bs moved just like that in one contract. Latter alone very appealing. I know I have had fun helping friends move and going umm....break your contract dude and try again. I said charon at freighter 4....... (this was old scheme pre frieghter mod change, my m3 limits were very cut and dry).


I see them making this work. Will the independent 1 man shows have an issue? Sure, they do now. Since they want eve to cater to lone wolf tendencies. Several guys with a plan versus 1 lone wold blind jumping gates since....what is the worst than can heppen?


Given the current awoxxing/wardecc/theft mechanics the rational play in highsec is to stay in npc/1-man corp. Demanding that people "get friends" or "work together" ignores the reality that the mechanics encourage avoiding joining a corporation. CCP is accepting that a lot of people don't want to "work together" but just want an easier way for transporting ships through highsec rather than individually moving cloak + mwd + travel fit battleships with near 100% safety. To the extent that the bowhead has significantly more risk than that when used solo, it is unlikely to be a worthwhile ship.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#819 - 2014-11-12 16:20:43 UTC
I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well.
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#820 - 2014-11-12 16:25:06 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well.


I'm assuming you mean packaged?