| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Slevin-Kelevra
Origin.
Black Legion.
6
   |
Posted - 2014.11.10 14:54:05 -
[121] - Quote
Anonymous Forumposter wrote:Slevin-Kelevra wrote:Yes, You need a few guys with these and you can move your 200 man harpy blob to anywhere in New Eden with tiny amounts of fatigue. GG CCP nerf something and then create a solution straight away, You have to put all your eggs in one basket to do so. CCP is hoping to encourage strikes at choke points as evidenced by the push to use stargates more. A good portion of the complaints made by people about these types of changes always seem to neglect geographical strategy.
I am talking about null sec jump bridges mate. With the 90% reduction you can move your whole fleet across the map using jump bridges, and gain very little fatigue doing so. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
482
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 14:54:31 -
[122] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
Says "we arenGÇÖt really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application",
gives it 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation.
In other words, "We nerfed jump bridges but we feel bad so use this to move your ships with much less fatigue".
For reference 1.6 Mill m3 is 96 fitted harpies, and yes I used harpies for a specific reason.
so what you're saying is that if everyone buys one of these ships they can carry like 80+ harpies to every deployment and there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to join every harpyfleet ping and move them where they're needed very rapidly due to the role bonus? Yes, You need a few guys with these and you can move your 200 man harpy blob to anywhere in New Eden with tiny amounts of fatigue. GG CCP nerf something and then create a solution straight away,
It's a fair concern.
ALSO - as it is a "capital", can we have a HIC infinipoint stopping it [gate] jumping please?. |
Dave Stark
7128
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:02:21 -
[123] - Quote
Aloh wrote:Ask yourself why orcas have fallen out of favor for ship transport
they have? |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Brave Collective
1391
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:17:41 -
[124] - Quote
Could we refit from it please? Just like the orca and rorqual. 
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:24:47 -
[125] - Quote
Zappity wrote:But I want a ship transporter, not a repurposed mining hull. Enough to haul a couple of fit T3s and a battleship without being ganked. This wouldn't achieve that.
I think you're playing the wrong game.
Nobody moves 4 billion ISK worth of cargo risk free.
Come to think of it, imagine if the hauler pilot lost 200k SP (a single subsystem worth from IV to V) for each T3 destroyed in their SMB. Now that'd be interesting...
|
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:27:46 -
[126] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Darirol wrote:why do all those industrial ships have a speed bonus? Because travel speed is one of the most important characteristics for haulers. Capacity, gank resilience and travel speed are basically it. not sure "travel speed" means what you think it means, rise.
Exactly.
Speed changes that don't improve align time or warp speed have essentially 0 value on a hauler. Nobody really cares how fast their providence autopilots from Dodixie to Jita. |
Novalis X
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:27:48 -
[127] - Quote
Can you make it like a normal freighter with fitting and module layout, as this just sets up people to start whinging about not having the same fitting ability on the other freighters. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
4647
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:27:55 -
[128] - Quote
It lives!
I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Demon your parents warned you about.
||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Tug-class Vessel||
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Ineluctable.
904
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:32:01 -
[129] - Quote
So, we can move ships again without adding too much fatigue to the pilots via titan bridge. Wonderful. Your foresight has seen better days, Rise. 
-1 to the fatigue bonus. |
Javajunky
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:35:05 -
[130] - Quote
Again a Rorqual makeover completely skipped, 3B so you can boost and compress in null sec after losing its travel utility. Couldn't even squeak the same type of freighter out that would offer 1.6M ore bay so at least we could get a solid mining fleet hauler out of the expansion?
The war on null sec players continues.
Disappointing. |
|
|
David Kir
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
476
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:38:19 -
[131] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:
Actually, webbing into warp does work, quite well even. It's simply that you let a ship build up a certain amount of speed (doesn't need much), slap a double web on it and that reduces the max velocity in such a way, that the ship is already at the required 3 quarters of max speed threshold of slipping into warp by virtue of having that tiny little period of unwebbed acceleration(try it out if you don't believe me).
...but he didn't say it doesn't work...
Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
|
Bertucio
Chandra Labs
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:42:18 -
[132] - Quote
Good to see more ships, keep them coming.
BUT ... 3 BS capacity is paltry. Give players something they want, bump it up - don't be stingy. Think big and do big stuff for Eve. If you don't want to bump it up, why not a T2 version of the Tug with greater capacity and a more gank proof EHP?
Cheap destroyer ganking is a problem in hi-sec. Who wants to invest a billion ISK in a tug-boat only to have it ganked by a bunch of yahoos in Uedama? |
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
768
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:43:11 -
[133] - Quote
Triple the hitpoints.
Give it capacity for 4-5 bs.
Gòª......Gòæ...GòöGòù.Gòæ.Gòæ.GòöGòù.GòªGòæ.GòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù
Gòæ.GòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòú.GòöGòùGòá..Gòá GòáGòùGòáGò¥.GòæGòá GòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù
Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥Gòæ.GòÜGò¥.GòÜGò¥Gòæ..GòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥.Gò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥Gòæ.GòæGòÜGò¥
Got Item?
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
134
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:46:37 -
[134] - Quote
One of the biggest issues I've seen with freighters and ganks is that they can be effectively pointed indefinitely by a single ship through bumping. Being able to cycle a MWD is pretty meaningless when a frig can continue bumping you out of alignment until the gankers show up.
Instead of adding EHP to the ship, add the ability to use a MJD. MJD+MWD means that a person actually at their keyboard would not be easily-ganked by anything but alpha ships (which would raise the cost to gank quite significantly over simply putting out a few dozen Catalysts). Doing this without raising the EHP of the ships would also leave it much easier to gank the autopiloting ships.
So making the ship MJD-capable gives active pilots a strong defense against gankers, all while keeping inactive pilots at a heavy risk.
Win-win for everyone.
-áTalk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
21
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:48:46 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, we're talking about it here and think there's probably no good reason not to raise the HP some. Where do you guys think it needs to be to make say, three t2 fit BS, inefficient to gank?
And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me.
Damage Control II + Reinforced Bulkheads II + Large Transverse Bulkhead II x 3 = just shy of 400,000 on an Orca.
It would be nice to see a completely max-tanked fit break 500,000 with the Bowhead.
I think that's reasonable without overdoing it. |
Jedediah Arndtz
Warner Bros.
31
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:50:39 -
[136] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:the 400-500k range seems much more favourable to seeing this getting used, as opposed to just following the current methods, pilot the battleships, or freighter haul hulls.
However, I'm still confused about something; if you want to encourage the players to escort and defend their industrials, why do you then make this ship hull tanked? There are no effective remote hull repair ships for high sec (assuming you had capital remotes for your carrier, and even that isnt efficient) , but if this had its primary hp in shields, then at least a gang of logistics would be able to defend it against heavy dps, without slave implant sets blowing the hp out of proportion. Opens up options.
This.
Also, since it can only hold 3 bs, I don't really see the point in requiring a second account for a webbing alt, when at the current EHP levels, it'd be almost as fast, and far safer for those two chars to fly the BSs themselves with a tank fit, and have one of them carry a leopard to go back and get the third. So please bump the fitted ehp to at least the 400k range, if not 500.
|
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
DARKNESS.
2520
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:52:48 -
[137] - Quote
Remove the fatigue bonus. Don't need 4 guys moving around 384 fully fitted harpies via jump bridge, as that's just bad. |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
420
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:54:00 -
[138] - Quote
It needs a name that isn't so reminiscent of 1980s sorority girls and their fashion disasters.
|
Saikron
Crazy Leftist Loons
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:54:04 -
[139] - Quote
It holds 3 battleships, but then it would need an escort, but its EHP is at such a level that an escort can't do much except watch it get talosed. I think it's been designed so that it can't do anything right. Just have your escorts fly your battleships and logi to the destination themselves and don't bother with this ship. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
768
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:54:26 -
[140] - Quote
Jedediah Arndtz wrote:Arronicus wrote:the 400-500k range seems much more favourable to seeing this getting used, as opposed to just following the current methods, pilot the battleships, or freighter haul hulls.
However, I'm still confused about something; if you want to encourage the players to escort and defend their industrials, why do you then make this ship hull tanked? There are no effective remote hull repair ships for high sec (assuming you had capital remotes for your carrier, and even that isnt efficient) , but if this had its primary hp in shields, then at least a gang of logistics would be able to defend it against heavy dps, without slave implant sets blowing the hp out of proportion. Opens up options. This. Also, since it can only hold 3 bs, I don't really see the point in requiring a second account for a webbing alt, when at the current EHP levels, it'd be almost as fast, and far safer for those two chars to fly the BSs themselves with a tank fit, and have one of them carry a leopard to go back and get the third. So please bump the fitted ehp to at least the 400k range, if not 500.
don't forget the base cost of three battleships is in the order of 500m. Add decent fittings and you're easily over 2-3b. I am not sure what even 500k is going to accomplish.
Heck, what's the point of the slots if you're basically forced to use those slots on DCU + 2 bulkhead + 3 transverse to not make it die as soon as something looks at it anyway?
Gòª......Gòæ...GòöGòù.Gòæ.Gòæ.GòöGòù.GòªGòæ.GòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù
Gòæ.GòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòú.GòöGòùGòá..Gòá GòáGòùGòáGò¥.GòæGòá GòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù
Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥Gòæ.GòÜGò¥.GòÜGò¥Gòæ..GòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥.Gò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥Gòæ.GòæGòÜGò¥
Got Item?
|
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
970
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:55:30 -
[141] - Quote
Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
I am talking about null sec jump bridges mate. With the 90% reduction you can move your whole fleet across the map using jump bridges, and gain very little fatigue doing so.
This is a nice hail mary, but it falls flat for the same reasons that TRAVEL INDUSTRIALS fall flat GÇö namely, bubbles exist, jump freighters exist, and jump bridges are still one per system.
Besides, why wouldn't one salivate at the prospect of fleets of Bowheads traveling through space, ready to be dragged and summarily executed? Wouldn't one want the reasons for these ships to undock in 0.0 to be increased, not strangled?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Arden Elenduil
Scary Devil Monastery
179
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:56:00 -
[142] - Quote
Entity wrote:Jedediah Arndtz wrote:Arronicus wrote:the 400-500k range seems much more favourable to seeing this getting used, as opposed to just following the current methods, pilot the battleships, or freighter haul hulls.
However, I'm still confused about something; if you want to encourage the players to escort and defend their industrials, why do you then make this ship hull tanked? There are no effective remote hull repair ships for high sec (assuming you had capital remotes for your carrier, and even that isnt efficient) , but if this had its primary hp in shields, then at least a gang of logistics would be able to defend it against heavy dps, without slave implant sets blowing the hp out of proportion. Opens up options. This. Also, since it can only hold 3 bs, I don't really see the point in requiring a second account for a webbing alt, when at the current EHP levels, it'd be almost as fast, and far safer for those two chars to fly the BSs themselves with a tank fit, and have one of them carry a leopard to go back and get the third. So please bump the fitted ehp to at least the 400k range, if not 500. don't forget the base cost of three battleships is in the order of 500m. Add decent fittings and you're easily over 2-3b. I am not sure what even 500k is going to accomplish. Heck, what's the point of the slots if you're basically forced to use those slots on DCU + 2 bulkhead + 3 transverse to not make it die as soon as something looks at it anyway?
And what would you use those slots on otherwise?
Cargo expanders? The main carrying capacity is iin the SMA so you'd have to be pants on head ******** to fit anything other than tank tbh.
|
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology
Get Off My Lawn
18
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:57:44 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:As promised, here is your brand new ship-moving ship - the Bowhead.
Slot layout: 0H
My cloaky dreams have been smashed, 
|
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
772
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:58:33 -
[144] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:And what would you use those slots on otherwise?
Cargo expanders? The main carrying capacity is iin the SMA so you'd have to be pants on head ******** to fit anything other than tank tbh.
This only strengthen my point regarding the slots. There is no point in slots if there's only the illusion of choice in what to use them for.
Gòª......Gòæ...GòöGòù.Gòæ.Gòæ.GòöGòù.GòªGòæ.GòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù
Gòæ.GòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòú.GòöGòùGòá..Gòá GòáGòùGòáGò¥.GòæGòá GòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù
Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥Gòæ.GòÜGò¥.GòÜGò¥Gòæ..GòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥.Gò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥Gòæ.GòæGòÜGò¥
Got Item?
|
Valterra Craven
313
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 15:59:51 -
[145] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
Seriously, you should just stop working on ships period. This business of releasing skills that affect exactly one ship are nonsense. I told you when you redid indys for the second time that the racial variants were stupid and that you should just convert everything to ORE and be done with it. Now that you are releasing even more niche ships and under the ORE banner you are going to release a new skill for it too? At this point you will now have three ORE related skills that affect ONE ship. This is getting out of hand and needs to stop. |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
423
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:00:01 -
[146] - Quote
Maddaxe Illat wrote:I love it but a ORE Freighter for ship not ore?
I agree. Seems more like an Interbus role. |
commander aze
Saibot Industries
57
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:00:34 -
[147] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP with a DCU II, 2x reinforced bulkheads II, 3x Transverse bulkhead I
This is in the same range as tank-oriented freighters - I'm sure people using the hauler would want as much as possible but this range should be reasonable, yes?
ok so here is the issue. If i choose to move a couple of battleships its already worth it for gankers to try and blow me up. regardless of my fitting for the freighter.
Some math needs to be done on how many tornadoes it takes to kill it vs what a marauder t2 fit costs. ITs a cost benefit scenario if X the cost of tornadoes is lower than the potential benefit from drops ganks will ensue.
A potential fix would be to treat them as a shielded cargo bay that does not reveal cargo on scans then its some guess and check instead of promoting what i think everyone in this game - those that do it to make their isk all think is probably the worst game play mechanic in the game.
Lets be real the intended effect of concord is to prevent unwanted high sec engagements otherwise it would be ganks all the time.
It seems like every time i mention this it falls on deaf ears but industrial ships should have generally a pretty good tank.
I see ship fitting in this way, You get 3 options
1 does a lot of damage
2 moves very quickly
3 Tanks like a mother ******
Pick 2
for industrial you get the choice of pick 1 and not be very good at it.
TLDR if its moving fit ships they cost a lot of isk, make it tank more to compensate for that or make it a guessing game for gankers on which one has the more profitable ships in it. |
Manic Velocity
Scout's Regiment
69
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:01:52 -
[148] - Quote
IMPORTANT QUESTION:
Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the SMB of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships?
"I pissed off a Russian by stealing his salvage. It was nice knowing you guys. o7"
@manicvelocity
|
Lemur Ific
Lemurific Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:02:02 -
[149] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:And completely unrelated, at some point it would be nice to have a transport-specific rig or module that allowed players to convert their merchantman to an armed raider ( AMC) by swapping cargo space for turrets or launchers.
Neat idea. See also Q Ships. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
328
|
Posted - 2014.11.10 16:02:54 -
[150] - Quote
Arden Elenduil wrote:
And what would you use those slots on otherwise?
Cargo expanders? The main carrying capacity is iin the SMA so you'd have to be pants on head ******** to fit anything other than tank tbh.
Align, if you're lazy. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |