EVE Search - Sticky:[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 75	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:52:20 - [1] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: Yes, You need a few guys with these and you can move your 200 man harpy blob to anywhere in New Eden with tiny amounts of fatigue. GG CCP nerf something and then create a solution straight away, You have to put all your eggs in one basket to do so. CCP is hoping to encourage strikes at choke points as evidenced by the push to use stargates more. A goo d portion of the complaints made by people about these types of chenges always seem to neglect geographical strategy.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 75	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:55:05 - [2] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: also the cargo should be closer to 10k not 5k.... or give it another bay for ammo that way mods and parts in the cargo bay... and ammo in the ammo bay Ammo can be stored inside assembled ship in the ship hangar.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:21:30 - [3] - Quote Dear CCP Rise: Here's a few thoughts I've had on this fantastic ship. Now that we have a ship dedicated to moving ships around, Do you think it's time to address the plastic wrapped ship exploit? There is a TON of debate going on around the jump fatigue bonus on this ship, I'm of the belief that it warrants a reasonable amount of internal and possible external discussion if for nothing more than to demonstrate your commitment to improving the status quo in terms of force projection. Convince us that you care and that you took the time to make a good decision on the matter. Being this ships role is to move ships from point A to point B, perhaps giving it a "Deployed" state (which uses fuel and provides bonuses to defense) if you wish to interact with any of the ships in the hangar. This would force players using this asset to deploy ships to a fight to commit this ship in the same way Marauders, Dreadnaughts, Rorquals, etc get committed to their advantages. This would also give the Bowhead a means of hunkering down to endure a gank attempt. Get more bang for your developmental buck by giving us an ore (Ice, Ore, etc..) hauling variant. It's makes complete sense lore wise, It gives more value to training the skill that's only used for this one ship. You've already made the model, make a small variation and twice the mileage for the money invested in the development of the asset. A more advanced concepts would be to give the bowhead an interchangeable core, One for larger ship hangar, One for Defense (Think deployable state from above) and one for hauling ore. Just some food for thought. I fully expect some people to praise and others to rage and flame over these ideas, I don't care as long as people are discussing them :)
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:11:00 - [4] - Quote Jaro Essa wrote: Miasmos, Orca, Rorqual. Or compress and put it in any hauler. Plenty of choice already. Let the Bowhead do as it was designed to do, fill a niche that 's not already occupied. There is a niche for a large scale ore hauler as evidenced by all the freighters seen in high sec Ice belts. As someone who's regularly ran 8+ accounts at once all mining into an Orca, and then passing into a freighter, I would welcome a freighter that felt less out of place in a belt occupied by ORE ships! ORE master race.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:31:01 - [5] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: What's the deal with the name? Bowhead sounds odd, why not something like Bowsprit instead? Because Whale Names Orca = Whale Bowhead = Whale Rorqual = Class of whale I predict Leviathan will be the ORE titan :D oh wait... lol
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:37:16 - [6] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Didn't realize that was a type of whale. My second suggestion for name was actually Narwhal, though I don't believe that's actually a whale. Maybe Humpback? It is a whale, But I think that name is better reserved for if ORE ever makes a combat vessel. Bowhead while not as awesome of a name as Narwhal, It's far more appropriate and fitting for the Bowhead's purpose and scale.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:08:07 - [7] - Quote GaiusIuliusCaesar wrote: Hmm, maybe I missed something. You missed the part where this ship has no jump drive.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:29:55 - [8] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really. All of that is well and good for moon goo and other goods because you can't hop into your moon goo and fly it around. Needing three pilots to move 3 battleships nullifies any reason for this ship to exist. The whole point of this ship existing is to benefit the pilots flying them. In it's current form needing to be babysat by the same number of pilots as ships you're moving or more, makes the ship less appealing than the Nestor. CCP Spent money on this ship. CCP spent money you paid them on this ship. CCP Spent money on this that is now not available to spend on other things. Do you want your money to matter? Or just end up in a another terrible neglected ship? TL;DR Your argument of "Use more pilots to protect it" negates any benefit of this ship whatsoever. So in fact, your argument is in FAVOR of a buff, not against it, despite your intentions.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 03:49:34 - [9] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: the hull on the Bowhead should be about half.. or at lease 1/3 that of the Rorqual.... as this ship is about half the size of the Rorq.... the sheils should be about 30,000 and the armor should be about where it is now.... also please look at increasing the cargo hold a little... closer to 10k or add in an ammo bay that can hold around 5k Ammo can be carried in the cargo hold of the ships in the maintenance bay.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:40:44 - [10] - Quote 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.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:58:15 - [11] - Quote 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. They're sad panda because they're not convinced this solution delivers the solution they actually wanted.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:18:10 - [12] - Quote 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:34:28 - [13] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: 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? I've read every single post and not a single one of them argued against a situation for the pilot to overstuff and experience great loss. The ship has been presented by CCP as a solution for Incursion pilots. The reality of a good majority of incursion pilots is that they have multiple faction BS's and multiple logi's that they need to regularly move around. WIth that being the context, the average value they need to move regularly is well over the threshold for "you WILL be ganked". You also need to factor beyond the isk value. A single item worth 1 bil isk vs 10 items worth 100 million isk is more likely to instill greed in pirates and convince them to f1. The argument is that this solution doesn't provide a reasonable enough solution to justify its risks for what it's been presented as a solution for.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:50:13 - [14] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Yes i read that particularly the part about trying to get that implemented in time.... my hopes aren't high So to you, waiting an extra 5 weeks for the fix isn't reasonable on any level?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:53:50 - [15] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: 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. I usually do not agree with baltec. But he is RIGHT this time. Incursiosn are the group that would have the LEAST issues making this thing work, as long as you guys use brains. You can send 10 of these ships together and paired by 4 guardians and it would be incredbly safe. They will be useless as a solo "let me move my whole collection" type of ship. But I do not think that was their intended role. So how do you account for the pilots that aren't currently at the staging area and need to get there. Your strategy ONLY works in a perfect situation and completely falls apart otherwise.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:07:43 - [16] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: So how do you account for the pilots that aren't currently at the staging area and need to get there. Your strategy ONLY works in a perfect situation and completely falls apart otherwise. You ask your corp for help moving. A VERY large chunk of people running incursions, don't belong to an incursion corp, much less a corp of anything other than themselves. It's also not uncommon for you to logout for the day, and log in the next day and have the entire community already relocated to the next site. So how is it practical at this point to relocate if the entire ship is balanced around needing logistics support? Beg and plead with the incursion community to travel all the way back just to escort me and my Bowhead all the way out there again? Perhaps I should just give up on this ship providing any actual bennefit and ignore the fact that it exists altogether. Because we all love ships that aren't practical and as such get neglected.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:20:12 - [17] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Frankly, this is a good example of why you should leave the state war acadamy and make some friends. It's nice to see that you've convinced yourself that despite being an obvious forum alt, There is NO possible way I could be in a corp and or have friends. You've just done wonders for your credibility ;)
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:26:43 - [18] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:28:08 - [19] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: with the amount of whining you're doing, it's pretty evident that you're unlikely to have friends or be in a half decent corp. It's amazing what people will delude themselves into believing when it comes to making attempts to insult others.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:32:41 - [20] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: so you're just whining for the sake of it, then? I have no say in what you perceive as whining. But for me to respond to this question seriously would require that I agree with your opinion of it. I will say it's not very mature to simply belittle your opponent simply because you're not capable or unwillingly to actually retort. If you're interested in debating the situation of the ship, I'll be right here waiting. Let me know when you're done beating your chest over the internet.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:51:25 - [21] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: They need to move their single battleship alone. Since they are alone, there is no sense on usign a ship capable of moving 3 battleships at a time? This assumes they have only one ship to move. This is not the norm amongst Incursioners. Kagura Nikon wrote: Also.. you want to ccp take you by the hand? By resorting to such cliche and terrible personal attacks you discredit yourself which actually works against you in the long run. Kagura Nikon wrote: if you lost the onvoy, it is YOUR FAULT> It's a reality that is common for Incursioners to log in and have the entire focus moved in a matter of hours. Your ignorance of such a simple fact demonstrates your lack of context to effectively debate the situation thereby negating any validity you could have offered to the debate on this aspect. Dave Stark wrote: if you support the ship, the only way around it is unfeasably expensive.[/qoute] I'm not sure you comprehend what unfeasibly expensive is in the context of EVE online which comes a little bit of a shock to me as you didn't seem like you were THAT uninformed. [quote=Dave Stark]if you don't want to support the ship and you're moving between incursions, and everyone's already ahead of you and in the fleet, then you're in no rush and you can move everything more safely anyway. somehow, the fact that you can move everything as safely as before, but now with added convenience somehow isn't good enough for him? You're suggesting a drastic behavioral shift of an entire community just to provide them with a mediocre solution when the changes you imposed benefit only the tiny population of gankers at the expense of convenience of a much larger group.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:09:52 - [22] - Quote 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:14:11 - [23] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: really? cos that's how i make most of my isk on this character. That just leaves me more baffled by most of what you've been posting.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:16:50 - [24] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: too easy. If by easy you mean posting nonsense in an effort to confuse people, Yes. That's an easy thing to do. You're correct.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:21:52 - [25] - Quote 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 (or less) 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:35:23 - [26] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: however if you'd like to quote something that confused you, i'd be glad to explain it to you in the same way i'd explain it to say, a 5 year old. if that would help you? I'm not going to go back and quote most of the things you've posted pertaining to incursion communities as I value my time more than doing that work for you. With the majority of what you say in regards to incursion communities drastically contrasting everything I've observed, The method with which you explain them is irrelevant as it's not my capacity to comprehend what you're saying that's the issue it's the content itself. But let's be honest, You already know all of this, You we're just looking for a way to lash out at me.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:54:17 - [27] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: doesn't really matter what you think you know about incursion communities; how they function is irrelevant. this is a discussion about the bowhead. With the Bowhead poised to have a significant impact on incursioners, it is relevant.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:07:03 - [28] - Quote 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. ;)
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.11.12 16:25:06 - [29] - Quote 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?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 81	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:12:54 - [30] - Quote Would all of you debating ganking please go do so in a thread about ganking? The people who are here to discuss the Bowhead would like their thread back. If you agree with me, report this post citing the entire thread being derailed for several pages.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 82	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:55:26 - [31] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique What makes eve online beautiful and unique is different for different people and different types of gameplay. Stop trying to make the rest of us play only the game you want to play. that you think that we are somehow transforming eve into anything is your primary error eve has always been this way, long before a single goon stepped foot onto its soil pretending it's never been this way sets you up for some serious issues down the road You're arguing that since something has been in Eve for a long time it should stay? Sorry - not only is that weak sauce, it also ignores the fact that destroyer dynamics have changed in Eve AND that there has never been a tugboat (which really is a ferry not a tugboat) in Eve. Why not think different? Heck, why not evolve Eve instead of insisting it remain the same? Just yesterday, CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie did an interview for CrossingZebras in which they explicitly state as a development team they are abandoning the logic of keeping things the same just because they've always been that way. They are now evaluating mechanics on their own merit in regards to how the add to the EVE Experience as a whole. Just because something has always been, is no longer a valid argument.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:15:40 - [32] - Quote GOB the Magician wrote: No one else could be this delusional, surely. Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 07:27:14 - [33] - Quote I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:12:41 - [34] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing. Welcome to every single topic on anything to do with high sec. All of the useful feedback on this new ship has been given, now that the high sec grr ganking crowd has found the thead nothing useful will come from this thread anymore. Good job bringing the stench right back to the thread. The gankers and gank supporters are the most detrimental to quality discussion. Regardless of the validity of their claims, Their attitudes and methods deter constructive discussion. This is the last I'm going to comment on it as I genuinely don't want this to all devolve right back into a trollfest, I encourage you to feel the same.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:32:42 - [35] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I read what was there, you missed very little. I'm woefully aware, I've been studiously trudging through it all to stay current. Mike Azariah wrote: Back to the ship. So far I have seen some good ideas and a fair number of bad ideas. No, it does not need a jump drive. Yes I think it could stand a BIT more tank. I agree it needs more tank to support it's likely and best suited usasge case. I also feel very strongly that while providing a solution for the very real demand for a way to haul 2 faction BS's + 2 Logi's with a relative sense of safety given the greed inducing nature of the cargo there DOES need to be opportunity to overstuff. Regretfully, given the scale of value on the incursion runners cargo vs the shear amount of ships you can stuff in it of a smaller scale and the impact on force projection does present a very difficult balance situation. I think what they did for the DST's was a creative solution as opposed to simply slapping on more HP. They addressed the potential for conflict with mechanics that could make that anticipated conflict interesting. CCP, PLEASE! make this ship an interesting chess piece on the game board. GIve it a MJD, or a way to short term hunker down and endure a gank. Give it someting like the marauders, or a rorqual, or give it an overheat bonus, or give it a small fuel bay and a shield simiilar to a P.O.S.. SOMETHING that's more interesting than achieve X amount of DPS and the bowhead loses. By simply defining a max HP for the ship you make it very easy to spreadsheet the outcome. By providing more MEANINGFUL variables to the situation you increase the quality of the conflict by making the outcome less predictable. As I recall, with the jump fatigue changes, CCP is (or was) on board with developing content they can't fully predict the outcome of because if CCP can fully predict it, so can everyone else. I would love to see that logic come to this ship as well. Mike Azariah wrote: For the eft folks looking for the max ehp could you also run the numbers with it having full boosting? IF incursion folks did an armada then that would be a possibility. I am curious about insurance. If it is T1 will you be able to insure it for almost full value (excluding cargo)? Drone bay, yeah I could see that but like the lack of weapons . . . this is not made to fight directly. So I understand the commitment to the concept. For the gankers I am curious . . . when Taloses are used is it alpha or a dependence on the 05 or 0.6 slow response of concord to get a couple of volleys in? m All good questions M!
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:45:17 - [36] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: If the Bowhead is purely non combat.. purely designed to just move fitted battleships and the like around then i completely see no reason to add a drone bay... I can get behind this logic. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: an ammo bay would be nice... or increase the cargo up to 10k I agree it would be nice, but it feels incredibly unnecessary given you can store ammo inside of ships inside the SMA. If you need more space for ammo, put a small industrial in your hold with ammo in it and VOILA! Fruckton Haulalot wrote: high slots... three high slots that could run command modules would be nice.... no bonuses.. just able to use three at a time for PVE mission runners to tinker and learn command ship or command fleet tactics would be an interesting avenue for this boat... People that can fly this should already be able to fly an orca which is better suited for this purpose anyways. While it would be fun to have on it, I don't feel it serves a purpose for the goals of this ship nor do i feel the goals for this ship would benefit from a shift in this direction. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: should it be in any way offensive combat capable... i say no... it should simply be the high sec mini carrier that adds a safer means for highsec folks to move their fleets around and enjoy the game. It would be fun to have it more like a neutered high sec carier than a niche freighter, I don't have high hopes that CCP would be that awesome to us :p
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:49:03 - [37] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: And here I thought I might actually like you. You do realize you're saying that to the guy bringing you a shiney new loot pinata for christmas right?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 10:10:37 - [38] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And here I thought I might actually like you. You do realize you're saying that to the guy bringing you a shiney new loot pinata for christmas right? So Mike works for CCP now? Sure he does. He helps facilitate communication between the playerbase and the devs and consults on concepts being developed.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 11:58:12 - [39] - Quote Julie Oppenheimer wrote: Just throwing this out there: allow it to fit the Target Spectrum Breaker (and maybe remove a little tank). The problem with that as a strategy is that the ship is designed for high sec. In high sec, You're either stuck not using it due to your safety being on, or you instantly destroy your sec status AND get concorded after firing it off on a crowded gate.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:01:22 - [40] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Manic Velocity wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the cargo of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships? Just one I suspect - like any other of the smaller capital ships..... We do now have our packaged capital ship through high sec hauler. You can't put packaged ships in an SMA.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:23:57 - [41] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Hmmm - you can at a POS (it's been a while mind you) - that's how you then assemble them. I thought that was the difference between an SMB (Orca, Carrier, etc) and an SMA? Happy to be corrected - it has been a while since I have. Now that you mention it, I just assumed Rise made a typo when he said SMA but actually meant SMB. That would be really interesting if this was the first ship with an SMA in it! Can we get some clarification CCP? Can we also get some clarification as to whether you'll be able to board ships from this ship in space?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:37:43 - [42] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Now for the interesting bit of fix: It needs to not be scanable. Maybe. Valterra Craven wrote: On the flip side to this it needs to always drop the ships. This would make it a true "pinata". This would defeat it's own purpose as a "Pinata". No one would ever fly it. This feels like you put no effort into thinking your suggestion through at all.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:40:57 - [43] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried recently but I remember trying some time this year and getting a weird error about ships not being able to go in cargo that are assembled.. He's referring to the horribly broken exploit of using courier contracts to package up fitted and rigged ships that can then be carried in a freighter. Now that we have a dedicated high sec ship mover + Plenty of options in low/null, this needs to be addressed.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:54:40 - [44] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Goodness, I must note that this is not something I've regularly done....nor is this something to really pursue here..... But why on earth do you refer to this as either "horribly broken" or even as an "exploit"? What difference is an EVE Freighter to any cargo carrying ship on planet earth, even it's fitted to carry containers? I feel a little silly needed to explain this but I'll explain it to you anyways. It's by design that you can't just put assembled ships into any of the existing ships. It was intentional and specific. Players using alts would create a courier contract containing their assembled and rigged ship, and then trade it back to themselves so they could then carry the ship in a manner that by design they're not supposed to be able to, and also avoid the risk of having their freighter pilot simply steal it from them by hauling it themselves. They're taking advantage of a loophole created by shortsighted design. It's likely it was never addressed because it was the only method of moving rigged ships through high sec. Now that they're changing that, it's a good time to address this loophole the same way they addressed compressing Minerals into modules and shipping them, then, melting them back down.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:58:19 - [45] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: This would defeat it's own purpose as a "Pinata". No one would ever fly it. This feels like you put no effort into thinking your suggestion through at all. Why would no one fly it? Do you have anything to support this argument? Knowing that every single ship in your hull would become glorious loot for gankers would ensure that ganking of Bowheads would be a regular and normal thing if nothing more than just for the fun and tears of it. It would also skyrocket the required EHP to be a sane ship to fly around with or WITHOUT cargo. I really hope I'm right and you're just trolling because the alternative would be kind of pity inducing.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:59:31 - [46] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Bad troll, no cookie for you. Something comes to mind about a pot and a kettle.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 86	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:20:56 - [47] - Quote Cyndrogen wrote: Freighter? BLEH! Not interested AT ALL in this big lug... Give us T3 modular battleships to deal with incursions. I don't want to carry ships in a ship, just subsystems. Vindi / Basi T3 equivalent, then I might be interested. Waste to see this being developed. TIL ("Today I Learned"): If it doesn't fit Cyndrogen's exact specifications it's a waste of time. Quick CCP, HIre this man before someone else does! What's that? You're not interested CCP? Oh, I understand.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 89	Posted - 2014.11.14 07:44:01 - [48] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Any news on courier contracting goodness? Not yet. Things people are waiting for answers to: Will this ship cause modifications to plastic wrapping ships in courier contracts? (Will we be able to haul plastic wrapped ships in the Bowhead? Will plastic wrapped ships still be courier-able via freighters and other ships) Will this ship have a Ship Maintenance Array (P.O.S. Module)? or a Ship maintenance Bay (Like every other ship that holds ships) Will we be able to board and load ships to/from this vessel in space? Will we be able to refit in ships in space using this ship? If you're also interested in the answers to these questions, please like this post!
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 90	Posted - 2014.11.14 08:58:26 - [49] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Where in the nine hells is that a personal attack? It is neither an attack neither personal. Your inability to identify that as a personal attack isn't at all a surprise. It does however make me question what else you're incapable of having an unbiased judgement on. Kagura Nikon wrote: no wodner that eve is too harsh for you> probably a butterfly flapping its wings near you would be too harsh as well. Personal attack #2 and #3 I won't bother expecting you to be capable of recognizing those either. You're clearly deluded and emotional. Kagura Nikon wrote: Aa pooor boy. Personal attack #4, again, not holding my breath on you to realize let alone accept/admit it. Kagura Nikon wrote: What do you think happens for people in 0.0 or wormhoel space when their station or POS are attacked? Oo right. They COMMUNICATE and try to solve the issue. Comparing Null-sec and Wormhole space to high sec invalidates your entire argument. Kagura Nikon wrote: I am not ignroant of anything, You've already used this entire post to build an argument against this claim, only to contradict yourself with this. Not to mention the immutable fact that every single being in existence (That we can prove exists) is ignorant of something.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 90	Posted - 2014.11.14 10:51:31 - [50] - Quote Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. I suspect the reasons they aren't adding a drone bay is "Because none of the other freighters have them." The role as an in space depot is already the secondary/tertiary activity built into this ship designed to move ships from one station to another.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 92	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:10:24 - [51] - Quote SFM Hobb3s wrote: For a ship designed specifically for hisec use, I'm surprised it even has a jump drive. Considering that everyone has been arguing why the ship that absolutely needed it, the Nestor, doesn't have one. Because it DOESN'T have a jump drive. That's why.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:19:10 - [52] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So why is it that you are in a fit about a ship with near three times the tank of your battleship? If you only have a single mach and you stick it in your bowhead with a basic t2 tank with t1 rigs it will cost the gankers a lot more to gank you than they could possibly earn. With a max tanked bowhead with logi support they would require more firepower than is needed to alpha a neuted chimera. That simply does not exist in high sec. People seem to be continually neglecting to factor in that a ganked mach has 0% chance of dropping a mach hull in their comparisons thereby leaving only the modules as potential loot.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:22:03 - [53] - Quote baltec1 wrote: M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec. I'd be interested in reading more about this, got any links?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 111	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:33:25 - [54] - Quote Mariko Bukan wrote: Great potential for incursion runners which was part of the intention of it being introduced. ===================================================== The tank of this ship needs to reflect the fact it maybe carrying 30 bill of cargo otherwise it is not viable if subject to cheap ganks (it should be a Tiger tank). Most serious incursion runners use 2 characters. ====================================================== This requires multiple specilised clones that need to be moved to use the transported ships. So I suggest as Bowhead is a capital indi ship it should have a utility high slot for clone VAT bay to facilitate the clones needed to fly the transported ships? I love your perspective on this ship, however, I'm cautious to support a clone vat bay (As awesome as it would be). There is already lot's of debate on the ship as a means to circumvent the force projection changes they're making to capitol ships. IF they were to avail us of a clone vat bay, I would feel even more strongly about removing the Jump Fatigue bonus on the Bowhead.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 111	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:47:04 - [55] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Can this ship get a younger brother? Let say something that is capable of hauling a cruiser , destroyer and 2-3 frigates at the same time. It is fun you offer nice stuff for older and more wealthy players, but some stuff for new players could be also nice. Noob Whale Med slots : 4 Low slots : 3 Cargo Bay :1500 Ship Hangar : 225.000 m3 Total EHP : around 25k without mods Prerequisite : Ore Industrial LVL 3 , Adv Spaceship Command LVL 1 Lrn 2 Orca.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 112	Posted - 2014.11.18 18:28:30 - [56] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: Says the guy hiding behind a NPC alt.... "Look guys Highsec is TOO SAFE!!! So safe I'm hiding my real character's name because someone might spend time to gank me over and over which would ruin my play experience!! But remember highsec is super safe!" ITT: Players who victimize people in high sec are upset over people effectively denying them the opportunity to victimize them.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.