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)
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 969	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:33:10 - [1] - Quote Not gonna lie -- I miss the name "tug." Oh well. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 969	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:07:35 - [2] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Alright, we're talking about it here and think there's probably no good reason not to raise the HP some. Where do you guys think it needs to be to make say, three t2 fit BS, inefficient to gank? And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me. Dropping align doesn't really make much sense, as the ship has enough grid to fit a prototype 100mn mwd, which lowers the align to 10-12s. I guess if you are autopiloting, it is nice, but the 5% velocity is also nice in that situation too. The only compelling bonus is warp speed, but honestly, it doesn't really matter. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 970	Posted - 2014.11.10 15:55:30 - [3] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: I am talking about null sec jump bridges mate. With the 90% reduction you can move your whole fleet across the map using jump bridges, and gain very little fatigue doing so. This is a nice hail mary, but it falls flat for the same reasons that TRAVEL INDUSTRIALS fall flat GÇö namely, bubbles exist, jump freighters exist, and jump bridges are still one per system. Besides, why wouldn't one salivate at the prospect of fleets of Bowheads traveling through space, ready to be dragged and summarily executed? Wouldn't one want the reasons for these ships to undock in 0.0 to be increased, not strangled? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 970	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:13:35 - [4] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: Querns wrote: Slevin-Kelevra wrote: I am talking about null sec jump bridges mate. With the 90% reduction you can move your whole fleet across the map using jump bridges, and gain very little fatigue doing so. This is a nice hail mary, but it falls flat for the same reasons that TRAVEL INDUSTRIALS fall flat GÇö namely, bubbles exist, jump freighters exist, and jump bridges are still one per system. Besides, why wouldn't one salivate at the prospect of fleets of Bowheads traveling through space, ready to be dragged and summarily executed? Wouldn't one want the reasons for these ships to undock in 0.0 to be increased, not strangled? Yea because you would totally admit this was a solution to jump fatigue? ' 1) Jump freighters can not fit a third of the amount of fitted ships. 2) Exactly, you jump from one system to another across the map, force projection. 3) One of these getting caught on a jump bridge in a bubble and killed is just as likely as a fleet getting caught on a jump bridge and killed, 0% chance, do to intel channels. Yes, but jump freighters can fit quite a few more unrigged ships, and ship them to wherever they are needed. This is quite a bit more efficient than "have everyone train into a niche ship with a requirement outside of all of the ships of the line, then expect fleets of them to waddle towards where the fights are without getting dropped, dragged, or otherwise destroyed due to being, y'know, defenseless, slow industrials." Also, uh, were you paying attention, like, at all in the last month or so? Are you not aware of the veritable slaughter that occurred on our jump bridges due to the concentrated efforts of one individual? If your "intel channels afford 100% protection against all ganks in 0.0" argument held even a little bit of water, why did we lose billions upon billions of ships in YA0-XJ, on the very jump bridges you decry, with the very intel channels you claim afford invincibility? Daresay I believe that your playbook runneth a bit thin. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 970	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:20:55 - [5] - Quote Christopher AET wrote: With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious. +1 We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs. Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:34:07 - [6] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: Querns wrote: Christopher AET wrote: With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious. +1 We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs. Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places? Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do. The ships in question are far more useful when amongst their peers, not sitting in lowsec doing nothing but cannoning nerds all over the place. Fatigue only exacerbates this by preventing the titan in question from joining its entourage at a moment's notice. In order for this contrived vignette to work, you need dedicated pilots, ships, and accounts for the purpose. There's just no point to doing this when you can have a modest jump freighter fleet for several orders of magnitude less outlay and maintenance cost. If jump freighters get kneecapped, perhaps we can revisit this ludicrous scenario. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:07:10 - [7] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains cyno capable ships, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal. But the remaining stats on the Bowhead Using chains of titans to bridge things around post-Phoebe is impractical, because the titans themselves are subject to fatigue and cannot be rapidly redeployed to handle the very multi-front combat you allude to in your post. Pre-positioning titans is also infeasible due to the high cost and the fact that account sharing is forbidden under the Eve: Online Terms of Service. Not to mention, interceptors + jump freighters are far more efficient at the job. Why does everyone forget about jump freighters and interceptors? While they are a thing, none of these complicated, fatigue-beating vignettes work. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:22:29 - [8] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: There are no bubbles on a titan bridge route. I suppose, in your world, you cannot bubble stations, or drag off of POS? Hint: drag bubbles work at any distance and grids can be shaped to be hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers long, well outside of the range of any POS gun. Even if the aggressor is scouted and is unable to catch the bowheads, travel is still disrupted until the aggressor is punished. Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, my knowledge about Titan bridging logistics operations post-Phoebe is limited as I haven't been in proximity to it since the changes and have not thought about it deeply. However, I still think it is worthwhile to remove the fatigue bonus and potentially implement a fatigue nerf just to completely cement these things outside the realm of cyno operations and prevent some niche use that some creative players could potentially make use of. Also if the game evolves and there are changes to jumping with future updates. For instance if CCP develops some sort of bridging ship other than Titans in order to improve some other aspect of the game at some point, it will already be established that bridging is just something you don't do with this ship, and avoiding the need for a future nerf that may frustrate players. Better to implement a meaningless penalty now so it's set in everybody's mind that you just don't bridge this thing and from the beginning it will be excluded from anything CCP may want to do with bridging in the future. This contrived, impractical vignette is not worth the cost of the causal use of these ships outside of your vignette. Interceptors fall into this category as well GÇö-áthey allow force projection in concern with stashes by making travel extremely fast and 99.999% safe. Yet, curiously, no one seeks to punish the interceptor due to its ability to do this. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:26:08 - [9] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: That is only a problem for people with a very limited number of titans -- a category, you and others don't fall under. While we do have a lot of titans, we're not about to ask individual pilots to consign their expensive ships to a life of sitting in a dingy lowsec point for the sole purpose of flinging around tugs. They're far more useful defending the homeland. Really, you only have yourselves to blame GÇö the fact that everyone hates us necessitates this concentration of power. Besides, like I've strenuously stated, the expense just isn't necessary while Jump Freighters and Interceptors exist. Why bother when there's a superlative option at significantly less expense? If you want to hurt the seat of our power, going after interceptors is going to do a lot more to help than trying to craft convoluted fanfiction about ships you've never flown and organizations of which you will never belong. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:48:56 - [10] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: That does not matter at all if you get bridged all the way through. The only points, where bubbles could catch your Bowhead is the first warp in to a POS and the final warp to a station. Just as an aside, you're severely betraying your lack of knowledge about how the game works with this post. When moving non-supercapital ships via non-jump-bridge jumps, you always light the cyno at a station, not at the POS. Lighting the cyno at a pos is a suicidal measure due to the inefficacy of pos guns and, while theoretically possible, is just stupid compared to the alternative that removes a significant portion of the risk. Rivr Luzade wrote: Who is talking about Low sec? I am certainly not talking about Low sec. I am talking about moving lots of fitted ships from staging points to other staging points without incurring any Fatigue to the combat pilots and carrier pilots. These ships land fitted and ready and completely safe on their destinations. I have no idea from where you gathered I would talk about moving fitted ships into your Null sec from High sec; that's a completely ridiculous task to even consider with JF around and where you are supposed to build them in your Null home. Titan bridge chains often cut through lowsec to get between two nullsec points as a consequence of wanting to take the shortest path to a destination. Taking the shortest path cuts down on the pilots needed to do the task and, mighty though the CFC may be, we are still limited by the number of available titan pilots. See trail_of_tears.png for more info. Again, betraying your lack of knowledge about the things which you discuss. You know what else does what you've described? Interceptors and Jump Freighters. In fact, interceptors do it up to eight times more quickly than the tug (depending on how much warp speed both options have been afforded and the exact route.) They do it significantly more safely to boot, due to being able to ignore bubbles. You simply cannot craft this vignette without compensating for the existence of the Interceptor. It's just not possible. Rivr Luzade wrote: Besides, you ask your titan pilots already to consign their expensive toys in POS to be used as Jump portals. I haven't seen them roam around by gates and fight for a change. This is because you actually don't observe or have any real information about what we actually do. You're just making up fanfic due to the nature of the mechanics in question fomenting a position of extreme cognitive dissonance. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 972	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:09:01 - [11] - Quote Jadeheart wrote: Guys, I'm just another dumbass redneck indy pilot that knows ****. Can someone explain why we need a ore hauler? It's a ship created by Outer Ring Excavations (ORE), not a hauler of raw asteroid material (ore.) Or, in case I read that wrong, it's because sometimes it is nice to be able to move more than one fitted ship at once. Carrier havers have been able to do this for years; tugs bring the ability to do it without the lengthy carrier skill investment, as well as the ability to do it in highsec. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 972	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:36:41 - [12] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: That's what Jump Beacons are for. But for the sake of argument I concede the occasional use of cynos on stations. That still does not put these ships in any danger as proper fleets to kill of potential bubbles are on the POS. It only takes a couple of ceptors to drive off Sabres or prevent them from decloaking, and a scout on the POS to tell whether there are bubbles or not. It also only takes a couple of ships to remove anchored bubbles, should there be any. Your vignette is becoming increasingly large and infeasible as a result. Trying to argue for the removal of jump fatigue bonuses outside of the band of all other haulers due to an increasingly contrived, infeasible example is poor arguing. Rivr Luzade wrote: No titan bridge to any of your areas of space cuts through any Low sec. Neither from Deklein to Fountain nor from Deklein to Vale. Moot point. Other areas of conflict I don't consider as they are outside your space. It only takes 12 titan bridges to get from Deklein to the border system in Delve, or 5 to get to border systems in Vale, and none of them come even close to Low sec. What else you do with your titans and bridges is of no concern to me. What is of concern, however, is the fact that ships can be moved with little effort and little Fatigue within your space, and that goes against what Phoebe intends to change. You're arguing unimportant semantics. The original point of this was to describe the languishing of the titan pilot. Lowsec was only mentioned to color the uselessness of the titan's role, as lowsec is a pretty pointless place to be. Interceptors create zero fatigue, and jump freighters are cheaper and have longer range. Next. Rivr Luzade wrote: I don't describe JF as JF cannot move fitted ships and transporting fitted ships with ease is the problem. I also don't describe ceptors as ceptors can only carry 1 pilot through space and not ships for a full squad in a fleet. They sure can move 1 pilot to a stash, but are near useless if there is no stash. And such a stash can be created easily with the Bowheads and of course also JF, albeit with more effort for the transporters. That is a big difference for me. What's so magical about fitted ships? The only advantage the tug affords is the ability to move rigged ships, and rigs are cheap. Maintaining a few strategic caches of ships is also cheaper than the 12 dedicated titans, the POSes for each, the outposts for each, and the 16 associated accounts (read: 12 titan + 4 cyno) subscription fees, paid by plex, not to mention the cost and training time for the tugs themselves. It's far safer and far more efficient to maintain these caches, rig in place, and use interceptors to move. Rivr Luzade wrote: That fanfic, how you like to call it, is certainly very close to reality. I have already seen super capital camps and roams, albeit only on screenshots of friends. But I have not seen your titans, or any titans for that matter, roaming around, freeing themselves of the shackles that POS and bridge tool impose on them. Correct me, if I am wrong. Ah, yes, the screenshots from friends. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 973	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:16:22 - [13] - Quote Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 973	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:27:17 - [14] - Quote Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 974	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:48:37 - [15] - Quote Having special ship couriers that can go into Ship Maintenance Arrays would be extremely cool. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 975	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:58:58 - [16] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Querns wrote: Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. You really need to update your definition of Ferry. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20ferry Quote: a boat or ship for conveying passengers and goods, especially over a relatively short distance and as a regular service. Seems to be apt to me. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 975	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:04:28 - [17] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Yes, but they are definately not restricted to lakes and rivers as you said, and the term short is relative. Some ferry routes are 1,000 km long, or more. I'll take your word for it. Being the man that I am, I am inclined to stick to the rivers and lakes that I'm used to. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 976	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:18:57 - [18] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: Slevin-Kelevra wrote: I am talking about null sec jump bridges mate. With the 90% reduction you can move your whole fleet across the map using jump bridges, and gain very little fatigue doing so. Seriously. This is an issue. Not while interceptors exist. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 978	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:56:59 - [19] - Quote afkalt wrote: Querns wrote: Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. I don't doubt you, what I dislike is the undermining the message of the mechanic - why add more bonused hulls? At all? Even taking you at your word (and I do, for clarity) there is almost no POINT in it being bonused. They are trying to limit projection and teleporting around the map - what message does the first new hull since the change having a reduction bonus send? By their own admission, it is a high sec intended vessel - what harm would it not being fatigue reduced bring? Particularly if they are as useless as you've shown for rapid deployment? Then the message of "teleporting travel is dying" is retained. The point of it retaining the bonus is because it allows the hull to be used in more casual, PvE related environments. An example: the vagaries of nullsec production and the varied push/pull motivators added in Crius demand that ships, modules, and ammo be produced in disparate systems, and sold in yet others. Having the ship retain a fatigue bonus allows it to be used for production and to move fitted hulls around. Without the fatigue bonus, there's little reason to use it over a Jump Freighter. Forcing an individual into one particular choice is a hallmark of bad design. (Interceptors also fall into this category.) What I'm primarily trying to do is diffuse the alarmingly prevalent belief that all forms of gameplay must suffer because a complicated, unrealistic vignette constructed by people with little expertise in the matter paints a diabolic picture. These vignettes are overwhelmingly constructed by folks who have an irrational distaste for the mechanic in question (largely brought about by their inability to USE this mechanic, fomenting an emotionally charged, inaccurate picture.) Under no circumstances have these vignettes been backed up by a single fact, calculation, or vetted by someone with a demonstrable amount of domain knowledge in the field in question. It also doesn't help that these vignettes are painted in stark refusal to accept the fact that the Interceptor exists. I'm not really sure how to reconcile this Interceptor-shaped blind spot. I find the "but the ship is intended to be used in highsec" argument to be complete garbage, in general. The only time these arguments hold any water is when the game physically restricts the ship from being in a certain area of space (e.g.: carriers in highsec.) As an avowed nullsec haver, I'm just as capable of building and operating a Bowhead in 0.0 as I am in highsec. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 978	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:59:54 - [20] - Quote Celly S wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: A jump drive would be nice. No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers... (not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy) and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!! wink o7 Celly Smunt That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA. I'd be in favor of a T2 version of the Bowhead that has jump drive capability. This mirrors the original split of carriers and jump freighters, where the former had its ability to carry industrials packed with materiel castrated, allowing the latter to have a role as a dedicated logistics vehicle. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 983	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:07:59 - [21] - Quote Celly S wrote: no it is not part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability. if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise. I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier. o/ Celly Smunt No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. Also, I never suggested that the Bowhead have a jump drive. I think a T2 version of the Bowhead should. After all, you're not calling for the restriction of the Jump Freighter, which does the exact same thing with packaged ships. All a jump-capable Bowhead would allow over a Jump Freighter is a minor reduction in cost and a minor increase in Quality of Life involved in packaging ships (destroying their rigs in the process.) Hell, a jump freighter can carry three times as many battleships in packaged form compared to a theoretical T2 Bowhead, and that's not even considering paralleling the trend with freighters and JFs whereupon the T2 version trades a significant portion of its hauling ability for the jump drive. Too many people in this thread are making the fundamental mistake that rigging a ship is some manner of ironclad rubicon, upon which none may cross in the opposite direction. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:18:45 - [22] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: I gotta say, that name is really bad. Are you sure you didn't mean Bowsprit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowsprit That isn't a type of whale. Quote: The bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) is a species of the right whale family Balaenidae, in suborder Mysticeti and genus Balaena. A stocky dark-colored whale without a dorsal fin, it can grow to 20 m (66 ft) in length. This thick-bodied species can weigh 75 tonnes (74 long tons; 83 short tons) to 100 tonnes (98 long tons; 110 short tons).[3] It lives entirely in fertile Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, unlike other whales that migrate to feed or reproduce to low latitude waters. It was also known as Greenland right whale or Arctic whale. American whalemen called it the steeple-top, polar whale,[4] or Russia or Russian whale. The bowhead has the largest mouth of any animal. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:19:49 - [23] - Quote Mharius Skjem wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. Very good idea, don't cave into null sec though as they'll soon start asking for fatigue reduction bonuses on combat ships. Are you kidding? We LOVE that combat ships have little to no fatigue bonuses. Hell, I'd be for removing the fatigue bonus on blackops BS and covert bridging, too. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:20:43 - [24] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. I can assure you that I'm doing no such thing, just the same as I can assure you that carriers were not nerfed because of their combat ability (or as you stated previously their tank...) I am more than willing to consider your statement if it were at all factual or relevant. all combat ships travel distance was nerfed, not just carriers, Jump freighters were not nerfed as hard because CCP stated that while the JFs were not where they wanted them to be, they were where they needed to be in relation to the current industry in null/low sec. Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them. you can start here o/ Celly Smunt. Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:55:19 - [25] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim. you're right, I evidently need to link you to the threadnaught that preceded that thread that has CCP's own statements about force projection... give me a bit and I will https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=376666 here you go... also, I really <3 this one https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5182521#post5182521 LMAo have fun o/ Celly Smunt Once again, you've failed to provide any evidence that the carrier's inclusion into the default fatigue ship set was due to its SMA. Or, really, for any factor at all. I enjoy onanism as much as the next Eve player, but do try to keep it on topic. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:23:16 - [26] - Quote Celly S wrote: I never said it was nerfed because of its SMA, please don't put words in my mouth. you stated it was nerfed because of it's tank, then you said it was due to it's combat abilities, neither one of which were true, but neither one of which had even one iota of relevance to my statement that there were already jump capable ships in low and null that could move assembled ships. my comment was based in fact and your statements as to the reason carriers were nerfed are not, I SAID that force projection is the reason for the nerfs CCP implemented recently (that IS in the links i provided, and that does in fact back up what I said in reply to your erroneous assertions, not what you're now claiming I said), now, If a player wishes to continue to use their ships in the manner they did previously, there is a jump timer and fatigue consequence they have to pay... again, if you are going to make a point.... so, I will state again that asking for one of these new ships to have a jump drive is basically asking for an un nerfed carrier since there's no reason to have that aside from circumvention of the recently changed mechanics... I hope that's clearer for you o/ Celly Smunt Uhhh Celly S wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: A jump drive would be nice. No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers... (not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy) and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!! wink o7 Celly Smunt Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA. no it is not part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability. if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise. I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier. o/ Celly Smunt How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:26:01 - [27] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: There is a TON of debate going on around the jump fatigue bonus on this ship, Not really. It's one or two posters having a conniption over a thing they don't understand, and one lone, strapping forums hero disassembling their fits with surgical precision. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:59:14 - [28] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection So anything that is easy to travel to travel (:allears:) is now force projection? Why, then, are you not calling for the nerfing of the Interceptor? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:22:20 - [29] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection So anything that is easy to travel to travel (:allears:) is now force projection? Why, then, are you not calling for the nerfing of the Interceptor? my bad, I didn't realize that an interceptor had a jump drive and could haul assembled ships It needs neither, as it's faster than anything with a jump drive and jump freighters exist to move things far faster than a carrier can. You're so fixated on the carrier's SMA that you are blind to its other, more powerful attributes. The carrier SMA just isn't that good. Get over it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:45:11 - [30] - Quote Also, if I truly was a troll, I'd report your name for obscenity. In fact, I might just do that anyways. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:44:02 - [31] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. Also need an agility buff to avoid the bumpers, otherwise can be pinned indefinitely and hit by waves of gankers. Unless this ship is reasonably safe, incursion runners won't use it. Sounds like you need to use escort fleets. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 989	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:09:19 - [32] - Quote Celly S wrote: please do oh wait, someone else who couldn't come up with a valid counter to one of my statements already did that. Apparently constantly being called out on lack of evidence, moving goalposts, and a systemic lack of understanding of game mechanics counts as having a position with no "valid counter." This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:46:54 - [33] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. I guess they don't have jump freighters where you live. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:22:08 - [34] - Quote I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell GÇö I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:18:41 - [35] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Querns wrote: I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell GÇö I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited. Buying friends is not exactly optimal logic when you start to play a video game. At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:20:05 - [36] - Quote Brotherhood Of The Tenbux Uber Alles This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 998	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:25:55 - [37] - Quote Yeah, not gonna lie GÇö-áthat is a sad display. There's gotta be a better way to win an internet argument than to try to drag sexual assault into it. That sort of thing should not even be in your playbook. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1008	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:23:06 - [38] - Quote Euripedies wrote: +1 for the Bowhead/ Space Tug Finally my very own space tug I can haul my ships in. While incursion runners may use them for their shiny ships, I have lots of small ships I would like to haul here and there. When I need to move to another region I can just load up and go, awesome. See? A use case. The fact that the ship isn't being custom tailored to the whims of the single example proffered by the devblog does not obviate the entire ship's purpose. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:15:44 - [39] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:20:30 - [40] - Quote The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:28:19 - [41] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. I see. Funny how in nullsec they have these ships called "titans" that are unkillable by pretty much anything except other titans and dreads. And when they are part of a large fleet with triage carriers, run by lets just say, Goonswarm Federation, they are virtually unkillable at all. So we already have virtually invincible ships in nullsec, and the game somehow seems to be surviving. If incursion runners get a very tough to gank ship in highsec (replicating the virtual impossibility of ganking cloak + mwd + travel fit incursion battletships currently), that seems unlikely to somehow break the game. See, now you're just making things up. Titans die all the time. Case in point: A small alliane, LowSechnaya Sholupen, killed a Northern Coalitiondot titan very recently. There are 11 people on the mail, and the bulk of the DPS was applied via simple dreadnought. Northern Coalitiondot currently controls more space than we do. Your views on eve are, frankly, extremely myopic, and your failure to actually understand the reality of the situation casts quite a bit of doubt over your ability to think objectively outside of your own vignette. e: LowSechnaya Sholupen is an alliance, not a corporation. My apologies. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:32:44 - [42] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool. No cargo ship should ever be virtually ungankable right out of the box. If you want that level of security then you must put in the effort to do it yourself. if that is true, then this ship will not find any use to speak of, at least not in hisec. There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:34:27 - [43] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: In no way does Eve require ships to constantly be at risk. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very foundations of the entire game. This is, quite literally, anathema to the very underpinnings of the game's existence. There's no better way to express this. It's objective truth; no amount of wordsmithery will change this indisputable fact. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1013	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:44:56 - [44] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. i am eager to hear of use cases where you would need to haul rigged hulls in hisec so badly that you invest ten digits and a month of training time into it. Investing a month of training time? The bulk of the training time for the Bowhead is Advanced Spaceship Command 5, a skill which has significant overlap with Freighters, Jump Freighters, and is a gateway to all capital ships. Pretending that it's some sort of burden shouldered only by the Bowhead aspirant is disingenuous. Also, 1b is hardly a large amount of money. PLEX are a doghair from this value right now. And if you use a little bit of brainpower to limit your exposure, you can safely move around the universe while fearing no gank bogey man. As for use cases, here's some: Mercenaries transporting large numbers of ships-of-the-line to stage towards a new target. A common way for corporations and alliances to provide ships for their members is to pre-fit them and put them up on contracts. The Bowhead allows them to move the ships easily should the staging point for the corporation/alliance change. Consolidation of personal assets. With a little creativity, a lot of things come out of the woodwork. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1015	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:51:53 - [45] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Wrong. As has been pointed out repeatedly properly set up fleets with capital triage logi are essentially unkillable by weaker fleets. The fights are little more than one sided massacres. The titans of the stronger side have absolutely no risk of blowing up. And the yet the game survives - because there is no requirement that every time a ship undocks it faces material chance of destruction. Example - thousands of hours of flying and I have never lost an incursion battleship. Why? Because even a minimal level of precaution makes them virtually unkillable. Same for Goon titans in Deklein - even a minimal level of precaution and they are close to unkillable. This bowhead was created in response to repeated and frequent requests from incursion runners to be able to move multiple ships around highsec....they currently can be moved individually with essentially complete safety. This ship was created to meet that need - not to now create a new risk of freighter ganking similar to that faced in Uedama and Niarja. You are conflating "difficult" with "impossible." Case in point: B-RB saw the death of 75 titans, despite significant numbers of triage and supercarriers supporting these titans. Titans just don't have the sort of invincibility that you think they do. You're talking about a thing whose domain knowledge you increasingly prove that you lack. For your own sake, please discontinue. You're making things up based on a story you've told yourself, and anyone with any real domain knowledge in the matter can instantly tell you're out of your element. Also, the game does not provide this difficulty to its players by dint of the existence of the hull GÇö-áit's the efforts of players that have made the difficulty increase. Trying to discount the hundreds of thousands of manhours of work that has gone into building our empire as mere inevitability is, frankly, insulting. You do not get to enjoy the fruits of our labors just because we've made them theoretically possible inside of your own myopic worldview. No ship currently enjoys invincibility-áGÇö not even the mighty titan. Bowheads do not get special treatment just because the one use case brought about by official communications was due to a certain group. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:48:40 - [46] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You could tank concord back then. And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way. Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others. Please stop. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:51:53 - [47] - Quote Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:33 - [48] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others. Please stop. No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves.. Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:05:12 - [49] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement. Oh, you mean just like I did with baltec's false statements about mOo. I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on. No, not really. You just did the same thing you always did GÇö-ádeclare yourself the winner because a niggling portion of what you talk about did not have its requisite reams of paperwork. Please, just stop. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:35 - [50] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity). As long as interceptors shed their warp bubble immunity and jump freighters are nerfed, I concur. Trying to nerf one form of power projection while leaving a vastly superior one in place is hypocrisy. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:21:44 - [51] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence. Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed. And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven? Obviously I can't GÇö-áno one compiles information like that. That is why your tactics are so disingenuous GÇö-áyou set up complicated scaffoldings that imply that the points require an impossible level or quality of evidence, then go on about how without this evidence, the whole thing falls down. There's more nuance to conversations than this, and you can't just demand evidence about barely related things all the time and expect anyone to take you seriously. Like, I have no idea why you even WANT that information! I have no idea why it even remotely relates to the discussion of Bowhead EHP. Can you even backtrack this conversation to re-assert your initial point? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1018	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:29:05 - [52] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box. Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer. Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago. FYI, this is what we in the posting biz refer to as "evidence." This stuff comes right out of patch notes. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1019	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:49:10 - [53] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on. I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue. Valterra Craven wrote: Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use? The proof is in the pudding. Before the changes to barge / exhumer EHP, I could take down multiple exhumers using a smartbombing battleship. Observe a few of the kills I scored via suicide gank during the first Gallente Ice Interdiction: https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=590210&m=10&y=2011 (note that the pilot in question has been sold and no longer belongs to me; check the corp history and you'll find that in the dates in question, the pilot was indeed a member of goonswarm federation) After CCP made the barge EHP changes, it's impossible to do this. Eight smartbombs are not enough to take down even the most lightly tanked exhumer. The changes directly increased the resiliency of the ships against suicide ganking, and made the ganker exert more effort and more funds into taking down single targets. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1022	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:23:19 - [54] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices. This still counts as character assassination. My affiliations have nothing to do with my forums posting, and I have graciously extended this consideration to others. Building a frame of reference about how the majority of my affiliates argue has nothing to do with how I argue and trying to use that as the fulcrum to demand an above-and-beyond level of busywork is asinine. Valterra Craven wrote: So you are arguing that the only effective deterrent to ganking is and always will be to add HP to ships then? And thereby saying by extension that all of the other arguments that people are making about crime watch are indeed irrelevant to ganking? Holy Jump To Conclusions, Batman. Uh, no. That is not remotely what I said. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:29 - [55] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: No its not. You've said yourself that the numbers of freighters that have died to ganks in the past two years has remained constant. These ships didn't get the HP buff that the barges did. Freighters received significantly larger increases in EHP than barges did. While each freighter lost some raw hull, each of them received a more-than-commensurate increase in shields and/or armor to compensate, as well as the ability to fit three reinforced bulkheads, increasing their hull EHP to 175% of what it is normally. This more than compensates for the slight reduction in raw hull EHP, when throwing the increase in shield/armor EHP out the window. See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:50:15 - [56] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I'm sorry but that is a pretty flimsy argument considering that before I even mention your affiliations I said you were above them. This is doubly true when the points I was making were referring to how others were posting in this thread and that I was trying to find a way to confront THEIR foolishness. You will note that I never requested you to provide that data, because well you never made that arguement. In my response to you I said I wouldn't refrain from asking others to back up their claims when they were making arguments that can't be backed up. Since I had already stated that I did not observe that behavior from you I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that you were included in the same vein as your affliates. The principle still applies GÇö your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great GÇö-áthat doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others. I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed. Valterra Craven wrote: Well then what was the point you were trying to make? I fail to see how how barge HP changes relate to the state of ganking as a whole when looking at changes like crime watch etc. The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. Hell, we can measure it right now GÇö-áI, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:54:48 - [57] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them. Querns wrote: See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs. Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent.... It isn't CCP's job to enforce player fits. If players want to increase their risk by fitting modules that reduce their tank to increase their efficacy at another role, that's fine, but you make a conscious decision when doing so to increase your exposure to a suicide gank event. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:56:08 - [58] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves. So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard. Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile? So, the gankers don't have enough hulls and pilots to gank a battleship with less EHP, but they do with bowheads? I'm confused. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:11 - [59] - Quote Besides, Cloak + MWD trick is hardly perfect safety. I've successfully caught several covert nullified T3s in nullsec, which move faster and have half to a third of the align time that a Cloak + MWD trick BS has (minimum 10 seconds.) This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:14:15 - [60] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time. Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/ Also, your implication is facile. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:22:07 - [61] - Quote Also, how do the bumpers keep the ship locked down without giving the target a weapons timer, which attracts CONCORD (which, by your own admission, makes the gank significantly more difficult?) Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:29:06 - [62] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Also, how do the bumpers keep the ship locked down without giving the target a weapons timer, which attracts CONCORD (which, by your own admission, makes the gank significantly more difficult?) Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? They aggress with a rookie ship to create an LE timer. Code has this down to a science...I assume miniluv does as well. Uh, you only get a Limited Engagement timer if you fire upon someone with a suspect flag. How do freighters do this? I guess the bowhead could fit a point in its midslots, but doing that is very silly. Shooting the freighter creates an aggression timer and attracts concord, which makes the gank a lot harder. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:30:00 - [63] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:39:56 - [64] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. Them shooting at you prevents the logoff I think. So when you disconnect on gate, you get warped 1 mil km off.....they quickly scan down and send a rookie ship to agress....this prevents logoff....the they bump away from concord....and come in for the kill. Not if you safelog. Safe logout takes 30 seconds, and as long as you aren't aggressed, you disappear from space immediately after the 30s timer elapses. It is the premiere choice for Folks Logging Out In Space. Also, when you log in again, you immediately enter emergency warp without having to align. There's no way for someone to aggress you before you initiate the e-warp, and if someone DOES manage to somehow, the GMs will reimburse your ship if you petition it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1028	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:47:35 - [65] - Quote Oh and here we go travel fit machariel found with a cloak and mwd found https://zkillboard.com/kill/42170465/ This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1029	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:44:12 - [66] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. So given what you say here, can we safely assume that in the future this fatigue bonus will go away as is implied by Greyscale's statement: CCP Greyscale wrote: Hi everyone, We've collected, parsed and thoroughly discussed your extensive feedback on the proposed long-distance travel changes, both in the official thread and elsewhere, consulted with the CSM, and made adjustments accordingly. Conclusions we have reached through this exercise: [list] The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be. It is, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game. That statement was concerning Jump Freighters getting special-cased to be 10LY. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

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.