As promised, here is your brand new ship-moving ship - the Bowhead.

We originally expected this to be a sister ship to the Orca, but after digging into the details realized that it was really more of a freighter and by setting it up that way we could avoid heavier skill requirements that had nothing to do with its role. This means we are going to introduce a new skill: ORE Freighter, which requires ORE Industrial III and Advanced spaceship command V just like other faction freighter skills.

Alright, added quite a bit of base hp (mostly in shield, some in structure) and changed the max velocity bonus to agility. OP is updated with new numbers.

Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset.

Nah. Get yourself billions of dollars and you can get away with murder, even mass murder, in the real world.

And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.

Similar to how the amount of people able to effectively gank freighters in EVE is very low.

I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise.

Anyways it's a dumb train of thought because alts. It eventually leads to saying that CCP has to ban anyone that starts a new account while a previous account has a criminal character. Or that CCP do something like identify real players and spread their criminal status across all characters. People would quit the game. I'd quit and I don't even gank but once in a blue moon.

Oh come on, that's just naive.

Why?

That is probably the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen on these forums.

Not only should it be a possible permanent career GÇö it must be a possible permanent career, or the game is broken on a fundamental level and in dire need of a redesign to make the destruction/production/trade cycle work again.

No, its naive... here's some statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances

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.

I'm sorry, no. I don't have to explain why someones preferred career is enjoyable. Thats a major aspect as to why to keep it around. Good try flipping the question on me.

Maybe you could supply those numbers then? Or do you not have them?

It has nothing to do with what is destroyed where (and incidentally, highsec systems sit at the top of the list of destroyed capital, see the FF2012 economy presentation) GÇö it has to do with how you cannot allow one part of the game that level of safety without breaking the industrial-economical balance or the core design principle of letting players dictate how they play and where.

We have only very recently made strides towards letting players actually make that choice, free of moronic and damaging restrictions that have long proven to suffocate the game. What you are suggesting is that they not only return, but are made worse than ever.

GǪyou have decided to not look up the facts of the matter and are just guessing and hoping for the best. More than that, you also skipped over a significant portion of my actual argument GÇö the one concerning the need for everything to be destructible everywhere, or the game breaks from the imbalance.

Oh, and you still didn't answer the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥

Keep in mind that as capsuleers, we're like superheros (or super-villains) to the average citizen in the Eve universe. We're Bill Gates-rich - even the poorest newbie that started the game last week has more money and more earning capability than the top 1% of standard citizens. We have the means to nearly any end. Concord can only hope to punish, not prevent. Death does not stop us - we have clones.

So yeah, throw me in jail... give me the death penalty... I'll be back...

EDIT: Oh, and there probably aren't many statistics to run for people that repeat the same crime successfully for decades.... because they're successful at it by definition.

No. YOU offered argument so YOU have to support it. I am in no way obligated to make conjectures off of a very simple statement.

So apparently YOU don't know how debates work. Maybe you should read up on how to form arguments. And no you have not supported your argument as to why "criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career". The arguments previous were about ganking and the risks and reward etc etc etc. It is still your prerogative to explain yourself. You don't have to, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously afterwords.

Here's a quick breakdown of the child games you just tried to pull:

A makes a statement
B asks him to explain it
A says B should explain why not
B says I asked you first
A withdraws from argument with a parting statement of "i dont have to"
B swigs more whiskey to abate the growing headache, even though it is only 1 in the afternoon

The one we're discussing. Keep up, or stop trying to dance around the creeping realisation you're having that your assertions are thoroughly uninformed.

I'm discussing the fact that high sec ganking needs to be further nerfed. You are just arguing about things that don't actually exist.


No, you didn't, nor did you provide any evidence for your (non-existing) argument. All you've offered that comes even close is a thoroughly irrelevant comparison with a completely unrelated topic GÇö you have yet to answer why the game should be massively changed in that way. You are still just trying to dance around the fact that you have nothing even remotely resembling a coherent argument.

SoGǪ why? Explain why. Properly, this time.

There is no answer to the question GÇ£whyGÇ¥ above. I take it to mean that this lack is supposed to be your answer, then.

So to conclude: you can't think of a single solid reason why the game should change at a very fundamental level, effectively wiping out entire play styles.

You could have just said so rather than do this whole silly song and dance number.

I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with.

And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe.

That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. {THE WHY}Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense?{/THE WHY} What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career.

At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends.

The conversation regarding why criminal gameplay should be removed is quoted 2 posts above you. And I read your previous arguments (at least for the 3 pages previous) and the argument had nothing to do with a total removal of criminal gameplay. The closest thing I found to an answer,"That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid." And then your following story of how it doesnt work that way anywhere else (not exactly a 'why') and how it should be changed.

Why should ganking be punished harder? why should criminal gameplay become a PITA? Why should highsec become safer, by way of reducing the criminals ability?

No, it's your fault for trying to pass of an irrelevant tangent as an answer to the question of why the game should change so dramatically.

None of this explains why the game should change. It only poses further question (viz. how does it make sense, to which the answer always is GÇ£it's a gameGÇ¥).
SoGǪ why should the game change?

The three strikes system is an abhorent abuse of baisic morality
it has absolutely nothing to do with internet space ships
bringing it up in that context makes you look a complete fool as aposed to plain wrong

GǪand the reason is because you have yet to make any kind of connection between your irrelevant tangent and you initial assertion. You have yet to explain why the game should change.[quote=Tippia]

The game should change because the risk reward balance is still skewed too favorably toward the attacker. (big note here since everyone is talking about freighters, that again, I'm talking about ALL high sec ganking, not just limited to freighters).

[quote=Tippia]Why notGÇ¥ means you can't actually think of a single reason why the game should change, and that is all you're saying here.

And we do have a system, standing, crime wach and CONCORD are all part of that, if you don't feel that's enough then get out and do something about it.

So you would be in favor of a game mechanic that would let someone hunt down and permanently destroy a clone, or prevent reanimation? Or are you saying this game based on player interaction should just have a magic threshold where it says "Poof, you lose because of too much killing"?

Again, 1 or 2 examples of people getting caught is not data on the number of unsolved crimes. You're the one hand waving with anecdotes instead of numbers.

Regardless, that line of reasoning isn't relevant to ganking. We know who committed those acts - there's proof on the killboards. The issue goes back to the punishment, or lack thereof. As much as possible, the Eve world is about player interaction - players building, players destroying, players conquering, players policing. I'd be all for more mechanics that let players hunt other players for the atrocities they commit - real or imagined.

There is nothing for you to disprove. There is only the question you have yet to answer properly: why should the game change on such a fundamental level?

Do you have anything to support this assertion? More to the point, how does this in any way support or explain the assertion that you should not be allowed to be a permanent criminal?

No, you have just dismissed it by a neat combination of argument from ignorance and strawman argumentation. You have yet to actually adress the facts of the matter or the substance of my argument. Feel free to do that as well once you're done answering the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥

This already exists in numerous incarnations. You are in favour of the game as it already works.

Why should it be deterred?[/quote

Why shouldn't it? This is the main problem with your argument about not answering "why" questions in a debate. The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity. I've made a point. I've backed it. You disagree with it? Fine. Come up with substantive counter argument. Otherwise I'm not interested in childish games. Otherwise, please refer to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMB-0sE__cY

It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman.

No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred?

[quote]The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity

So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should.
Again, why didn't you just say so?

GǪand that is why those bad proposals will always be met with an incessant wall of Gǣwhy?Gǥ until the originator demonstrates that they can't actually support the baseless and ill-conceived opinion they vomited out for no apparent reason. Much like what keeps happening to you.

Just answer the question already.

Nope. You see, there is a very simple reason why it shouldn't that remains true from the very start: because you fail to explain why. Your conclusion is based on a onus probandi fallacyGÇönot only is it not safe, it is fundamentally lacking in any kind of logical cohesion or validity.

No, it doesn't. You made an assertion. Your assertion is incorrect until you provide some supporting argumentation or evidence to prove otherwise. As long as you adamantly refuse to answer the very very very very trivially simple question GÇ£whyGÇ¥, we have every reason ever needed to say that your suggestion should absolutely not happen.

You provided the answer to your own question by your refusal to answer mine. I don't have to lift a finger.

No it doesn't.

Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space?

You are when you demand nerfs to ganking.

No, you really haven't.
Why should it be deterred?

Almost correct. My argument is that your refusal to answer a very simple question is all that is needed to show that what you're asking for should not happen. GÇ£WhyGÇ£ is indeed not an argument, and neither is GÇ£why not?GÇ¥, and yet that is all you have offered so far.

except that you did neither of those. You offered an assertion, with nothing to support it. You said that the risks in being a permanent criminal are not enough to deter the activityGÇöthat is not an opinion, nor is there any two cents attached to it. It's a normative statement with no explanation why it should be deterred.

Yes you did. By failing to answer the question of why, you provided an answer to GÇ£why not?GÇ¥ that is GÇ£because there's no reason to do itGÇ¥.
Onus probandi is a nasty fellow GÇö you need to learn to not fall for it every time. The best way is to actually start answering that question you've come to loathe: the question of GÇ£why?GÇ¥

Indeed, but what you're very explicitly asking for is a wholesale removal, for no reason that you can articulate.

know how the ganker brought his friends?
well so can the bowhead pilot.

we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long.

if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me.
your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses.

how would this be any better than just using a normal freighter

This seems entirely reasonable.

Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps.

And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships.

What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things.

Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group.

No it can't. it CAN however move 12 times faster (webbing frigate) with more EHP (links) while having help if it gets ganked (reps).

ah yes the attempting to parallel real life society to a video game option

Every single delivery made to Bastion in Afghanistan

Better can fit more than your narrowly defined criteria. You're the one being disingenuous with those silly arguments.

goalposts status: moved

my counter argument is that trying to draw a parallel to real life in a video game is the height of folly and renders anything that slipped out of your words bindle irrelevant

said the pot to the shining white beacon of light

it's not an opinion, it's fact GÇö-átrying to apply the norms and mores of real life to the infinitely less complex structure of a video game is at once impossible and, frankly, kinda stupid even if it is possible

Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world.

seeing as your argument falls under this category on the merits of being in the "hella is an opinion" box i fail to see what you gain from shooting yourself in the foot in this manner

apparently in order for players to fight one another in highsec the npcs have to be fighting each other too

man this world you live in is pretty trippy

Welcome to Afghanistan.

you not agreeing with our argument doesn't somehow preclude it from being relevant

i would actually like to see this dictionary

please post it

agreeing implies that there is an opinion involved

if anything you saying that video games are anything like real life is kinda insulting to the billions of lives that have worked to shape real life

why you gotta tear them down like that man

ctrl-f
"npc"
*no results*

ctrl-f
"prolonged"
*no results*

ctrl-f
"patrol"
*no results*

ctrl-f
"navy"
*no results*

hmm it seems your dictionary does not support your argument at all

Suicide gankers. I wonder what that can be compared to...

Then we have wardecs, blood feuds, robberies, piracy...

High sec is not safe, never has been never will be.

because the very thing you're trying to draw parallels to is completely incongruous with the subject matter at hand

highsec is not a developed country in real life, it is a series of solar systems in a videogame populated by individuals with eternal life

the very underpinnings of real life society is completely unavailable for comparison due to this

I see you are ignoring CCPs own words on this matter.

your hilarious retreat into nonsense signals you understand that i am completely correct

wrongo buddy

every player in eve has the ability to cheat death

we're talking about violencing space boats in a video game, please keep it on topic

welp looks like he's brought out the dictionary thing again

here's something you can look up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

no it doesn't

show me a single player of Eve: Online that isn't a capsuleer

so too are the mortal humans of eve who are so irrelevant they have no impact on the game whatsoever

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

not beings

do the goalposts get heavy after moving them so much or do you work out

deploying the i am rubber you are glue defense

we've got a live one here kids

i suppose this puts the rest of the attempted facts you've tried to declare into perspective

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.

What did the space navies think about the recent lapse in technology where they can no longer jump drive more than once every 10 minutes?

Oh also how come the space navies don't put their space navy gear on the market, there is a huge demand for instalocking perma-jamming setups

Attempting to utilize Eve Lore in any decision CCP makes is an absolute joke.

The sole purpose of Eve Lore is only to provide context for why we are flying spaceships and shooting each other.

What exactly are you trying to argue, I have been pulling a CCP and not actually reading this thread

I've seen this argument before and I have no idea why people insist on it.

The problem with ganking is that they have all the advantages. They determine the time, the place, and what their thresholds are. They have the element of surprise and they can have over whelming force.

I know people hate real life analogies here, but I want you to image what life would be like if in every civilized country (US, All the EU nations, Japan, etc) that in order to transport goods via a high speed route like a highway you would have to get an escort to do so. Think about the economic burden that would be placed on just trying to move things. Keep in mind I'm not talking about low sec or null sec right now, which the Somali pirates would be a good comparison to make there. The problem with the mechanic as it exists now is that if people like gankers exist that continually preyed on business etc like they do in eve, they would be systematically hunted down and dealt with. The free flow of goods is vitally important to any economy, and frankly your argument just isn't practical to that end.

but hey let ol auntie promfem schoolfeed y'all some actual facts:

fact: it is possible to suicide gank nerds in highsec
fact: ccp is the sole arbiter of whether or not this is allowed
fact: it'd be pretty effin trivial to disallow weapons fire on another player in highsec
fact: they haven't
fact:

and here is the big one

no area of space in eve is 100% safe

this has been Paroxysm of Facts by Promiscuous Female, facthaver

and yet nothing in eve even remotely approaches the complexity of real life institutions

but hey if we wanna do this, i've got a real humdinger

there's nothing stopping me, being a first world country haver, from selecting an unlucky random off the street and snuffing their shit

however if i do that the likelihood of me getting punished and potentially even murdered by the state is pretty darn high

eve is similar because if i snuff someone's shit i get punished by the state in the form of explosions

"players should not be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, here is a list of parameters under which players must operate"

If only there were a way that they could seek advice from players and actually utilize those ideas in the design of the game going forward, instead of just assembling a player representative group and throwing ideas at them saying "here is what we are doing".

This is how you get awful design decisions like jump fatigue. Seriously. Let's introduce a completely obscure and terrible mechanic to nerf jumps instead of mechanics already in the game, like changing jump fuel usage to have exponential costs. Because always travelling in gates in every ship is great game design

the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre

this is basically the summation of the incursion community's feedback in this thread

actually ccp rushed through jump fatigue on short notice and gave the csm 0-12 hours (depending on the TZ of the particular csmhaver) to actually think about it before they drove the ol' clown car onto eveo for initial feedback

if you were even remotely engaged in this community you'd know that but i guess that is asking too much

jesus christ you are comparing eve ganks to sexual assault

i thought i was a sociopath but holy shit

this is not the case

you'd know that if you were even remotely engaged with the community

If you think that CCP actually moved more quickly because of that signed article and it in any way affected their decision making, then you're in for a pretty awful surprise.

no you literally compared being ganked in a video game to sexual assault

this is a thing you did

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?

you used sexual assault

in comparison to an action

in a video game

no amount of justification you can bleed from your word hole is going to change that

Do you have a link to this? I want to see this and how did I miss this thread :(

keep on backpedaling

holy lawl being ganked is just like being sexually assaulted, a thing eve online poster valterra craven actually just argued

was not expecting that

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.

perhaps if the only way you see to win an argument is to insinuate your opponents are rapists, you should consider it a sign your argument is a bad one and you should admit you were wrong

is this another situation where you have forgotten the thing you posted like we had a few pages ago

what you posted is right here in black and white you're not going to be able to pretend you didn't

perhaps you should read it a few more times then and then once you get why your post was so offensive, then go read your post about "well i had to do it, it was the only way to win an argument over internet spaceships"

you also have failed to wrestle with how offensive your comparison of the loser of an internet spaceship pvp encounter in a game based on having losers of internet spaceship pvp encounters to victims of sexual assault that has been pointed out repeatedly

perhaps you should mull that over as well, while i contemplate how awful a person i am because i victim-blamed when i told my brother that he lost a game of chess because he kept walking his important pieces into my pawns

i didn't have to kill his queen, it is truly wrong to tell him he is to blame for losing his queen. he is the victim here.

he is Todd Akin

if it's a legitimate gank then the freighter has ways to shut that whole process down

Valterra Craven, just stop and think very carefully about the analogy you are trying to make: The best IRL comparison to freighter ganking is the Somali Pirates capturing freighters, yachts and the like who are traveling through the Gulf of Aden to ransom their cargo, crew and/or loot the goodies on those ships. Any other comparison, like ****/sexual assault is inaccurate and wrong.

Also, victim blaming is dumb on so many levels I won't even go there.

However, playing Eve, a game known to encourage non-consensual PVP means taking steps to manage your risk is sensible and prudent. You consent to those risks when you undock. No one makes you undock or even play this terrible game. Note, the worst that happens in Eve is your ships is blown up (like someone blowing up your car or favorite speed boat) and the parts and cargo stolen (like the Somali pirates do) and then you are podded (there are no real world comparatives to that which I can think of that do it justice) any and all real world analogies need to work within this framework.

being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game

Actually - I think hi-sec should be gank proof, unless someone war-decs you. The ganking going on in Uedama right now is just another kind of griefing IMO.

But that's just my opinion, and I know you and others don't agree with me. I really have found it misguided that there seems to be this ironclad motto in Eve that gankers should have free reign anywhere in the game. I think it narrows the game quite a bit. Really - to open up the game to all kinds of players you should allow for different areas (as in most MMOs) where different play styles and game playing can be encouraged.

This is a space simulation - so you got an unlimited canvas to create an almost unlimited amount of different mechanics, environments, ships, deployments etc. 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.

What's limiting here is the mindset and insistence that all areas of Eve must absolutely be played like you're in nul-sec. It's a counter-productive view of Eve and limiting. I hope the future development of Eve takes this narrow view into account- and broadens its player base by allowing all sorts of gameplay in the sandbox - providing different areas for gameplay - and not making Eve into one huge force projection for one alliance that wants to dictate everything in the game and thereby ruining the gameplay for many.

You seriously compared ganking PVP in a video game to sexual assault. Seriously.

That's like comparing someone hitting someone with a dodgeball while they weren't looking to sexual assault.

Get help.

itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique

Maybe what really needs to happen here is a rebalance of reinforced bulkheads.

http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Reinforced_Bulkhead for reference.

Tech II 25% is a big jump from the 15-19% of meta 1-4, considering these aren't stacking penalized. That could be cut back a bit.

Maybe the penalty should also be reduced warp speed too.

Back to the ship. So far I have seen some good ideas and a fair number of bad ideas. No, it does not need a jump drive. Yes I think it could stand a BIT more tank.

For the eft folks looking for the max ehp could you also run the numbers with it having full boosting? IF incursion folks did an armada then that would be a possibility.

Drone bay, yeah I could see that but like the lack of weapons . . . this is not made to fight directly. So I understand the commitment to the concept.

For the gankers I am curious . . . when Taloses are used is it alpha or a dependence on the 05 or 0.6 slow response of concord to get a couple of volleys in?

It has a cargo bay of about that size. I t can also carry haulers just chock full of ammo.

The thing about carriage of ships that seems to be missing (by at least p23....) is that Freighters can already carry fitted and rigged Frigates and Cruisers (even a couple of battleships) - lots of them!

I'll have to ask you to retract that claim of disingenuity (not a word)? I see three responses to Mike, mine being one of them, and although the answer you were looking for (Talos = more DPS = less need for manpower) was not directly stated to him, it is both obvious and I'm fairly certain I mentioned the painstaking nature of gathering craploads of manpower in Catalysts to gank something big earlier in this thread. Don't go throwing mud, please.

Your idea of 100% drop rate is for sure interesting, though.

for ganking you never try to alpha something this big. Talos use DPS to take down targets before concord can respond just like cats. As far as tank goes you can hit 600k ehp without boosts.

Simply use contracts. I 'moved' when returning to EVE recently - all my smaller ships went by contract, whether I moved them myself (freighter-loads), or got others to help.

The original question was directly about Taloses and alpha from Mike Azariah - there was nothing disingenuous about his reply about the Talos.

You're just being argumentative.

This would defeat it's own purpose as a "Pinata". No one would ever fly it. This feels like you put no effort into thinking your suggestion through at all.

It's by design that you can't just put assembled ships into any of the existing ships. It was intentional and specific. Players using alts would create a courier contract containing their assembled and rigged ship, and then trade it back to themselves so they could then carry the ship in a manner that by design they're not supposed to be able to, and also avoid the risk of having their freighter pilot simply steal it from them by hauling it themselves. They're taking advantage of a loophole created by shortsighted design. It's likely it was never addressed because it was the only method of moving rigged ships through high sec. Now that they're changing that, it's a good time to address this loophole the same way they addressed compressing Minerals into modules and shipping them, then, melting them back down.

Knowing that every single ship in your hull would become glorious loot for gankers would ensure that ganking of Bowheads would be a regular and normal thing if nothing more than just for the fun and tears of it. It would also skyrocket the required EHP to be a sane ship to fly around with or WITHOUT cargo. I really hope I'm right and you're just trolling because the alternative would be kind of pity inducing.

You're still being argumentative - the question was about using taloses, not why. Your nitpick about catalysts is obvious - of course you use the cheapest alternative if you have the manpower. If you don't, you scale up. No one has tried to hide that or played dumb about it, which is more or less what you need to be doing to be disingenuous.

Or to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's not their use on freighters that concerns me, it's ships whose primary cargo hold is of little importance such as combat ships (affects how many cap charges you can carry, that's all), deep space transports (fleet bay is unaffected), orcas (fleet bay, smb, ore bay) and now the bowhead. There is no tradeoff there at all, it's just free tank.

For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this...

CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from.

Um, obviously you fit a damage control. Everyone does that anyway, it's just that good. As for nobody hull tanking combat ships, haven't you seen any solo brutix fits lately? I just looked up navy brutix losses on zkill and the most recent two were both hull tanked.

So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca

m

The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse.

If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now.

You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time....

CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd** it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it.


** - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again.

My post wasn't even addressing you, it was addressing others that feel hisec should be safe, and I didn't quote anyone.

The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse.

If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now.

I did *say* that the modification to crimewatch was a nerf to hisec criminality, but that was not my point. It was just to establish the fact that CCP visited hisec crime mechanics recently. You can argue that all you like about whether it is a nerf or not until you're blue in the face - it is not my point, as I've stated a few times now.

Go and look at what M0o got up to a decade ago.

Then go look up what gankers were using as gank ships 5 years ago.

You will find there has been a huge change over time.

No, yours argument is.

I am responding to YOUR argument that ganking hasn't gone down due to changes.

M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec.

This happened before much of what we have now. No KMs, few external sites and a smattering of info on the eve wiki.

M0o is the single most influential corp to have ever existed in EVE. I shouldn't have to go hunting around for you.

You could tank concord back then.

You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?

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.

So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The barge lineup was messed up badly. It wasnt the ganking that was the disater, it was the fact that the barge lineup because very unbalanced and favoured the use of just two ships out of six.

Maby you should look things up before you make baseless claims.

Its a poor fit.

Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them.

See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs.

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.

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.

That ganking is unchanged over the years.

Compared to a good fit.

He isnt wrong, you can get more tank. I am also not wrong, you can reduce the tank to well below what they used to have.

Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped?

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.

A simple web frigate counters the bumping anyway and get the freighter into warp so fast it enters the warp tunnel sideways.

That's a rather bad article, Griefing is a bannable offence and is very much not what was described in that site.

Gotta say that you claiming to be on the side of Right on Eve's reputation is pretty laffo considering some things you've posted in the past.

yes, all those newbies flying freighters that are loaded with enough goods they're worth making a special effort to gank

You did not literally type those words, no. But you did say that Eve has a "bad reputation". And you are suggesting things to fix this "bad reputation".

The opposite of Bad, is Good. Or Right.

What do you mean last on topic argument? This guy's stance is that Eve has a bad reputation, and that his answers will fix that. One of them is to make this new ship ungankable, and to support his theory he points out specifically how none of the changes (Concord now untankable, responds faster, doesn't pay out insurance, tripling the EHP of the most ganked ships) have actually done anything because of reasons.

You should accept Valterra Craven on his word alone.

It never will because null sec would abuse such a ship to undo the force projection nerfs.

Yep, nobody has ever complained about goons being able to project their vast subcap fleets anywhere they wanted for the last four years.

The hell are you even on about?

This guy wants to stuff 42 cruisers in his bowhead, That makes it far too easy for an organisation like ours to transport our fleets around.

It would save us a metric shitton of money in scrapped rigs and a lot of time in stipping fittings and assembling them again.

It would mean faster deployment times as we would not have to make as many trips to move assets and we would save billions in fuel and rigs and spend far less time stripping fits and assembling them again.

Yep, lets just mothball a few hundred billion in ships every time we re-deploy and just import from jita...

I read this at first and I wondered if you had actually gone insane.

No, Craven. No alliance can afford to eat a few hundred billion in the red every time they want to move a deployment around. That should be self apparent to all but the most painfully ignorant.

What inefficient is getting everyone to put together their own ships..

We have no control over how they fit them, we have no control over what supplies each member has and we have no idea how long it would take them. We centralise everything so its a case of need a ship? Click on the contract and get the correct ship. This is how you wage wars.

We moved twice in the last month. In the long term it is not better to have these cashes of ships scattered everywhere when your war chest is empty because you keep on buying hundreds of billions in gear every time you move. We take vast numbers of ships with us on deployments because we need them. Hell I am even lowballing the number massively. The true price is in the trillions.

In case my alliance ticker has malfunctioned, I am not a Goon. Try to pay attention.

Simple answer is the obvious. Yes it is much harder to do contracts of ships and mods than it is to do contracts for fitted ships.

Imagine you have 200 Harpies and fits to do contracts for, to make a contract and manually go through and select each item needed to fit the ship out is a long process (around 8 to 10 mins per ship).
Save the fit in your fitting window, select new Harpy and fit from saved fittings, create contract (around 2 mins total).

As for the members changing the fits once they accept the contract - They don't if they want SRP.