These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1181 - 2014-11-14 19:48:24 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention.


Roll

Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec.


Thats because nobody but you would fit them in such a manner.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1182 - 2014-11-14 19:49:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:

Then just add 2 more nandos for the 120k difference in EHP
If 6 are enough for 300k then 9 should be enough for 420k

With hulls dropping from bowhead and a rigged, empty, pirate BS hull going for about 750mil (more for a vindi), if 2 hulls drop, ignoring mods and who knows what else is in there, you are isk positive :P


If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible.



Roll

It's real tough to uncloak at the gate and miss the 6 tornados. Fact remains - for all the rhetoric - TRAVEL FIT BATTLESHIPS ARE NOT GETTING SUICIDE GANKED. But freighters, haulers, JFs, etc.... most certainly are. Not to mention that the vast majority of coordinated ganking is by Catalysts, Thrashers, and Taloses, not Tornados.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1183 - 2014-11-14 19:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
Valterra Craven wrote:

So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on.


I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue.

Valterra Craven wrote:

Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use?

The proof is in the pudding. Before the changes to barge / exhumer EHP, I could take down multiple exhumers using a smartbombing battleship. Observe a few of the kills I scored via suicide gank during the first Gallente Ice Interdiction: https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=590210&m=10&y=2011

(note that the pilot in question has been sold and no longer belongs to me; check the corp history and you'll find that in the dates in question, the pilot was indeed a member of goonswarm federation)

After CCP made the barge EHP changes, it's impossible to do this. Eight smartbombs are not enough to take down even the most lightly tanked exhumer. The changes directly increased the resiliency of the ships against suicide ganking, and made the ganker exert more effort and more funds into taking down single targets.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1184 - 2014-11-14 19:49:38 UTC
Heathkit wrote:
I think the real problem is ganking, as it currently is, is just bad gameplay. There needs to be some response to getting ganked other than "carry less stuff". Something more active and preferably combat oriented.

For example, if bumping near gates flagged you as a suspect, that would give the victim a chance to pull in a defense fleet and respond. Of course, I think that's actually a heavy handed solution and would have other bad consequences. But it would be nice if hi-sec ganking stayed about the way it is, but with crimewatch adjusted so victims get a chance to actively defend themselves.

Though, I suppose if you had friends willing to defend your freighter, they could gank the bumpers the way things are today, and I haven't heard of anyone doing that.

Or maybe something like a rig that blocks cargo scanners, but halves your EHP.


Gank ships are ironically profitable to gank.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1185 - 2014-11-14 19:51:18 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention.


Roll

Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec.


Thats because nobody but you would fit them in such a manner.


Kinda funny. Despite the gankers as you put it "scanning all the machs" or whatever....they seem to have decided that it's too hard to blow up travel fit battleships and decided to focus on freighters instead. Opinions don't really matter - facts on the ground do.

Having actually talked to the gankers - the overwhelming consensus is that a travel fit battleship has too much ehp to gank cost effectively, not to mention the massive effort involved. There is a reason they hit freighters, haulers, and autopiloted non-travel fit ships...and ignore properly travel fit battleships.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1186 - 2014-11-14 19:57:53 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:

Then just add 2 more nandos for the 120k difference in EHP
If 6 are enough for 300k then 9 should be enough for 420k

With hulls dropping from bowhead and a rigged, empty, pirate BS hull going for about 750mil (more for a vindi), if 2 hulls drop, ignoring mods and who knows what else is in there, you are isk positive :P


If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible.



Roll

It's real tough to uncloak at the gate and miss the 6 tornados. Fact remains - for all the rhetoric - TRAVEL FIT BATTLESHIPS ARE NOT GETTING SUICIDE GANKED. But freighters, haulers, JFs, etc.... most certainly are. Not to mention that the vast majority of coordinated ganking is by Catalysts, Thrashers, and Taloses, not Tornados.


Your fit is not a travel fit, its just terrible. As far as missing the gank nados goes, how does any gank target miss the people waiting for them?
Valterra Craven
#1187 - 2014-11-14 20:05:00 UTC
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on.


I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue.


Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices.

Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use?

The proof is in the pudding. Before the changes to barge / exhumer EHP, I could take down multiple exhumers using a smartbombing battleship. Observe a few of the kills I scored via suicide gank during the first Gallente Ice Interdiction: https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=590210&m=10&y=2011

(note that the pilot in question has been sold and no longer belongs to me; check the corp history and you'll find that in the dates in question, the pilot was indeed a member of goonswarm federation)

After CCP made the barge EHP changes, it's impossible to do this. Eight smartbombs are not enough to take down even the most lightly tanked exhumer. The changes directly increased the resiliency of the ships against suicide ganking, and made the ganker exert more effort and more funds into taking down single targets.


So you are arguing that the only effective deterrent to ganking is and always will be to add HP to ships then? And thereby saying by extension that all of the other arguments that people are making about crime watch are indeed irrelevant to ganking?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1188 - 2014-11-14 20:11:27 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


So you are arguing that the only effective deterrent to ganking is and always will be to add HP to ships then? And thereby saying by extension that all of the other arguments that people are making about crime watch are indeed irrelevant to ganking?


No he isn't. Dont put words he didn't say in his mouth. That is just one example.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1189 - 2014-11-14 20:12:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
S'No Flake wrote:

Then just add 2 more nandos for the 120k difference in EHP
If 6 are enough for 300k then 9 should be enough for 420k

With hulls dropping from bowhead and a rigged, empty, pirate BS hull going for about 750mil (more for a vindi), if 2 hulls drop, ignoring mods and who knows what else is in there, you are isk positive :P


If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible.



Roll

It's real tough to uncloak at the gate and miss the 6 tornados. Fact remains - for all the rhetoric - TRAVEL FIT BATTLESHIPS ARE NOT GETTING SUICIDE GANKED. But freighters, haulers, JFs, etc.... most certainly are. Not to mention that the vast majority of coordinated ganking is by Catalysts, Thrashers, and Taloses, not Tornados.


Your fit is not a travel fit, its just terrible. As far as missing the gank nados goes, how does any gank target miss the people waiting for them?


Not sure what you are trying to say. That you think my fit is "terrible" shows that you just don't understand the game. Not sure you really belong in highsec.

I only use it when...ehrmm....travelling...so undock....warp to gate, warp to next gate...etc....dock.

Only real place to get hit is on a gate, when its pretty easy to see a whole bunch of nados staring at you....so you cloak + MWD...if you are competent that never fails...if it does....then you overheat all racks and turn on mods.

This ain't complicated. The good gankers get it...and that's why they focus on bulky industrials that can be bumped off gates, pinned down, and hit by waves of gankers. Not on travel fit battleships.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1190 - 2014-11-14 20:18:43 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on.


I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue.


Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations.


Whoa, hold on there... this sounds like a place where some actual proof is needed. Please come back with a statistical analysis of good vs. bad posting by Goonswarm members over the past ... oh... decade or so, and then you can start casting aspersions and somehow tie this back into the Bowhead discussion.

Off you go!

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1191 - 2014-11-14 20:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Veers Belvar wrote:


Not sure what you are trying to say. That you think my fit is "terrible" shows that you just don't understand the game. Not sure you really belong in highsec.

I only use it when...ehrmm....travelling...so undock....warp to gate, warp to next gate...etc....dock.

Only real place to get hit is on a gate, when its pretty easy to see a whole bunch of nados staring at you....so you cloak + MWD...if you are competent that never fails...if it does....then you overheat all racks and turn on mods.

This ain't complicated. The good gankers get it...and that's why they focus on bulky industrials that can be bumped off gates, pinned down, and hit by waves of gankers. Not on travel fit battleships.


Nobody fits a ship like that, thats why you dont see it.

Lets take a walk down this ALOD in the making to see where you went wrong.

First thing we see is the pith as. Why? you want this ship to not be ganked so you fit two 300 mil mods? Thats bad.

Next up we have the Gist MWD. Why is that there? A t1 Prototype MWD does the exact same job but doesnt cost 290 mil a pop.

Next up are the faction 1600s. Your goal on this abomination is more tank, so why did you fit two plates that offer 1200 less armour HP than t2 plates yet cost 37 mil a pop?

We then have 4 armour hardeners. Seems ok right? Wrong. You want to be fast on a gate, so where are the nanos to get you into warp faster? You didnt even bother with an inertia stab.

Speaking of align times, those plates you put on? They slow down align time, exposing you for longer to those nasty gankers.

So we wind up with a travel fit mach that is worse than just keeping the t2/faction/complex fit used in missions that is not profitable to gank in the first place.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1192 - 2014-11-14 20:23:19 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices.

This still counts as character assassination. My affiliations have nothing to do with my forums posting, and I have graciously extended this consideration to others. Building a frame of reference about how the majority of my affiliates argue has nothing to do with how *I* argue and trying to use that as the fulcrum to demand an above-and-beyond level of busywork is asinine.
Valterra Craven wrote:

So you are arguing that the only effective deterrent to ganking is and always will be to add HP to ships then? And thereby saying by extension that all of the other arguments that people are making about crime watch are indeed irrelevant to ganking?

Holy Jump To Conclusions, Batman.

Uh, no. That is not remotely what I said.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1193 - 2014-11-14 20:26:09 UTC
Any danger if getting back on topic instead of waaaaaaaaaa gankers?
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1194 - 2014-11-14 20:26:46 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:

Not sure what you are trying to say. That you think my fit is "terrible" shows that you just don't understand the game. Not sure you really belong in highsec.

I only use it when...ehrmm....travelling...so undock....warp to gate, warp to next gate...etc....dock.


Faction and Deadspace fittings are things more likely to make you a gank target, not less. Thus, it is a terrible travel fit.

Mods that align you quickly will synergize with your MWD Cloak trick. 1600 plates work against that. Thus, its a terrible travel fit.

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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1195 - 2014-11-14 20:28:24 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Any danger if getting back on topic instead of waaaaaaaaaa gankers?


I consulted my 8 ball.

Outlook not good.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1196 - 2014-11-14 20:28:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Nobody fits a ship like that, thats why you dont see it.

Lets take a walk down this ALOD in the making to see where you went wrong.

First thing we see is the pith as. Why? you want this ship to not be ganked so you fit two 300 mil mods? Thats bad.

Next up we have the Gist MWD. Why is that there? A t1 Prototype MWD does the exact same job but doesnt cost 290 mil a pop.

Next up are the faction 1600s. Your goal on this abomination is more tank, so why did you fit two plates that offer 1200 less armour HP than t2 plates yet cost 37 mil a pop?

We then have 4 armour hardeners. Seems ok right? Wrong. You want to be fast on a gate, so where are the nanos to get you into warp faster? You didnt even bother with an inertia stab.

So we wind up with a travel fit mach that is worse than just keeping the t2/faction/complex fit used in missions that is not profitable to gank in the first place.


Again demonstrating that you don't get it.

The fit uses incursion equipment, the whole point being that you don't need to make multiple trips. You can just slap on the mods and travel in a single trip. That's why the bowhead isn't adding that much.

Pith A's are a bil a piece, FYI, not 300 mil. No need to be fast on gate with cloak + mwd trick...and if it fails you are gonna get pointed anyway.

And profit isn't the right metric...the gankers are happy to gank empty ships for tears. The best deterrent is brick tank + cloak + mwd = too much effort and no gank.

The proof? Travel fit battleships, except the fools on autopilot, don't get ganked.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1197 - 2014-11-14 20:30:27 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

Not sure what you are trying to say. That you think my fit is "terrible" shows that you just don't understand the game. Not sure you really belong in highsec.

I only use it when...ehrmm....travelling...so undock....warp to gate, warp to next gate...etc....dock.


Faction and Deadspace fittings are things more likely to make you a gank target, not less. Thus, it is a terrible travel fit.

Mods that align you quickly will synergize with your MWD Cloak trick. 1600 plates work against that. Thus, its a terrible travel fit.



Wrong...if cloak + mwd fails...you are getting pointed...fast align won't help....but a brick tank, which may make it impossible for the gankers to gank you with their numbers on hand (they don't often have 20 nados handy) will. And the point is to fit with your incursion equipment to obviate the need for multiple trips.
Valterra Craven
#1198 - 2014-11-14 20:32:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box.


So, if as you state it was a disaster, why didn't they revert it in their second pass?

baltec1 wrote:

Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer.


Well I haven't seen CCP state this nor have I experienced this safety myself having lost a number of ships after these changes. This here fit being one of them:

2013

System: Raussinen
Security: 0.5

[Mackinaw, Mackinaw]
Damage Control II
Reactor Control Unit II
Power Diagnostic System II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction

Modulated Strip Miner II
Modulated Strip Miner II

My point is that these indiscriminate ganks still occur and they still occur regularly enough that in my opinion they are still a problem and no amount of HP adjustments are going to fix it. Was it profitable for the ganker? No. (There were 12 cats involved in this particular kill) But it happened anyway, and so will other events that currently happen regularly that do exactly this.

baltec1 wrote:

Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago.


No its not. You've said yourself that the numbers of freighters that have died to ganks in the past two years has remained constant. These ships didn't get the HP buff that the barges did. So given that your timeframe includes the crimewatch changes, then one can conclude that the changes CCP has made over the years have not affected the ganking of all ships equally.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1199 - 2014-11-14 20:33:38 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Nobody fits a ship like that, thats why you dont see it.

Lets take a walk down this ALOD in the making to see where you went wrong.

First thing we see is the pith as. Why? you want this ship to not be ganked so you fit two 300 mil mods? Thats bad.

Next up we have the Gist MWD. Why is that there? A t1 Prototype MWD does the exact same job but doesnt cost 290 mil a pop.

Next up are the faction 1600s. Your goal on this abomination is more tank, so why did you fit two plates that offer 1200 less armour HP than t2 plates yet cost 37 mil a pop?

We then have 4 armour hardeners. Seems ok right? Wrong. You want to be fast on a gate, so where are the nanos to get you into warp faster? You didnt even bother with an inertia stab.

So we wind up with a travel fit mach that is worse than just keeping the t2/faction/complex fit used in missions that is not profitable to gank in the first place.


Again demonstrating that you don't get it.

The fit uses incursion equipment, the whole point being that you don't need to make multiple trips. You can just slap on the mods and travel in a single trip. That's why the bowhead isn't adding that much.

Pith A's are a bil a piece, FYI, not 300 mil. No need to be fast on gate with cloak + mwd trick...and if it fails you are gonna get pointed anyway.

And profit isn't the right metric...the gankers are happy to gank empty ships for tears. The best deterrent is brick tank + cloak + mwd = too much effort and no gank.

The proof? Travel fit battleships, except the fools on autopilot, don't get ganked.



Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types...

Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#1200 - 2014-11-14 20:35:44 UTC
21K shield with 96% resists and all of a sudden it's not so pretty to gankers. I don't see resist potential in the OP description though.