$10? I don't think even a year long sub is that cheap, nor is the plex value anywhere near that...? Please tell me how you play for 10 dollars a month....

I'm going to suggest that this ship be barred from taking gates into Null or Lowsec, or Jumping.
Make this ship hisec only so it doesn't promote further imbalance to nullsec power projection.

and again i point out the fact... that current game machinics allow an ORCA to acheive a little over 450 ehp and still remain a very usefull and talented ship for many aspects not just mining command..


This Bowhead should be at least 20% TO 40% tougher then the Orca...

the BOWhead is in line with the ORCA and the Rorqual... so use them as comparisons is a logical and justifiable means of figured where the Bowhead stats should be..

I've got it!

A Solution to make everyone unhappy.

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

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

Let me nail down my point:

A new player should have all the tools and requirements to play a game, within said game. Having to already have an established relationship from a completely separate entity, such as forum, in order to have a chance to not just survive but thrive is terrible. Just because someone entered the game with loads of friends already established who promptly escorted them away from a specific part of the game (high sec) does not mean high sec is fine.

People say high sec should be more dangerous, others say it is too dangerous with suicide ganking. See the fact most suicide tankers can not be stopped before the gank happens due to Concord protecting them or other mechanics are mitigated away such as insta outs and expired kill rights.

High sec can't become more dangerous if the tutorials and missions shove players to be unprepared for actual combat with other players. Sorry but forcing a new player to lose a ship in the tutorial hardly does anything to teach them PvP. People say concord is consequences, not protection. Fine, but what is being done to show new players how to get into PvP to actually do something against those would be bad guys? It sure as hell is not happening from being fought to do high sec missions with fits that don't stand a chance in PvP.

[b]You can not expect new players to enter a game with a group already established in the game as the bar to not just survive but enjoy and grow.[b]

Question for gankers. How much do your Gank Talos's cost? And how much damage do they do in 30 seconds.
Because if the Bowhead is carrying Pirate BS/Marauders like it will be if used for it's intended High sec purpose, thats 2-3 billion in pure hull value sitting in it. Plus possibly some more in some logi cruisers. Say if it's an Incursion runner moving their hulls from one focus to another, they will have a DPS, a Sniper, at least 2 logi, and possibly a second DPS or Sniper as well. All of which will be T2 rigged.

So 2 Bil+ is the minimum realistic value to expect the Bowhead to move. This T2 Fitted T1 BS stuff is absolute rubbish as far as it's use in highsec goes.

So I'm curious to see how you cost/loss maths actually work out against the Bowhead when you use a realistic hull value for it's contents, even if we assume they stripped the modules and moved those in a blockade runner.

exactly, since from the get go you have ignored my original statement, tried to twist what i said, and even after being shown that your assertions were wrong, you've continued to troll me

here, let me dumb it down for you so you'll understand my original comment

there is a ship in low and null that has a jump drive and can haul fitted ships.
because of the rorqual's limitation to industrial only ships, the only other ship with that capability is called a carrier.


Everything else you've dreamed up has been on you, not me...

so you my friend are a troll and in typical goon fashion, resort to threats when someone won't cow toe to your point of view...
Now please move along and let the adults have their discussion...

report my name if you want, i don't care, in fact, I'm certain CCP will get a kick out of you reporting "Celly S" as obscene. but please don't waste my time with any more of your drivel and twisting of what was a simple straightforward statement to begin with...

about him reporting me?, I could care less.. about him twisting what was said in the first place into something else and trying to act as though he has a clue?,
he twisted what I said originally, told me carriers were nerfed for their tank, then when told that wasn't it, he said their combat abilities, and again when told that wasn't it, resorted to trying to make it seem as though I said carriers were nerfed for their sma..

telling lies and putting words in my mouth I do care about.

Unless they are bling fit in which case they won't fall under even a Talos gank margin.

Almost like you can't haul several rigged BS & a few Logi in a JF at once, or even in a Freighter at once.
Sure you can package them if you are continually destroying rigs, but.... yea nah.

So please explain to me how a 468k m^3 Battleship fits into a max tanked Jump Freighter like you claimed. Or how it fits into a Deep Space transport.
To move the hulls like you claimed requires packaging which requires destroying rigs.

Except nowhere was I talking about the mods ever in my arguments other than the one time I noted that if someone didn't unfit them then sure they would be profitable to gank. It's 2-3 Billion in pure hull + rigs.
Meaning if the Bowhead EHP was set to such a level that you know it will only take 1 Bil to gank them in a sensible way, the Bowhead is an auto gank button pretty much and none of the people that CCP intended it for will use it.

Obviously the current EHP you can gank under 1 Bil if you organise a crazy number of Catalysts. But ganking with ABC's requires similar cost to the value of the bare hull drops. Meaning anyone ganking with ABC's is gambling on you being lazy on removing fittings because they can't be scanned, or you didn't fit max tank on your Bowhead, or they just plain don't like you so aren't ganking for profit anyway.

But since CCP have been clear in their reasoning behind the creation of it, the EHP does need to fit that reasoning.

Train reading comprehension to 1.
It's not an 'obligation'.
CCP have outright said in this very thread that this ship is intended to meet the needs of people like Incursion runners to move multiple BS/Logi around chasing incursions. If the ship is not able to move those hulls that are used for that task without being profitable to gank then CCP have outright failed in their intent.

Regardless of profitable, it still won't be 'safe'. There will still be plenty of ganks. Since a lot of ganks don't happen for profit.

Quit misquoting me.
This is NOTHING to do with the modules.
I am already assuming the modules have been removed from the ship and are being taken separately. Because, you know, that's already what the incursion communities do.

This is about moving bare rigged hulls without being profitable to gank automatically.

Live in less expensive space. Don't use Capitals. Blah blah, you want to try and tell people to use bad tools for the job, don't constantly defend your 'need' to have expensive things and be able to run SRP's in return.

The same principle does not apply, you use the correct tool for the job.

We are also assuming the person is actually max tanking the Bowhead here. Not fitting it for agility & warp speed in which case it would be profitable to gank while carrying more expensive hulls. Good RNG says even at MAX tank it can still be profitable to gank carrying marauders, certainly profitable to gank carrying rigged T3's, and probably profitable to gank if filled with a bunch of smaller T2 ships also.

So, the EHP bump that CCP gave it was needed to fufill it's intended role, It was not over the top, and it's EHP was not sufficient before because CCP were basing it on pretty much the cheapest possible option you could be using the Bowhead for, not a realistic situation.
Does it need even further EHP? Not that I can see either.

Because that is the realistic meta you are dealing with when it comes to the people CCP said they intended this ship to serve.
There are PVP groups in low/null that use Pirate BS on a small scale. Your own alliance uses Navy BS on a massive scale. Basing something off the cheapest possible use of it is certainly not realistic, and that's what CCP were doing to start with.

So we have the entire goon forum division with their Rapid Tear Launchers overheated with their FC Tippia sitting at 0 with whineosural beacon lit. If goons cry, it must be something they cannot exploit, which means it's a good design.

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

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

If you don't fit to win, you lose contests, don't make isk, and all your players leave for other fleets. Welcome to the free market. How is BoB doing?

Find me one incursion community that is based on HACs and T1s? And if you think it's viable, come run it for a couple of months.

Putting yourself at a hopeless disadvantage in a competitive atmosphere is nothing short of wilfully insane.

Yes, it's a more rarified atmosphere of competition, which doesn't revolve around tears and blown up ships.

CCP isn't "beholden" to anything, but to the extent that they want to help incursion runners move their ships around highsec, and apparently they do, it's important to design the ship in such a way that incursion runners will actually use it. Otherwise, why bother?

Uh, except they actually did.
And the surviving incursion communities are those communities that have learnt to survive in that environment and overcome things like that.

You however (and I mean you personally) are campaigning to utterly destroy any use high sec could have for it while still keeping it perfectly intact for null use.

acually this ship is tailored for incursioners specifically.... it original concept and thoughts of it were in forums by incursioners... it was also discussed at some length with incursion groups of what we wanted out of the ship concept...

supprised a forum troll like you was not aware that there have been numorous threads on this so saying its not tailored specifically for incursioners is not accurate..

Well, since this ship is close to useless for everyone else in highsec...if it doesn't help incursion runners, why bother making it at all?

And if it is meant to help incursion runners, then I'm sure you would also want it made in such a way as to make incursion runners actually want to use it. Right?

Right, given that level of delusional posting, thanks for the Hide post function CCP, first person I've ever made use of it on. I don't mind Goon posters who will actually provide numbers and acknowledge reasonable counter arguments, I do mind utterly delusional posters who do nothing but mock, deride and belittle reasonable arguments while presenting none of their own.

An incursion fleet needs about 15 to 20 vindis

So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?

yes, I mean Packaged ships like 50km3 battleships. With the jump changes its harder to move stuff around and ships are some of the, if not the, largest items in the game. It would be a freighter for only ships.

I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could)

Give this ship a bonus for Micro Jump Drives, so that the MJD cannot be disrupted by Warp Scramblers! Autopiloted ships will still be ganked, but actively flown ships have at least a chance to get away alive!

That is certainly not true for freighters/JFs going through Uedama/Niarja the last couple of months.

That's a significant number of dead freighters....as opposed to essentially complete safety using a BS with cloak + MWD...why would I switch to a Bowhead when I am completely safe now?

fly a freighter solo - AND SO DO A GOOD MAJORITY OF PLAYERS IN THE GAME RIGHT NOW.

A raven can't hold more torpedoes when its in a group.

NEWS FLASH: It's not just a multi-player game either. Guess what there are solo players (I know quite a shock to gankers) and guess what? Solo players, new players - like the relative safety of hi-sec. Get used to it - and don't feel you're entitled just because you're in a giant sociopathic grief group.

As far as I know, CCP advertises the game for solo play and group play. It's suppose to be for all kinds of players: not just yahoo gankers in Uedama.

As if protection ,links and webs were provided by fleet in null sec ...

Wrong

While true, how many 18 wheeler convoys do you know that exist in the real world? Its near 0. Moving goods in that manner in heavy populated zone with an effective police force (Which almost every single modern nation has today) would be incredibly expensive and would be a massive blow to any real economy. But I suppose sense can't be applied to internet spaceships because preying on people with minimal limits is core to eve game play.

Pffft. I'm going to stop now because you guys now are just arguing to be right. If you think all players now should run around in fleets in hi-sec - good luck. But it's just goonswarm crazy talk to justify more cheap low risk ganking in Uedama. That's all it is and nothing more.

This is my last post on this thread since I'm not going to argue how may angels are on the head of a pin.

You fundamentally doesn't understant that as a sand box their should be place for all kind of a gameplay high sec if for carebear leave us alone :)

Not a modern country.

Ah yes, another person stating the obvious without coming up with a counter argument.

hi-sec has rules - you just don't want to play by them.

Oh, do you have an actual reason for the opinion that you hold or do you just like stating things that make no sense as a followup?

Your thruth not mine , your definition not mine .Being disruptive to a gameplay is fine destroying it, is not .

Do you guys just like to post to see your own words on the screen or do you not understand what an actual argument looks like?

The difference between an opinion and a fact, is that facts are proven and have evidence to support them. Since your post has none of that, it remains that: an opinion. Now if you want to link some research on how people should relate to games without comparing them to real life or anything else that has context outside of a game, then please by all means.

Considering that I never stated my argument was a fact or that it should be treated as Gospel unlike you, I have neither gained nor lost anything.

News to me. Last I checked Hi sec was patrolled by not only the navies of the respective culture that controls the system, but also by concord. I don't recall ever seeing any of those navies clashing on a regular basis in hi sec on a prolonged war like basis.

I just see you have nothing more constructive to say except trolling and personnal attack people who disagree with you.

Apparently in your world dictionaries do not exist. Last I checked high sec was not torn apart by war. Or would you like to see some videos on what actual war looks like?

You not agreeing with my comparisons also doesn't somehow preclude them from being relevant.

Considering that everything I've put forth so far is my opinion....

As to your thought pattern, why? What exactly about applying critical thinking to a problem and using examples to put that critical thinking into a context that it can be related to something else tears others down?

So the basis of your argument is that you don't know what your talking about?

A. Eve is populated mainly by humans.
B. Only a select few of those humans have the ability to cheat death.
C. All of those other humans would have a vested interest in keeping the peace for the systems they control in order to foster trade and the growth of their empires.
D. These compare almost exactly to how a real life nation would behave and act in real life.

The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game.

Linking to something that shows others what you are suffering from doesn't help your case.

Show me a single posts by CCP that states that the only beings in the game are Capsuleers.

Let me know how that works out for after you fight for a faction in faction warfare and try to accessing an opposing factions space after you stop playing faction warefare. I'd love to see the impending killmail generated by their navy!

Actually I said humans. Putting words in my mouth is not the same thing as me moving the goal posts.

No it just brings to the fore front a human error. The goal posts have not moved as you recall this was (and still is) the core argument I'm making



I bolded the important part

Oh, so you admit that context helps with building things? You mean like putting a poorly built video game system in context within the world it was built in and trying to relate that to the real world to show why it doesn't make sense? Glad to know we agree.

She made sense to me. And she pointed out the flaws of your argument. You just aren't willing to admit you were wrong.

You seem a bit bent right now. There are a lot of elements in Eve that do simulate real life. Good fiction simulates real life. It's how we can identify and participate in a story or even in an MMO. I think that's what makes Eve particularly engaging - is that it has many elements that are similar to real life (if we imagine what it might be like in space). Eve isn't just a simple arcade game of shooting gallery. It has production values, exploration values, a back story. It has give and take simulation of what kind of ship you want to fly. And it has a real economy - unlike almost any other MMO.

To say comparing Eve to real life or the back story is "garbage" is just irrational goon talk. In fact, the more successful MMO's I think simulate real life more and more - have more realistic graphics, more realistic mechanics - so it isn't just some kind of cartoon game for 2 year olds.

I also think there should be a place in Eve where you can fly around relatively safely if you want to - that in fact, my guess is there are quite a few players that would rather NOT have PvP forced upon them. That PvP should be a choice not a requirement when logging on. And I think if CCP makes a big enough sand-box, that it won't ruin the game by making hi-sec pretty secure against ganking. PvP will still continue hot and heavy in low or nul sec - even if hi-sec is made more secure.

There needs to be a space for new players and players who want to be free of griefers like the Goon alliance.

That being said. What I've been advocating for this whole time is that high sec ganking still needs some adjustments and that players that want to play under the assumption that they should be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, that the solution was to give them a taste of their own medicine and grant them blinky red and yellow permanently.

Except that there are several problems with your analogy and how you are applying it.

Generally speaking it depends on how you define "high chance". As posted earlier by someone else there are actually a quite a high number of unsolved crimes, up to and including murder. I would say your chances of getting caught are entirely dependent on the methods you use and how careful you are to cover your tracks and maybe a bit of luck. Given the stats of the FBI I'd say your chances are actually only moderate that you'd get caught.

The point I'm trying to make in this is that a once off crime can be pretty hard to track down. But given the continued repeat behavior your chances are going to go up as well as the severity of your punishment.

This is not true in Eve. In eve you are allowed to commit crime into infinity with no real long term consequences or even consequences that scale given the amount of crime you commit. Point the out the illogicialness of this using the real world context is not foolish and actually quite pragmatic given the circumstances when trying to explain how human behavior would be dealt with in normal situation.

[quote=Promiscuous Female]
I'm advocating that the activities be more balanced to the degree under which they are committed.

But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

Your very alliance were the ones that spear headed the null sec agenda recently to CCP and this is the mechanic that resulted in that feedback. You can't say on one hand that you should be allowed to tell ccp their game sucks because they source feedback from players while at the same time giving them feedback on why their game sucks and expect them to take you seriously!

You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger.

Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately?

Which is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making since A. I'm not part of the community. and B. none of my arguments are related to their community.

Which only happened because of that document that a vast majority of the null sec alliances leaders signed and sent to CCP. Put another way, why would CCP react so quickly all of a sudden to a problem that's been in existence since cap ships were brought in game... oh right.

Nope. I was pointing out how poorly constructed your argument that its the victims fault that they got killed. I'm sorry that simple concepts are so hard for you to follow.

Care to put your statement on the line and actually back it up with a researched timeline of events or are you going to continue being lazy?

No what I literally did was compare your argument of victim blaming to a real life situation that happens on a regular basis to show you how stupid it was. Its not my fault that you have poor reading comprehension.

[quote=Promiscuous Female]
When what I actually said was blaming the victim for their fit or cargo and saying its their fault is similar to others blaming the victim of a sexual assault for the way they dress.

What the hell happened to this thread?

Done. Now, I completely understand why you are offended by my argument. I'm not saying saying the case I made wasn't extreme. But it was extreme on purpose. The argument that many gankers have made that its the victims fault that they got killed is as equally offensive an extreme to me. I know of no other example that is not as equally extreme that would convey how vile the argument that the victim is at fault for anything is.

Oh? Please enlighten me as to the process that a freighter can be completely invulnerable to a gank?

Hell, if any of these guys were in an actual PvP fight - I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between their butts and black holes in space.

I am also chuckling quite heartily at the Goon Knuckleheads & Trolls who fail time & again to defend Highsec ganking. It shouldn't surprise me that people who have regularly established themselves as Sociopaths & Antisocials would be ok with an activity that is the online equivalent of battery.

When was the last time Goons won an Alliance tournament? Anyone know?

Uh - there are quite a few solo players in Eve. And even more players who like to switch between solo play and group play. But we got the Goons who want everyone to have a fleet of ships every time they fly their freighter in hi-sec. Because - it's the victims fault that they fly freighters in hi-sec.

Goon logic.

I'm still trying to remember when the Goons last won an alliance tournament - nothing comes to mind ...

Yeah - you really had to work hard to blow that freighter up. You had to have all those destroyers and you all had to shoot at once, and one of you even had to bump that freighter. Yeah - that was really challenging and hard for you to do. Especially in hi-sec.

Risk versus Reward! Definitely you're putting out for your reward!!

To make the game only fun so a certain alliance can grief players who just are out missioning or doing incursioning etc in hi-sec - an area designated in Eve as suppose to be pretty safe - I think does a disservice to what I suspect is a pretty large base of players who enjoy Eve without having to deal with the gankers or even PvP.

But to be honest, what's funny is that given the current way players play the game is that if you are in stable alliance that is properly setup that 0.0 is far less risky than empire. I've lost far more to ganks in empire than I've even come close to losing in null sec. Which is odd given the motto with greater risk comes great rewards.

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.

Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet?

Wrong...there is literally no way to materially harm the goon supercap fleet. No one is "suicide ganking" Goon titans in Uedama. They are impervious to harm. Fundamentally, the Goons have made nullsec mindnumbingly boring...to the point where the only content they have left is suicide ganking helpless folks in highsec. Now they are screeching because this new hauler will be tougher to gank.

Go back to nullsec and create some actual content there...stop spending all your time trying to bother folks in highsec.

Could care less about your nullsec boredom. Amused by your whining about how hard it will be to kill this new highsec hauler. Maybe if you hadn't created a giant blue donut in null you might have better things to do than gank haulers in highsec for tears. Time to stop recruitment scamming noobs, and start trying to actually accomplish something in null....but let's be serious, you guys are far too unmotivated to do that anymore. Disband time, maybe?

And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides?

Call it -

30% - spent running Goonwaffe recruitment scams
30% - AFK ratting / AFK mining
10% - suicide ganking in highsec
29% - cursing each other out on coms
1% - actually doing (lame) PvP in null.

Miss anything?

crying

Agreed that "crying" is an overused word here....but not sure how else to describe the biggest nullsec powerbloc in the game coming onto to the eve forums to vent that it will be harder for them to kill haulers in highsec.

I mean, come on, get help. You seriously have no more productive activity than ganking freighters in highsec?

How pathetic and boring can nullsec be already?