These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1321 - 2014-11-16 18:15:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

It should be, comparative to the 3 (probably T2 or faction) battleships that are it's cargo, easier to gank. And it should be easier to kill because if offers the immense time saving benefit of flying all of them simultaneously.

That should cost you something. And since it's really unfair to penalize speed since it exists to save time in the first place, that means the best place to pay this cost is in it's defenses.

375k with max tank fit seems fair to me. It could stand to go lower, imo, but it ought to be higher than a typical freighter.


The tank is decent with faction/deadspace hardener + a booster ,it should pretty much satisfy you considering since the beginning of this tread you and some other are pleading that we should fly that ship as a fleet .
Plus the argument of saving time is irrevelant as to save time you have to plug a full High grade ascendancy set + a 618 cost 2b2

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Why should one player be able to tank the damage from 30+ players?

Probably because smaller gun size ,it has never make sense than smaller caliber gun could harm in such a way freighter and capital ships, pretty much like if 30 guys trying to gank a tank with sub machine gun.
We all know the result 30 dead guys and some paint scracthes on the tank ....
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1322 - 2014-11-16 18:17:10 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Sigh...


after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.


Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" and a high sec version of a carrier.

and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.

so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.

and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.

jmho

o/
Celly Smunt
as to the first point, yes. In an extreme salutation where everything runs smoothly and no interference it could. The same way that it is currently done with moving fleets of freighters and industrials between staging points (it's not).
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#1323 - 2014-11-16 18:21:32 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Celly S wrote:
Sigh...


after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.


Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" and a high sec version of a carrier.

and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.

so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.

and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.

jmho

o/
Celly Smunt
as to the first point, yes. In an extreme salutation where everything runs smoothly and no interference it could. The same way that it is currently done with moving fleets of freighters and industrials between staging points (it's not).



that should have read "is a high sec version", not "and a high sec version"

I have fixed it in the original post, and I agree that to some extent there are still the possibility of issues, but that for the majority of what's being asked, there's already a solution available.

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.

Mangalang
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1324 - 2014-11-16 19:30:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mangalang wrote:
Implment a mechanic that allows the ship to carry pilots, and can discharge ships and pilots in space. That way, when the hisec gankers try to kill it, there may be a price to pay. As it is, there are no effective counters to hisec ganking other than avoiding the common gank systems.


Or, you know... not being afk.



Afk auto-piloted freighters get ganked regularly, but it does not follow that an effective counter is to not be afk. Pretty sure this was covered in Logic 101, but it may have been before that, like, you know, the 3rd grade.

An effective counter is what I'm talking about, with emphasis on the word "effective." Implementing a mechanic that allows ships and pilots to be launched in space changes the calculations for the gankers. Right now it is a simple math problem. My proposal adds an element of uncertainty to the equation, especially for the bumpers. "If I bump that freighter with my shiney Mach, is he going to launch 40 gank catalysts and kill me dead?"

Talk about tank and drones and whatever else only changes the numbers in the basic calculation, but doesn't change the fundamentals.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1325 - 2014-11-16 19:47:35 UTC
Nya Kittenheart wrote:

The tank is decent with faction/deadspace hardener + a booster ,it should pretty much satisfy you considering since the beginning of this tread you and some other are pleading that we should fly that ship as a fleet .
Plus the argument of saving time is irrevelant as to save time you have to plug a full High grade ascendancy set + a 618 cost 2b2


That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Did you quote the wrong person?

And as for flying as a fleet, yes, that should pretty much be the case. Using webs makes it all but invincible, so failing to do so should result in the ship being a gigantic target/pinata.


Quote:
Probably because smaller gun size ,it has never make sense than smaller caliber gun could harm in such a way freighter and capital ships, pretty much like if 30 guys trying to gank a tank with sub machine gun.
We all know the result 30 dead guys and some paint scracthes on the tank ....


Well, someone doesn't seem to understand how this works.

A freighter is not a tank. It's a Walmart truck, an 18 wheeler. In real life, yes, small arms fire from 30 people will destroy one of those. And the 30 people aren't just using 9mm pistols with basic ball rounds, they're using military grade weaponry and ammo, which is most analogous to a T2 gun w/ faction ammo...

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1326 - 2014-11-16 19:52:33 UTC
Mangalang wrote:

Afk auto-piloted freighters get ganked regularly, but it does not follow that an effective counter is to not be afk.


Sure it does. Warping to zero by itself takes a big bite out of the potential chances to actually shoot at you.

Quote:

An effective counter is what I'm talking about, with emphasis on the word "effective."


Yeah, like actually bothering to defend yourself.

Webbing and warping to zero is all you really need. Asking to carry other players is, among other things, incredibly broken as a mechanic.

But if you want to launch ships, you already can. You just have to have people flying alongside you to grab them. You don't get to turn every ship with an SMB into a carrier though.


Quote:

Talk about tank and drones and whatever else only changes the numbers in the basic calculation, but doesn't change the fundamentals.


Nor should it. It's hauling. Point A >>> Point B, that's as complicated as it gets. Tank your ship, web your ship, warp to zero, and you succeed.

The end. Hell even if you don't do those things, ganking is so rare as to make it likely you will live anyway.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1327 - 2014-11-16 19:55:22 UTC
Webbing is an incredibly effective counter and people regularly move tens of billions of cargo that way without trouble.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1328 - 2014-11-16 19:57:42 UTC
And, Hells Bells, do you even realize the implications of what you're asking for?

You're literally asking for a way that gankers can roll through anywhere in completely safety being carried by a Bowhead, pop out to wreak havoc, and pop back in to safety.

You would have to be insane to actually want this. It would be beyond broken.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1329 - 2014-11-16 20:02:01 UTC
Euripedies wrote:



^^This,

Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank.


They can yes but they chose not to. You will find that the vast bulk of dead orca will be fitting cargo rigs and mods.
Euripedies
Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers
#1330 - 2014-11-16 20:04:31 UTC
Celly S wrote:
Sigh...


after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.


Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" is a high sec version of a carrier.

and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.

so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.

and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.

jmho

o/
Celly Smunt


Celly here is hitting the nail on the head, the Bownaught is a carrier, without all those other things. it becomes the carrier without combat capability. The nice version for hi-sec hauling of valuable stuff. Just like one does in Null and Low with ones regular suitcase Nidhogger,
So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp? Hi Sec is so much more chaotic then Null, in null, if they are blue.... and so on. In hi-sec, the odds of exploding randomly go up. CCP make it just like my nidhogger, with a jump drive, nothing else for combat. let me jump out of hisec if I want, not in, only out. give it a million ehp for crying out loudCry. Its carrying the most valuable bulky stuff most capsuleers have. Ugh
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1331 - 2014-11-16 20:13:00 UTC
Euripedies wrote:


Celly here is hitting the nail on the head, the Bownaught is a carrier, without all those other things. it becomes the carrier without combat capability. The nice version for hi-sec hauling of valuable stuff. Just like one does in Null and Low with ones regular suitcase Nidhogger,
So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp? Hi Sec is so much more chaotic then Null, in null, if they are blue.... and so on. In hi-sec, the odds of exploding randomly go up. CCP make it just like my nidhogger, with a jump drive, nothing else for combat. let me jump out of hisec if I want, not in, only out. give it a million ehp for crying out loudCry. Its carrying the most valuable bulky stuff most capsuleers have. Ugh


Its not a carrier, its a freighter.

Highsec sees millions fewer ships destroyed than null sec as seen by CCPs own economics reports.

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1332 - 2014-11-16 20:14:08 UTC
Euripedies wrote:
So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp?


Because neutrals in highsec can't be attacked without CONCORD intervention. Carrier EHP makes a ship ungankable.

Point me to a suicide gank killmail of any of the highsec capitals if you want to contest this. I'll wait.
Myrkul Nightshade
Doomheim
#1333 - 2014-11-16 21:20:08 UTC
Perhaps this ship was intended to make the game more fun for pirates, rather than shippers?

Seems to me that the only reason you'd move ships in a maintenance bay is if you've put rigs on them, and don't want to have to destroy the rigs. Right?

So I suppose it might be handy if more people were skilling their rigging skills to IV, then fitting and selling T2 rigged ships in Jita. That could become a trade option I guess. Bring one of these ships into Jita, load up with T2 rigged contract ships, and carry them out with you?

But if it's not about rigs, then why bother?
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1334 - 2014-11-16 21:27:39 UTC
Myrkul Nightshade wrote:
Perhaps this ship was intended to make the game more fun for pirates, rather than shippers?

Seems to me that the only reason you'd move ships in a maintenance bay is if you've put rigs on them, and don't want to have to destroy the rigs. Right?

So I suppose it might be handy if more people were skilling their rigging skills to IV, then fitting and selling T2 rigged ships in Jita. That could become a trade option I guess. Bring one of these ships into Jita, load up with T2 rigged contract ships, and carry them out with you?

But if it's not about rigs, then why bother?


The idea was to allow incursion runners to move multiple ships around at once. Of course, given the broken bumping mechanics, what will actually happen is these ships getting trapped and blown up by waves of gankers, just as is happening to freighters and jump freighters today. I'm guessing the first month will be absolute carnage...and hopefully lead to some agility buffs so the bumping game isn't possible. If the gankers want to kill it, they should need to muster enough dps to do it the first time.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1335 - 2014-11-16 21:56:14 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
If the gankers want to kill it, they should need to muster enough dps to do it the first time.


If you don't want it bumped, you should have to muster up the *snicker* one character and two webs necessary to avoid bumping with 100% surety the first time.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1336 - 2014-11-16 21:58:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
If the gankers want to kill it, they should need to muster enough dps to do it the first time.


If you don't want it bumped, you should have to muster up the *snicker* one character and two webs necessary to avoid bumping with 100% surety the first time.


Guess what? Since I can already travel with 100% safety using cloak + mwd + brick tank, there is no way I am going to expose myself to significant risk by stuffing my stuff in a vulnerable hauler. If the only way to reach a comparable level of safety is to find someone to web for me (who can easily be ganked) that is a huge increase in effort and risk, and makes the ship effectively worthless to me.
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#1337 - 2014-11-16 21:59:20 UTC
Or one character to fly ahead of it in an interceptor after the fact. Bumping doesn't prevent warp unless it's expertly done to keep the ship close to 0 m/s (you try this, it's hard), it just restricts the angles you can warp at.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1338 - 2014-11-16 22:01:57 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
If the gankers want to kill it, they should need to muster enough dps to do it the first time.


If you don't want it bumped, you should have to muster up the *snicker* one character and two webs necessary to avoid bumping with 100% surety the first time.


Guess what? Since I can already travel with 100% safety using cloak + mwd + brick tank, there is no way I am going to expose myself to significant risk by stuffing my stuff in a vulnerable hauler. If the only way to reach a comparable level of safety is to find someone to web for me (who can easily be ganked) that is a huge increase in effort and risk, and makes the ship effectively worthless to me.


Yes, yes, we all know you're proud of what a gutless coward you are. But that has no bearing on discussing this proposed ship. So stay on topic for once.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#1339 - 2014-11-16 22:04:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
the usual personal attacks


Straight to the name calling, Eh? Maybe it's time to stop acting like a three year old all the time.

And of course the level of increased risk over the current status quo is directly relevant to the ship. Roll
Euripedies
Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers
#1340 - 2014-11-16 22:04:20 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Euripedies wrote:
So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp?


Because neutrals in highsec can't be attacked without CONCORD intervention. Carrier EHP makes a ship ungankable.

Point me to a suicide gank killmail of any of the highsec capitals if you want to contest this. I'll wait.



yes of course you are correct about the hisec capital kills, my point is that the current ganking meta, from my poor and humble perspective, is seemingly out of balance, Carrier ehp doesn't make them ungankable, just much more difficult. See that's the thing, why must the meta for the predators be at such a low bar? In this case the tank of the Bow is figured by what the tank of the three BSs would be inside the Bow, and that's what the Bow's tank would be. (according to the forums so far..) I think we should also consider that the three BSs could value in the four billion isk range. They are bulky and they are expensive. they are not faction titan BPCs being carried in an interceptor. They are in a capital hauler that's slow, give it some tank that will justify hauling around 4 bil in ships.

When its all said and done, I'll take what I get and run with it. I just want my two isk in the mix about a larger tank.