Which means that no one will use them. If the only way to safely avoid the bumper car ganker folks in Uedama is an escort fleet, then these things are useless for incursion runners. Much easier to just move travel fit battleships with cloak + mwd on alts.

Either make these good or dont bother.

Doesn't make any sense.

Currently - I can fly travel fitted battleships with cloak + mwd trick and basically 0% chance of getting ganked.

Now - I can stick 3 ships in a slow freighter with significant chance of gank in uedama, etc... and need an escort fleet to prevent it.

Why on earth would I stick expensive incursion ships in this??? Either it needs to be reasonably safe solo or it would be crazy to use instead of just moving battleships.

Thanks Rise; three t2 BS seems reasonable and an agility bonus will make the skills more valuable than the speed.

ORE seems to have started becoming the company for miscellaneous stuff.

What's the deal with the name? Bowhead sounds odd, why not something like Bowsprit instead?

I'm pretty sure CODE aren't even aiming for efficiency on kills any more. They undoubtedly make plenty just on ransoms and bribes as is.

Short version:

Made in Nipon!






Let us know what you think.

BOWHEAD

Ore Freighter Bonus:
5% bonus to max velocity per level
5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level
12.000% to ship hull and armor amount per levelLet us know what you think.
150% bonus to ship maintenance bay cap. Per lvl NOT 5%!!!
BOWHEAD

Rorquals are a species of baleen whale, which is probably appropriate considering the ship role in EVE. Some alternate choices for the new 'tug' include Sei and Omura (I think Sperm and Humpback will just be teased mercilessly until it's changed to something else). On the flipside, Bowhead (also known as Greenland and Arctic) whales have the largest mouth of any animal - so perhaps the name is well-suited.

The Bowhead is also noaggressive and retreats when threatened, so perhaps we should give it a single high slot with a Covert Ops cloaking device.



Pretty sure it's "bo-head", as in "bone-headed" (a testament to CCP Rise).
Ah, here we go.

Be realistic, considering how paper thin it is, nobody in their right mind will ever use this ship to transport 3 faction BS.
It will only be used for cheap T1 stuff. And considering how cheap T1 stuff is used, there is little need for a ship capable of hauling them assembled in a large ammount.

As for small hulls, considering the gank threshold, a orca will pretty much always be better to haul T2+ ships.

Yes, he means less.
In terms of bare numbers yes, it's more but in terms of EHP/cargo (value of items) it's way worst because it can move more stuff around.

You've heard of Polarized weapons, yes ?

It doesn't matter if you autopilot or not. You will still be bumped out of alignment in the 8..10s MWD cycle.
And a 'choke point' it's well... a choke point. You can't avoid them unless you want to spend the next 3 days moving stuff while traveling 100+ jumps.

All of that is well and good for moon goo and other goods because you can't hop into your moon goo and fly it around. Needing three pilots to move 3 battleships nullifies any reason for this ship to exist. The whole point of this ship existing is to benefit the pilots flying them. In it's current form needing to be babysat by the same number of pilots as ships you're moving or more, makes the ship less appealing than the Nestor. CCP Spent money on this ship. CCP spent money you paid them on this ship. CCP Spent money on this that is now not available to spend on other things. Do you want your money to matter? Or just end up in a another terrible neglected ship?

TL;DR Your argument of "Use more pilots to protect it" negates any benefit of this ship whatsoever. So in fact, your argument is in FAVOR of a buff, not against it, despite your intentions.

am i reading this right ? barely 3 battleships in hold and you're full?

And what is the purpose of moving 90 harpies trough HS? :)
This ship is intended for HS use as per CCP description

And what is the point of bringing a fleet to escort this ship when in that case you can just more all the ships individually with much more EHP maybe fitting some links in that fleet making them even safer?

Wouldn't make the point of introducing this ship ... well, useless?

Another example of the Devs not having a clue how the game is actually played.

It makes more sense to use it to bridge it with a titan with a **** load of HACs/AFs/Bombers/etc inside, in 0.0 than use it in HS :)
I'm debating the use of this ship where CCP intended to be used: HS

I don't see use a use for it in HS where CCP intended to be used.
It's a good logistics ship outside of the intended scope, i'm not contesting that :)

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.

1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for?

So what you're saying is... Extremely useful in null-sec - gank magnet in high-sec?

When first hearing about this thing i was hoping for something a bit bigger / better. It appears this is being balanced towards high sec, is there any chance of another of this class that is bigger better and oriented more towards null?

The tank needs to be enough to incentivize incursion runners to use this ship instead of 100% safe highsec travel with cloak + mwd + travel fit. To the extent that this ship is vulnerable to the Uedama/Niarja gank folks it's not going to be used regularly, and will serve little purpose.

And the only way to give it a good chance to not end up like the blown up freighters is

1) a brink tank

AND

2) the ability to withstand being pinned down by bumping.

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

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

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

also laughin @ the assertion that three T2 fit battleships is over 2b isk

because i am lazy i can only really think of one guy who flies battleships basically all the time
so here is baltec1's most recent megathron loss

https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=25960662

okay so it's a shield megathron but it's definitely T2 and what do we have here, a price tag of 263m

you'd need to be able to store 8 of those bad boys in a bowhead before they hit the 2b DANGER ZONE

I'm not talking the highest possible Isk value however. I'm assuming they actually stripped the modules. If they fail to strip the modules or transport the modules in the Bowheads own hold then they would actually be hauling 10-20 Billion in Isk to haul all of their Incursion ships around in most cases. And sure, I don't expect CCP to tank it according to that.
I'm talking about the base hull value for the use that CCP is claiming they built the ship for, vs the cost of the gank required to reliably succeed at said gank.
Assuming that 20 Talos are actually needed which which I'm not convinced on off the numbers I know..... then it feels like it about balances out if that 115 Mil value the killboards give is actually correct in game. I don't assume kill boards are correct as a given, I much prefer actual figures from in game.
Since then it's about 2 billion to gank one of these in a 'standard' way, vs a 2-3 Billion in base hull value that is likely to drop.
So someone smart who tanks it out and strips modules isn't going to be at terrible risk, though you can't see if modules are stripped at present I know. And someone who organises enough people (or isboxes 55 accounts which sadly removes most of the effort involved but hey, different debate) to do it with cheaper Catalysts has in theory done a lot more. And Catalysts have much shorter range making it harder to get them all applying perfectly at the same time.

Also, like always, drop the 'you people'. It weakens your argument when you resort to such emotive tricks as making it 'us and them'. Stick with the logical arguments based on figures and what CCP have said was their intent. Works much better on actually reaching middle ground instead of alienating people.

No. Answer the question on why shouldn't it be deterred.

Again, I can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't. It works both ways.

Unless they are bling fit in which case they won't fall under even a Talos gank margin.
Or unless you use Catalysts in which case even the base hulls are right on the edge (assuming normal drop rates) and any kind of fittings left on the ships are your profit.
And choosing the cheapest by a significant margin Pirate BS does not a point make, other than that you are trying to manipulate the argument by cherry picking your statistics.

Though sure, items inside a container don't show up on scan. Something I imagine is as much a UI limitation as it is a technical limitation on scans. But that doesn't make those items stop existing, just makes them a bit of a guess work as to if they will be there or not.
Same as blockade runners don't show their hold, but it doesn't make them valueless to gank.

Good thing I haven't advocated for removing piracy or risk from the game!

In no way am i saying make the ship immortal.

i am saying make it able to survive long enough for highsec concord to get there and save it. in lowsec nullsec.... fleets would destroy this thing with no real issues... but in high sec it should be so costly and difficult that folks dont bother trying to gank it.

the tank on this bowhead should be at least 10% better then an ORCA... or around 30% of a rorqual

Agreed Mike but seems that the Party of Gank is going all medieval just because all the other guys are asking a bit more tank for this ship (because of its unique role)... seems trying to gather a bit more people than usual to gank a ship is a bit too much for them. Lazy gankers...

No, you just see hisec as a big organised scawy-scawy enemy of yours, and crying in fear every time it stands to gain something. The pattern has been repeating itself for over a year already.

Want a sample?


Or take this example of propagoonda:

What's quite obviously going on here, fear-posting and crying aside, is a futile attempt to confuse people with truth-like trap about zero risk. As it stands currently, Bowhead faces about twice the risk of a freighter hauling just hulls it is intended for, with no fittings at all. What it needs is about 100k EHP more to face risk equal to that of a freighter ganked for profit, and we may start talking about actually hauling fit battleships, provided it won't be ganked for grief, which isn't really counterable either.
You may argue that I took linear approach in EHP scaling vs gank profitability and it actually is not linear and increases at a steeper rate with EHP growth, so it needs less EHP buff than 100k I stated; that at least would be valid argument, though it won't change the fact it doesn't have enough survivability to share equal risk with that of a freighter while hauling just hulls. What you shouldn't do is crying in fear every time hisec gains anything, it's been nerfed enough already tbh, and the overwhelming advantage of a ganker playstyle to all others in all aspects that matter (risk, profitability, effort, investment) should be addressed some day.

By the way, Rise, what is this ship's packaged volume? As I see it now, the only way for it to pass uedama is not passing uedama, will it fit in a JF, or can it be double-wrapped? Using it as an incursion ship hauler seems dubious, using it as a mining support vessel hauling exhumers and providing a setup of anti-gank ships on grid seems more viable, but it would take one being delivered to an operation area, and that means passing those systems we all know as the lazy gankbear dens you can't avoid (all the entitlement talk should really never come from gankers who feel entitled to have those systems).

How is the cost of polarized weapons (aka yet another gank buff) going? How soon are we expected to see it on Taloses coming for us?

you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. besides not flying a gank target, at which rate we might aswell not introduce the ship. if the target audience is incursion runners, yeah they are not gonna use it in the proposed form. the low ehp and slow travel (align/warpspeed) arent worth it over moving the ships solo. give it a bigger bay and more ehp so groups like red frog can use it to offer ship hauling services.

also what was the need for an entire new ship class? (besides a new skill that doesnt suit ore and a new model) we already have racial carriers, which you know were designed to err carry ships. and they can take gates now. just let them enter highsec while disallowing triage, figthers, drone controls and capital logistics. its not like other ships capable of highsec can not reach carrier level ehp.

Yeah let's pick one question out of the whole post and pick on it as if it's a statement. This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about.

You have little to no idea of what I know about ganking, you have even less idea of what math is it seems, since I have to explain to you that risk calculation is 50% of haul value divided by investment it takes to make it drop. If you can't go from that point yourself, it's you who's got no idea.

If the incursion group can move in convoy there is no need for the said ship.

yes with the fatigue reduction bonus i agree that it will be used in that meta. it leaves me puzzled tho if that is ccp's vision, given the initial anouncment.

stuff

what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi"

yeah just checked the jita price of nado hulls, the hulls alone come to about that.

This is like arguing with a goon.


All right, I admit I never thought about groups that big.
That said, a group of 20 people is just too big for hisec.
What about smaller (and more realistic) groups? Screwed?
What about bumping? Screwed as well, I guess.

I still don't see much use for it, though I admit the corner case scenario of a large group you described.

So how do you account for the pilots that aren't currently at the staging area and need to get there. Your strategy ONLY works in a perfect situation and completely falls apart otherwise.

if they made it a 3 strikes and your sec is unfixable per account .. then that would work as a deterrant i would think... and any further accounts using the same computer should be affeted the same.. too stop trial accounts/secound accounts expoting the rule.

A VERY large chunk of people running incursions, don't belong to an incursion corp, much less a corp of anything other than themselves. It's also not uncommon for you to logout for the day, and log in the next day and have the entire community already relocated to the next site. So how is it practical at this point to relocate if the entire ship is balanced around needing logistics support? Beg and plead with the incursion community to travel all the way back just to escort me and my Bowhead all the way out there again? Perhaps I should just give up on this ship providing any actual bennefit and ignore the fact that it exists altogether. Because we all love ships that aren't practical and as such get neglected.

Doesnt the inclusion of a corp service kinda shrink the use cases to "i dont want to loose the insurance on my navy bs" ?

Too bad most regular incursionners (more than 6 months old pilot) own 3 BS (mach,vindi,Nm)+2 logi(scimi + basi)+ CS + scout so in group of 20 ,we would need 20 bow head and with the current SMA state that wouldn't be enought.
And your theory of convoy make me laught hard,noone use the convoy tactics anymore because it doesn't change anything expect increasing risk by enhancing the visibility of such convoy.Actually flying the BS one of by one is extremely safe compared to load them in a single ship (speed can go to 5.9 au/s and ehp goes from 145k to 225K on antimatter) so ganking such ships is a no go for gankers.
It 's not surprizing for people to expect that level of security for the bow head meaning at least 450 K EHP for the speed versions and much more for the tankier one around 600 K.
But i don't learn you anything isn't it baltec, your spreadsheet is just crying than at this amount of EHP if people doesn't carry shinnies it won't be that much profitable.But not every ship has to be profitable to suicide gank,it's unlikely than CODE and BAT has to complain about their return on investment.
Currently those incursion BS are out of your reach as far as profitability is concerned i don't see any reasonwhy they should be after the indroduction of this ship...
Nobody can have all they want for example i'd like the set up used on BOW HEAD to be extended to every other freighter and jump freighter meaning 3 R 3 M 3L and enought grid and CPU for a MWD.Even if that would happen ganking would still be profitable when i see the value dropped by freighters in niarjas and uedama .

It's nice to see that you've convinced yourself that despite being an obvious forum alt, There is NO possible way I could be in a corp and or have friends. You've just done wonders for your credibility ;)

Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people.

Again you are wrong the point of this ship is to ease the way of life to haul rigged BS from a focus to another .Not to increase risk and travel time .

Another nice tentative to troll and to make the thread derail ....6 trips are indeed faster at 5 au/s or more than 2 trip at 1.37s do the math i'm pretty sure such a veteran as yourself as heard about warpspeed change and their effect on accelerations ....

Assuming someone would add to the lose of a bow head the cost of full highgrade ascendancy clone the best warspeed reachable is to 2.2 au/s consult this chart for such numbers warspeed chart
its simply much faster to move ships by ships and burn back in extremely fast shuttle ... than to do your endless 90 jumps.

Is it only me, seeing that there is some kind of problem to force projection here? Maybe there is not, but let me show you what i mean.
There might be the possiblility to:
1. package the carrier.
2. put into bowhead.
3. get to station/pos near the engagement via titan-brigde/jump-bridge
3.1. perform multiple jumps without getting much jump-fatigue (90% redux)
4. assemble the carrier and fit it.
5. undock and jump to engagement.

Possible Solutions (not all of them at once ofc)
- remove redux to jump-fatigue on the bowhead.
- add a assemble-time that is connected to jump-fatigue
- let the bowhead have 3 or more SMAs of size 500.000m3 so a carrier cant fit in it, but multiple BS can. (it seems, that it was intended to carry carriers (bc 1.3mil m3)..... but idk)
- add 24h (or less) of cooldown to capitals that prohibits its jumpdrive after it has been assembled. (has to be ship-related. not pilot-related). [maybe add a skill "capital assembly"(needs 'advanced industry' 5), that reduces that cooldown by N hours]

---

i like that ship.

---

+1 for "Englert-Sail" (opposite of Higgs-Anchor) [reduction of mass, bad agility, some speed, ....... => very bad align-time + bowhead is jumpable into more wormholes] (...that wormhole part might be very interesting in combination with "thera" and supplying ships to its market.)

ok let's go ,i'll introduce you to warspeed as apparently you fail to read a chart

BOW HEAD 90 jumps on 50 AU average jump at 2.2 au /S:90 x 63 = 5670 s

3 BS x30 jumps on a 50 AU average jump + Burn back in leopard at 30 au/s (ascendancy clone): (90 x 26) +(90x15) =2370+1350 = 3720 s

It would take twice as much time to move the said BOW HEAD than moving ships individually ...and i dont take into account align time that would just increase the difference.

"hurr durr let's gank this empty freighter for ***** and giggles hurr durr."

What exactly do you need to understand? It is difficult to defend against irrational behaviour.

yeah one trip if you have the skill to 5 >35 days training and even in that case he can barely fit 3 different pirate bs + one logi at lvl 4 you fit only 3 BS so be ready to do a second trip more than once.
You can turn it however you want moving one by one will still be faster.

I understand that. But he is trying to make a profitability argument in a context where profitability has decreasingly less to do with the decision. I have long argued that irrational ganking is cutting the ganker's own throat in the long term because the only response to it is increasing the difficulty to gank. Stupid.

And how's that strategy working out? Are any of the nerfs to highsec getting reduced? Or are new freighters getting additional EHP?

It is silly and shortsighted.

I'm not arguing against profitable ganking. I very much like the fact that this can be done. But CODE's unprofitable ganking is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually works against their stated goals and profitable gankers.

Ganking empty freighters does not encourage 'responsible' transport behaviour. It sends the message that the value of your cargo doesn't actually matter because you will get ganked anyway. And EHP goes up to counter it.

Not the sharpest tools in the shed if they do actually care about highsec risk.

Your arguments are disingenuous. No where did I state that I believe this ship should have more EHP. For the record giving ships more EHP to combat douchewaffles doesn't work. There are always more douchewaffles. However what I did argue was that making people have to play with a gang of others just to move junk around in high sec is silly.

Most of the problems discussed in this thread would go away if the ship maintenance bay simply wasn't scannable.

Yes - there will be killmails upon first release but it will die down to an average # of kills each month. There needs to be more risk involved for those who want to gank. Right now there's too little risk for gankers.

ATM,yes but soon enought that will be adressed as specified by Rise.

Considering that your group just ganked a Jump freighter in Uedama with only a couple hundred million of cargo, costing you well over a billion in gank ships, does it really matter? I mean this freighter ganking is not being done for ISK, hence the joy of ganking even empty ships! The idea that putting less cargo in, or being unscannable, will actually deter the 2 major freighter ganking groups seems farfetched.

There are always lots of reasons - fun, tears, etc... the point is that the folks doing this aren't in it for the ISK - pretty sure they could make more isk with less effort AFK or semi-afk ratting in Deklein (carriers work great). Since it ain't being done for ISK discussions of break-even ship capacity or the ability to scan internal mods are pretty irrelevant. If the couple groups who gank these type of ships in highsec decide to gank the Bowhead, they will be doing it pretty much irrespective of profit and loss.

The ganking of freighters lately in Uedama has been cheap destroyers - the total destroyers lost of which is nothing close to a billion ISK. The freighter pilots are the ones who have been losing a billion+ ISK including cargo and time to replace.

It's ridiculous that a bunch of dessies can take out a freighter in the game in hi-sec. The gankers risk a bunch of cheap dessies for whatever thrills they are getting from the gank.

And it is also ridiculous to expect all the single solo freighter pilots to now have escorts in hi-sec, just to move their Incursion and Missioning ships around. Sorry charlie, most freighter pilots run solo and WANT TO RUN solo.

The game right now caters way too much to gankers.

If you want to take down a freighter in hi-sec - it should and ought to take much more than a bunch of cheap dessies to do it. The ganksters need to be at least in some hi-tech cruisers if not BSs to take down a freighter.

You know who's whining the most on this thread? Gankers who want to stay on the gravy train and don't want to risk jack *****.

There is no point to fly the bowhead if you need more than 1.. ok, let's say 2 pilots.
In the same time you fly the bowhead 30 jumps you can move 4 ships in 2 trips with 2 pilots and have time left o go and buy a pizza.

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

And why would I trade the complete safety of my travel fit battleship, without any need for scouts/escorts, for this? I mean accepting substantial risk for a minimal reduction in travel time? Sounds crazy.

Uh - maybe some of us don't have a fleet and want to play solo. Like I'd guess 90% of the freighter pilots want to fly it solo.

So what are you saying - we should all bow down to a bunch of yahoo gankers in Uedama because you think we should have fleets coming out of our butts to make it more balanced when you use a bunch of cheap dessies to take down a billion ISK freighter?

Or maybe we should make a freighter a FREIGHTER and make HI-SEC a place where new players, solo players, and Industrialists can feel relatively safe while all the yahoo cheap dessy pilots can go gank in low-sec or nul-sec where they really belong?

That seems like a wildly inflated number. There just aren't that many freighter pilots or freighter trips.

And yes my battleship has fewer HP, but it also has an essentially infallible cloak + mwd trick, and can't really be bumped out of alignment. Not to mention a low sig radius and align time. How many travel fit battleships do you see dying in Uedama every week?

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

So what you're saying here is that all the freighter pilots and there is a good majority of them right now who fly solo - shouldn't be entitled to it - and YOU should be entitled to gank them in cheap dessies because no one is forcing them to fly a freighter.

That's just silly. Yeah - I want to fly a freighter solo - AND SO DO A GOOD MAJORITY OF PLAYERS IN THE GAME RIGHT NOW.

The problem is not freighter pilots wanting to fly solo - the problem is a bunch of yahoo gankers in Uedama who are not taking much risk while they gank billion+ ISK ships in cheap dessies. That's the problem.

You can come up with your irrational arguments all you want. But dude - no one is going to be flying around in fleets in hi-sec just to make your gank squad happy. It just isn't going to happen.

I have...barely any...and almost all of those from wars or suspect baiting, not ganking. And the discussion here is while travelling...there are basically 0 dead battleships from ganking while travelling with cloak + mwd + travel fit. Essentially 100% safety. Any reason you think people will give that up for a Bowhead?

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

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

Wrong. Not all of Eve is nul-sec.

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

Not a modern country.

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

Right a country that is actually torn apart by war, where the rule of law is questionable. Sounds like low sec and null sec to me.

Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

Smile

To answer your implied question, suicide gankers would be compared to terrorists. You know those people that strap bombs to themselves and blow up other people?

Again, every nation faces this threat. Doesn't mean they are torn apart by war. Doesn't mean that it takes 2-4 people to move an 18 wheeler a couple thousand miles either.

Good job bringing the stench right back to the thread. The gankers and gank supporters are the most detrimental to quality discussion. Regardless of the validity of their claims, Their attitudes and methods deter constructive discussion.

This is the last I'm going to comment on it as I genuinely don't want this to all devolve right back into a trollfest, I encourage you to feel the same.

I read what was there, you missed very little. As always there is an offsite record http://eve-search.com/thread/384682-1 but for the most part, nah.

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.

I am curious about insurance. If it is T1 will you be able to insure it for almost full value (excluding cargo)?

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

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

m

If the Bowhead is purely non combat.. purely designed to just move fitted battleships and the like around then i completely see no reason to add a drone bay...


an ammo bay would be nice... or increase the cargo up to 10k


EHP the base sheild and hull should be better than an Orca or close to a freighter or Rorqual...


high slots... three high slots that could run command monduels would be nice.... no bonuses.. just able to use three at a time for PVE mission runners to tinker and learn command ship or command fleet tactics would be an interesting avenue for this boat...


should it be in any way offensive combat capabile... i say no... it should simply be the high sec mini carrier that adds a safer means for highsec folks to move their fleets around and enjoy the game.

not to mention have this boat with an a seige mode type ability.... that uses "fuel" would also teach newer/high sec folk on how to manage and use capital tactics in highsec.... also would drive the economy for fuel with the endies as well....

further this would also give the bowhead a bit more protection and a "cool" factor to it.

Now that you mention it, I just assumed Rise made a typo when he said SMA but actually meant SMB.

That would be really interesting if this was the first ship with an SMA in it!

Can we get some clarification CCP? Can we also get some clarification as to whether you'll be able to board ships from this ship in space?

Request denied. I was referring to this post:



I don't think it did a good enough job of stating the full picture clearly. Therefore I added what I thought was important.

Yeah - that's what I'm saying. If you spend a billion ISK on a freighter, than something around a billion ISK should be spent to take it down in hi-sec. .

maybe only compare hull value and not mods

it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool.

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.

if that is true, then this ship will not find any use to speak of, at least not in hisec.

Incursion ships die too. Freighters die. Sure titans die - but extremely rarely, and almost always due to gross stupidity. With triage carrier support, they virtually NEVER die. And that's fine. The game doesn't require every ship to be at significant risk of dying whenever it flies. So if Goonswarm titans can mosey around Deklein and NEVER die...that's fine for the game. Same thing if Bowheads would be able to mosey around highsec and NEVER die, the game would be perfectly fine. In no way does Eve require ships to constantly be at risk.

Put another way, had those changes had any real affect then the amount of people in here asking for more HP on the bowhead would be drastically reduced

it is also completely useless to disprove my point because it assumes access to several chars (who may as well fly the ships you are hauling).

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.

please stop strawmanning me. if the proposed ship will be as gankable as it is outlined in the op, the ~best results~ will be achieved by not using it.

Right, but his argument was not in relation to what MOo were doing (which if memory serves was in low sec/null sec space)..

If his argument wasn't in relation to hi sec ganking then what relevance would it have in a discussion talking about the HP level of a ship in relation to hi sec ganking?

it is easier to gank once you know which one of the 200 machs passing through is the shiny one. as for the 'accessory' ships, their chance of being ganked is essentially 0 unless they are buried in a giant cargo-coffin with a 'kick me' sign on the rear.

i prefer to always be honest, with myself at least. as for being ganked, you should ask people who actually run incursions. so far, they seem to be quite fine despite the permanent scanning (and so are my mission alts).

Ok, then lets go off that basis. Relative to amount of players that existed back then compared to now, what data do you have that shows that ganking has gone down? I basically asked him the same question I'm now asking you. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is the case.

People seem to be continually neglecting to factor in that a ganked mach has 0% chance of dropping a mach hull in their comparisons thereby leaving only the modules as potential loot.

And how does that differ from events like hulkageddon?

In low sec. Undefended, and un-patrolled space. Just because a majority of lonetrek exists as a high sec region does not mean it all is. I can find no data to support your claims that this happened in hi sec and therefore unless you have something else then I fail to see how they are relevant.

So what you are saying is that you are too lazy to validate the claims you make? I only had vague inklings of memories of mOo, but I still managed to find some information on them instead of waving my hand and saying it couldn't be done.

Oh I'm not saying that you should. I'm just saying I didn't try to pass it off as an impossible task to someone else, nor did I try to make claims that I hadn't looked into myself. I merely validated your claims as false for myself. Though I'm not sure I'd agree that they are the single most influential corp, given the likes of your alliance and founding. I'd easily put money down on goonswarm as being the most influential and I'm saying that as a former BoB member! Whether or not that thats a good thing, *shrug* don't really care either way.

With this ship, you can't evade anything.

While you can do that with an orca by using mwd+cloak or, drop some ecm drones and get a lucky break and warp away from the tackler (if they have one only) with bowhead you can't do anything at all. Just hope and prey they do a mistake and concord arrives while you are still alive.

You are never locking it up because of cloak + mwd...not to mention that travel fit is close to 300k ehp and basically never gets suicide ganked.

Compared with how many freighters you killed in HS?

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.

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.

cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp

You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it.

You did ruin the sov holding part of null on a fundamental level in incremantal steps... making it basically unplayable.... causeing most players to play afk by ping or lose interest all together and leave for mech warrior. Don't be bashful. You earned it. Step up and tak a bow.

You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff.

Does barge ganking encompass all ganking? Did crimewatch have anything to do with it? Did other changes in the game BESIDES given those ships better tank contribute to that? Or are you saying that giving barges more tank was the right way for CCP to handle the situation of barge ganking? And if so would that not also apply to other ships?

6??????

Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.

Your numbers are WAAAAAAAAAAAY off....your nado is maxing out at about 12k a volley (unless you start using real expensive implants, but that is a huge risk that gankers don't take). So 6 is giving you 72k volley (assuming 100% damage which ain't happening against decent transversal), or 144k total damage (only getting 2 volleys in a 0.5) versus a 300k+ ehp tank (and it cant go a lot higher if you get best armor rigs). Not to mention gate guns, facpo, the mach shooting back, etc.....

Try again. And anyway you are never locking to begin with because of cloak + mwd trick. Don't believe me? Go look through zkill to see how many travel machs suicide ganked - and then compare to freighters. Even with the buffed ehp, Bowhead is still going to be a vastly higher risk.

Then just add 2 more nandos for the 120k difference in EHP
If 6 are enough for 300k then 9 should be enough for 420k

With hulls dropping from bowhead and a rigged, empty, pirate BS hull going for about 750mil (more for a vindi), if 2 hulls drop, ignoring mods and who knows what else is in there, you are isk positive :P

Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec.

I think the real problem is ganking, as it currently is, is just bad gameplay. There needs to be some response to getting ganked other than "carry less stuff". Something more active and preferably combat oriented.

For example, if bumping near gates flagged you as a suspect, that would give the victim a chance to pull in a defense fleet and respond. Of course, I think that's actually a heavy handed solution and would have other bad consequences. But it would be nice if hi-sec ganking stayed about the way it is, but with crimewatch adjusted so victims get a chance to actively defend themselves.

Though, I suppose if you had friends willing to defend your freighter, they could gank the bumpers the way things are today, and I haven't heard of anyone doing that.

Or maybe something like a rig that blocks cargo scanners, but halves your EHP.

It's real tough to uncloak at the gate and miss the 6 tornados. Fact remains - for all the rhetoric - TRAVEL FIT BATTLESHIPS ARE NOT GETTING SUICIDE GANKED. But freighters, haulers, JFs, etc.... most certainly are. Not to mention that the vast majority of coordinated ganking is by Catalysts, Thrashers, and Taloses, not Tornados.

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?

Not sure what you are trying to say. That you think my fit is "terrible" shows that you just don't understand the game. Not sure you really belong in highsec.

I only use it when...ehrmm....travelling...so undock....warp to gate, warp to next gate...etc....dock.

Only real place to get hit is on a gate, when its pretty easy to see a whole bunch of nados staring at you....so you cloak + MWD...if you are competent that never fails...if it does....then you overheat all racks and turn on mods.

This ain't complicated. The good gankers get it...and that's why they focus on bulky industrials that can be bumped off gates, pinned down, and hit by waves of gankers. Not on travel fit battleships.

Any danger if getting back on topic instead of waaaaaaaaaa gankers?

Again demonstrating that you don't get it.

The fit uses incursion equipment, the whole point being that you don't need to make multiple trips. You can just slap on the mods and travel in a single trip. That's why the bowhead isn't adding that much.

Pith A's are a bil a piece, FYI, not 300 mil. No need to be fast on gate with cloak + mwd trick...and if it fails you are gonna get pointed anyway.

And profit isn't the right metric...the gankers are happy to gank empty ships for tears. The best deterrent is brick tank + cloak + mwd = too much effort and no gank.

The proof? Travel fit battleships, except the fools on autopilot, don't get ganked.

So, if as you state it was a disaster, why didn't they revert it in their second pass?

Well I haven't seen CCP state this nor have I experienced this safety myself having lost a number of ships after these changes.

2013

System: Raussinen
Security: 0.5

[Mackinaw, Mackinaw]
Damage Control II
Reactor Control Unit II
Power Diagnostic System II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction

Modulated Strip Miner II
Modulated Strip Miner II

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. So given that your timeframe includes the crimewatch changes, then one can conclude that the changes CCP has made over the years have not affected the ganking of all ships equally.

Months of flying...incursion runners travel with this stuff every day...and no ganks.

Why?

Because of cloak+mwd trick, huge tanks, and most gankers being -10 and unable to wait on gates, therefore needing to use bumping.

Result - freighters ganked, haulers ganked, miners ganked....incursion & mission runners - not ganked.

So now explain why the Bowhead should expose me to more risk than the 0% I face now???

Well just today I did a minor deployment to be there for a little action, so moved some ships for this, having one of these with my logistics toon and my self in a webbing ships would be the approach. There was 1 BS and multiple fitted cruisers, of course people outside Incursion runners will run them.

But here is the issue, 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS, we are talking about 205 to 270m ISK say per BS, but lets step back and add some cruisers, a Loki with factin webs, 750m , or a Vagabond, 190m, and of course we can get a lot more in and their hull costs are similar to a T1 BS, yet you can fit in a lot more of them.

If CCP is using a benchmark of 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS then they are under-estimating the required tank, simple as.

---

Baltec and others have said that ganking has gone down, and in truth they are technically right because they compare to the massive campaigns of ganking that went on in the past, but the real comparison is ISK value and with the ganking of freighters rather than paper thin mining ships the actual cost is way up even if the actual number of ganks is down. Of course I cannot prove what I said as I am not CCP and neither is Baltec, however it does not take that many full freighters or JF's does it to beat ISK values of Hulks....

K, so why make the statement when it has nothing to do with the argument of ganking vs hp?

What exactly is baseless about the claim I made?

Compared to what? The fit that most people have on when they get ganked, or the maxed possible tank fit available?

Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent....

Skills forced a very minor compromise....will be fixed soon.

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.

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.

Not a travel fit....proving my point for me.....with full tank mods those 26 ships would have been nowhere near enough dps.

While travelling a brick tanked cloak + mwd battleships has very near to a 0% chance of being ganked.

A bowhead, which can be trapped through bumping, has a much higher gank chance.

I mean, this is trivial stuff.....at some point you just need to admit that you are wrong.

Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius.

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?

Actually I have no clue what that fit is.....no tank in mids....istabs in lows....no DC....kinda crazy fit....and lots of stuff in cargo.

If it wasn't on zkill, I'd think it was a fraud!

But definitely not a "travel fit."

And now he is dead. GF

Confirming that travel fits have no tank in mids, and no DC in low.

No cloak either.

and carry around 1.5 bil of implants in cargo.

You will have to forgive me for thinking that this example shows why Eve has a tendency to have a bad reputation...

This is very true, what a webbing frigate doesn't do is combat the reputation that Eve is infested by griefers...

(otherwise pages like this wouldn't even exist)
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Skullduggery_101#What_are_Griefers.3F

holy moly is this ever a terrible fit

has anyone clued him into why when ganking deadspaced out battleships the active tank doesn't matter one bit yet

having a tank sufficient to protect the cargo inside it can be considered two ways, Light tank, but fast and agile, Heavy tank, but slow and plodding. Our new Space tug, the Bow something, is slow and plodding, but light on the tank. The cargo is fitted ships, ya, blah blah about the officer modules, no I don't want to take them off to ship my ships. We are getting the ship hauling ship to make it easier to haul ships, not to introduce another pain in the posterior mechanic. (see courier contracting ships to yourself so you can haul them yourself in the current mechanic) Beef up the tank, make it like a carrier, one million ehp. It doesn't need any weapons, its in high sec right. it just needs a defense, which would be buffer type. those who wish to gank them, and Im sure there will be, will figure out the way. But lets not make it super easy, which a paltry 400,000 ehp is, that number came from a perusal of the past 68 pages, so whatever it is, but it needs to be a million and carry three BS's, make it agile so it can align. that is all..

While your rebuttal is highly suggestive, I have to say it is also somewhat limited in scope and context.

meanwhile, whats wrong with a Bow ship having a million ehp? its a sensible thing to do to protect your valuable cargo in a safe reliable manner. Safe doesn't mean invincible, just not easy to kill.

^^This,

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

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

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

Link? As the last one I saw didn't say that.
The last one I saw also said most ship losses are to PvE, not to PvP.
So it certainly isn't a case of 'only Nulls PvP keeps the economy working' either way.

Disappointed with the ship maintenance bay size. Lame

Great potential for incursion runners which was part of the intention of it being introduced.

The stats for the ship are on the test server however the skill and ship are not so unable to test fit it.

Rigs are X-Large

stats indicate a shield buffer tank, with structure tank if lows fitted correctly so maybe a buff to armours resists.

The tank of this ship needs to reflect the fact it maybe carrying 30 bill of cargo otherwise it is not viable if subject to cheap ganks (it should be a Tiger tank).

Most serious incursion runners use 2 characters.

One to fight or do logistics and a second to fly orca and be fleet booster.

This requires multiple specilised clones that need to be moved to use the transported ships.

So I suggest as Bowhead is a capital indi ship it should have a utility high slot for clone VAT bay to facilitate the clones needed to fly the transported ships?

My thoughts only correct me if the theory is wrong.

Regards

then the ship is worthless

Seriously?
Like 8sec to enter warp instead of 10 makes a difference when you have only half tank?
Even my NM with travel fit can get past 230k. This guy with 3 extenders + inv field and another 1600 plate in lows would have had a lot more tank.

Bad guy is bad.

if you have a hard time catching a battleship without plates or extenders then adding them won't help you enough to catch them.

edit: talos targeting a nightmare 3.4 sec or 3.2 with 4 extenders on the nightmare.

You still don't get it do you? That Mach wasn't fit for travel and wasn't travelling....it was sitting in Uedama bumping freighters so they could get ganked. The anti gankers came and ganked the mach. Why do you persist in peddling falsehoods?

a mach with no tank is really weak and easy to kill. what others are saying is that brick tank doesn't change weather you can get caught and will improve your survival rate.

and yes there are fail fits for travel you posted one. a proper travel fit will have at a min extenders in the mids

I could tell you (it's staggeringly obvious to me), but I want to work on your analysis skills a bit. If you actually want any credibility when discussing highsec (and not Goon infested sov), you should be able to quickly skim that KM, look at the fit, and look at the people on it, and tell me why it's obviously a bumping mach, and not a travel mach. Go for it buddy, show us that you actually have some semblance of a clue when discussing highsec. Fingers crossed!

As for your other crazy claims, a mach with a faction cloak + deadspace MWD is virtually uncatchable in highsec, even with some extenders and plates thrown up. That the gankers are invariably -10 in such large gank groups makes the task even more impossible, and is the reason why these travel fit brick tanked machs never die. For all your rhetoric, the one KM you found was a ganker bumping mach meeting it's doom. On the other hand, you can easily find tens of brick tanked freighters and JFs going kaboom thanks to bumping.

What does this tell you? Put 2 and 2 together.

Keep holding your breath....

Did you do your homework yet and figure out why your linked KM was of a bumping mach and not a travel mach?

Cute:)

Yes, pulling a fleet together to suicide gank the bumper is a counter to bumping. It requires a few friends willing to become criminals and suicide gank, some reasonably expensive ships, and good combat skills. It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken.

Had you known anything about highsec you would realize that Jenn is a leading anti ganker and bumping mach killer. You would also have realized that the mach was speed optimized, not travel optimized. But that would have required actual competence and knowledge, not just Goon talking points. Can't say I expected much from ya, so I'm not really disappointed.

Your repeated attacks on my fit demonstrate once again that you literally know nothing about highsec...stick to Deklein...you are just making yourself look foolish.

Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive.

When the bowhead can ferry 4-10 bs with a total value of below 500m, you will have a point.

And this is unfortunately why you will encounter resistance, if you have to resort to "but but but, 30 players using the thing at the same time makes it excellent!".

Plates, extenders or bulkheads will give you the raw hp to survive until concord comes.
The 2 seconds of align you will get with nanos will not save you when tackle has SeBos and can lock you in 2 seconds out of 8.

Seriously, you spend too much time in HS.
You should spend some time hunting in null or some FW and you will see you don't even need an inty to catch people on gates.

A dessy with sebos does wonders.

I did not, i just wasnt sure we want to go trough all the back and forth about the (outside null/ops in general) debatable concept whether you will actually transport 3 trips needed ever, and being stupid if one does and the hulls are 2 bil together and so on and forth et cetera...

Except that the two have absolutely no relation to each other. The bowhead can't move cap ships and therefore can not undo the force projection nerfs since the force projection was really all about cap ships. Its not like people were complaining that they kept getting hot dropped by battleships in the middle of nowhere.

where was he promoting a 3 bil isk travel fit mach?

cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp