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) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1679
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 01:43:40 -
[1651] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:I feel bad for ORE. all the ships they build get owned. you'd think they'd start putting an emphasis on tank. But skiff.... |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1695
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 01:49:17 -
[1652] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be.
Not to rebuff your point about things getting out of hand, but 1 million EHP would not allow you to carry tens of billions in safety. Given the 420/500k people are tossing around is break even at less than 2 Bill in some gank cases, a bit over 2 bil in the case of ABC's, 1 Million EHP would only allow perhaps 5 Billion before it becomes potentially profitable to gank, and always gives a green KB result anyway. 33.5k DPS per second. Or if we assume 1k DPS ships, 34 ships. And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). 34*120 Mil = 4 Billion.
So...... Try not to get carried away in how much safety you are pretending 1 Million EHP would actually give a ship. Even if the current EHP is enough to keep it unprofitable to gank if the player is smart. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
149
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 02:30:34 -
[1653] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere).
Thanks for making it blatantly obvious that you actually know nothing about ganking or CONCORD response times.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 02:47:12 -
[1654] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). Thanks for making it blatantly obvious that you actually know nothing about ganking or CONCORD response times.
Be nice....an overheated Talos in a 0.5 with max skills is getting you close to 30k damage in the 22 secs or so before CONCORD shows up. 34 of them can theoretically knock out a 1 mil ehp tank.....and fewer pilots would work if you pin the guy down through bumping and hit with a couple of waves. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1695
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 03:20:44 -
[1655] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). Thanks for making it blatantly obvious that you actually know nothing about ganking or CONCORD response times. So I was a few seconds off and don't gank on the occasions I do it by perfect mathematical precision. Want to try and tell me I'm wrong about concord being manipulatable (obviously both ways) The basics of what I said still apply, since I didn't take the max damage possible either.
1 Million EHP does not let you carry tens of billions of cargo without being profitable to gank. Not that I'm advocating the Bowhead should have that. Just restraining silly exaggerations.
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
149
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 06:37:49 -
[1656] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). Thanks for making it blatantly obvious that you actually know nothing about ganking or CONCORD response times. So I was a few seconds off and don't gank on the occasions I do it by perfect mathematical precision. Want to try and tell me I'm wrong about concord being manipulatable (obviously both ways)
That part's right of course, but it's 25 seconds including the 6 you get for pulling. That's no small mistake since you were saying 30 before pulling.
Anyway, gank fleets really aren't normally anywhere near as large as some people here seem to think they are. Gankers are honestly a minority in EVE (so please stop discriminating against us!) |
Zan Naaria
Astral Inferno
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 09:42:13 -
[1657] - Quote
The first thought that crossed my mind when I first heard of this new ship was "lol, CCP doesn't think it is enough that players loose one shiny ship to gankers, they now whant to make it possible to loose it all at once". My second thought was: "wow, this ship will have to be pretty darn close to beeing impossible to gank or else CCP will be loosing players that loose all their assets in one go". My third thought was: "CCP must av thought about that, they are not stupid and will not release a ship with a risk factor that high and thus ending up a very rare super noob sight in high sec". I hope the purpous of this ship is what you advertise it to be and not a painful isk sink!!!
|
Kestrix
The Scope Gallente Federation
146
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 11:10:07 -
[1658] - Quote
I guess it's time people started scouting ahead in hi-sec when moving high value cargo. I mean if code can get 34 people to destroy a ship why can't we get say 10 people to try and keep it alive on it's way to Jita and back?
Freighter runs might actually be fun again if they are made a corp/alliance activity. Or you could hire mercenaries if you are in an NPC corp.
How fun would it be to join a freighter/Bowhead convoy with team speak with competent scouts and both armed and logistical support?
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2701
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 14:07:24 -
[1659] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10623
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 14:35:05 -
[1660] - Quote
It's hitpoints are too high at present with a max tank fit.
It should be, comparative to the 3 (probably T2 or faction) battleships that are it's cargo, easier to gank. And it should be easier to kill because if offers the immense time saving benefit of flying all of them simultaneously.
That should cost you something. And since it's really unfair to penalize speed since it exists to save time in the first place, that means the best place to pay this cost is in it's defenses.
375k with max tank fit seems fair to me. It could stand to go lower, imo, but it ought to be higher than a typical freighter.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
Euripedies
Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers
24
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 16:49:56 -
[1661] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be.
Not to rebuff your point about things getting out of hand, but 1 million EHP would not allow you to carry tens of billions in safety. Given the 420/500k people are tossing around is break even at less than 2 Bill in some gank cases, a bit over 2 bil in the case of ABC's, 1 Million EHP would only allow perhaps 5 Billion before it becomes potentially profitable to gank, and always gives a green KB result anyway. 33.5k DPS per second. Or if we assume 1k DPS ships, 34 ships. And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). 34*120 Mil = 4 Billion. So...... Try not to get carried away in how much safety you are pretending 1 Million EHP would actually give a ship. Even if the current EHP is enough to keep it unprofitable to gank if the player is smart.
^^This,
Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank. 1 million ehp for the Bownaught is not a lot of ehp. Why should the gank fleets have the advantage? Give the haulers some safety in the form of tank. Let the gankers actually have to work at it. My perspective of the current ganking mechanic is that its out of balance. Its too easy to gank ships in Eve. I say that because when one ganker can cause trouble in a system over and over and over without any way for the miners to address the problem, then there is something out of balance. Ships cost isk, when a capsuleer loses a ship they lose isk which creates their risk averse nature. So those who have unlimited isk supplies have no aversion to risk. The gank metagame has evolved into this thing where those capsuleers who don't have access to unlimited isk are subject to the constant harassment of those who do have unlimited isk and can afford to throw gank ship after gank ship into the gankage. The new Bownaught should have tank and a lot of it. Stop making it so easy for gankers. |
Cecilia Smunt
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 16:54:02 -
[1662] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I feel bad for ORE. all the ships they build get owned. you'd think they'd start putting an emphasis on tank. But skiff....
shhhh, if they hear you, they'll nerf it back to being useless again..
o/
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 16:54:48 -
[1663] - Quote
Cecilia Smunt wrote:Rowells wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I feel bad for ORE. all the ships they build get owned. you'd think they'd start putting an emphasis on tank. But skiff.... shhhh, if they hear you, they'll nerf it back to being useless again.. o/
you better behave girl.
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Kestrix
The Scope Gallente Federation
147
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 17:13:14 -
[1664] - Quote
Euripedies wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be.
Not to rebuff your point about things getting out of hand, but 1 million EHP would not allow you to carry tens of billions in safety. Given the 420/500k people are tossing around is break even at less than 2 Bill in some gank cases, a bit over 2 bil in the case of ABC's, 1 Million EHP would only allow perhaps 5 Billion before it becomes potentially profitable to gank, and always gives a green KB result anyway. 33.5k DPS per second. Or if we assume 1k DPS ships, 34 ships. And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). 34*120 Mil = 4 Billion. So...... Try not to get carried away in how much safety you are pretending 1 Million EHP would actually give a ship. Even if the current EHP is enough to keep it unprofitable to gank if the player is smart. ^^This, Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank. 1 million ehp for the Bownaught is not a lot of ehp. Why should the gank fleets have the advantage? Give the haulers some safety in the form of tank. Let the gankers actually have to work at it. My perspective of the current ganking mechanic is that its out of balance. Its too easy to gank ships in Eve. I say that because when one ganker can cause trouble in a system over and over and over without any way for the miners to address the problem, then there is something out of balance. Ships cost isk, when a capsuleer loses a ship they lose isk which creates their risk averse nature. So those who have unlimited isk supplies have no aversion to risk. The gank metagame has evolved into this thing where those capsuleers who don't have access to unlimited isk are subject to the constant harassment of those who do have unlimited isk and can afford to throw gank ship after gank ship into the gankage. The new Bownaught should have tank and a lot of it. Stop making it so easy for gankers.
Tank is no safety at all. If you increase the tank they will bring more ships... where is the safety in that??? We the players need to be more pro-active in protecting our assets rather than running to CCP so they can hold our hands.
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
The Conference Elite CODE.
1123
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 17:14:56 -
[1665] - Quote
Euripedies wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be.
Not to rebuff your point about things getting out of hand, but 1 million EHP would not allow you to carry tens of billions in safety. Given the 420/500k people are tossing around is break even at less than 2 Bill in some gank cases, a bit over 2 bil in the case of ABC's, 1 Million EHP would only allow perhaps 5 Billion before it becomes potentially profitable to gank, and always gives a green KB result anyway. 33.5k DPS per second. Or if we assume 1k DPS ships, 34 ships. And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). 34*120 Mil = 4 Billion. So...... Try not to get carried away in how much safety you are pretending 1 Million EHP would actually give a ship. Even if the current EHP is enough to keep it unprofitable to gank if the player is smart. ^^This, Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank. 1 million ehp for the Bownaught is not a lot of ehp. Why should the gank fleets have the advantage? Give the haulers some safety in the form of tank. Let the gankers actually have to work at it. My perspective of the current ganking mechanic is that its out of balance. Its too easy to gank ships in Eve. I say that because when one ganker can cause trouble in a system over and over and over without any way for the miners to address the problem, then there is something out of balance. Ships cost isk, when a capsuleer loses a ship they lose isk which creates their risk averse nature. So those who have unlimited isk supplies have no aversion to risk. The gank metagame has evolved into this thing where those capsuleers who don't have access to unlimited isk are subject to the constant harassment of those who do have unlimited isk and can afford to throw gank ship after gank ship into the gankage. The new Bownaught should have tank and a lot of it. Stop making it so easy for gankers. Why should one player be able to tank the damage from 30+ players?
New player resources:
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information
http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP
http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
281
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 17:16:28 -
[1666] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:
Tank is no safety at all. If you increase the tank they will bring more ships... where is the safety in that??? We the players need to be more pro-active in protecting our assets rather than running to CCP so they can hold our hands.
Increasing the cost per gank and the number of people required decreases the incidence of ganking.
You could imagine titans in highsec with tanks so large that suicide ganking them becomes functionally impossible. So adding tank definitely does increase safety. |
M1k3y Koontz
thorn project Surely You're Joking
613
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 17:34:06 -
[1667] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:Euripedies wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be.
Not to rebuff your point about things getting out of hand, but 1 million EHP would not allow you to carry tens of billions in safety. Given the 420/500k people are tossing around is break even at less than 2 Bill in some gank cases, a bit over 2 bil in the case of ABC's, 1 Million EHP would only allow perhaps 5 Billion before it becomes potentially profitable to gank, and always gives a green KB result anyway. 33.5k DPS per second. Or if we assume 1k DPS ships, 34 ships. And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). 34*120 Mil = 4 Billion. So...... Try not to get carried away in how much safety you are pretending 1 Million EHP would actually give a ship. Even if the current EHP is enough to keep it unprofitable to gank if the player is smart. ^^This, Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank. 1 million ehp for the Bownaught is not a lot of ehp. Why should the gank fleets have the advantage? Give the haulers some safety in the form of tank. Let the gankers actually have to work at it. My perspective of the current ganking mechanic is that its out of balance. Its too easy to gank ships in Eve. I say that because when one ganker can cause trouble in a system over and over and over without any way for the miners to address the problem, then there is something out of balance. Ships cost isk, when a capsuleer loses a ship they lose isk which creates their risk averse nature. So those who have unlimited isk supplies have no aversion to risk. The gank metagame has evolved into this thing where those capsuleers who don't have access to unlimited isk are subject to the constant harassment of those who do have unlimited isk and can afford to throw gank ship after gank ship into the gankage. The new Bownaught should have tank and a lot of it. Stop making it so easy for gankers. Tank is no safety at all. If you increase the tank they will bring more ships... where is the safety in that??? We the players need to be more pro-active in protecting our assets rather than running to CCP so they can hold our hands.
They will bring more ships, but eventually they will run out of players. Stealth is the ultimate safety, but that won't do here. Thus, tank is your safety. Or avoiding anything of value, but then there would be no use for the ship.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Kestrix
The Scope Gallente Federation
147
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 17:47:11 -
[1668] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kestrix wrote:Euripedies wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote: Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be.
Not to rebuff your point about things getting out of hand, but 1 million EHP would not allow you to carry tens of billions in safety. Given the 420/500k people are tossing around is break even at less than 2 Bill in some gank cases, a bit over 2 bil in the case of ABC's, 1 Million EHP would only allow perhaps 5 Billion before it becomes potentially profitable to gank, and always gives a green KB result anyway. 33.5k DPS per second. Or if we assume 1k DPS ships, 34 ships. And a 0.5 system with a 30 second concord response. (Which can be longer if Concord are drawn elsewhere). 34*120 Mil = 4 Billion. So...... Try not to get carried away in how much safety you are pretending 1 Million EHP would actually give a ship. Even if the current EHP is enough to keep it unprofitable to gank if the player is smart. ^^This, Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank. 1 million ehp for the Bownaught is not a lot of ehp. Why should the gank fleets have the advantage? Give the haulers some safety in the form of tank. Let the gankers actually have to work at it. My perspective of the current ganking mechanic is that its out of balance. Its too easy to gank ships in Eve. I say that because when one ganker can cause trouble in a system over and over and over without any way for the miners to address the problem, then there is something out of balance. Ships cost isk, when a capsuleer loses a ship they lose isk which creates their risk averse nature. So those who have unlimited isk supplies have no aversion to risk. The gank metagame has evolved into this thing where those capsuleers who don't have access to unlimited isk are subject to the constant harassment of those who do have unlimited isk and can afford to throw gank ship after gank ship into the gankage. The new Bownaught should have tank and a lot of it. Stop making it so easy for gankers. Tank is no safety at all. If you increase the tank they will bring more ships... where is the safety in that??? We the players need to be more pro-active in protecting our assets rather than running to CCP so they can hold our hands. They will bring more ships, but eventually they will run out of players. Stealth is the ultimate safety, but that won't do here. Thus, tank is your safety. Or avoiding anything of value, but then there would be no use for the ship.
Or you could bring friends to scout and to provide reps if your ship is attacked friends can also bring safety
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
283
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 17:51:52 -
[1669] - Quote
Kestrix wrote:
They will bring more ships, but eventually they will run out of players. Stealth is the ultimate safety, but that won't do here. Thus, tank is your safety. Or avoiding anything of value, but then there would be no use for the ship.
Or you could bring friends to scout and to provide reps if your ship is attacked friends can also bring safety [/quote]
Yes, but bringing friends to an already boring activity is incredibly painful. If I can't move my ships solo in highsec without at least a relative level of safety....something is deeply wrong with the game. Moving around in police patrolled space should not require an escort fleet. |
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 18:03:02 -
[1670] - Quote
Sigh...
after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.
Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" and a high sec version of a carrier.
and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.
so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.
and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.
jmho
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
|
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 18:15:01 -
[1671] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: It should be, comparative to the 3 (probably T2 or faction) battleships that are it's cargo, easier to gank. And it should be easier to kill because if offers the immense time saving benefit of flying all of them simultaneously.
That should cost you something. And since it's really unfair to penalize speed since it exists to save time in the first place, that means the best place to pay this cost is in it's defenses.
375k with max tank fit seems fair to me. It could stand to go lower, imo, but it ought to be higher than a typical freighter.
The tank is decent with faction/deadspace hardener + a booster ,it should pretty much satisfy you considering since the beginning of this tread you and some other are pleading that we should fly that ship as a fleet . Plus the argument of saving time is irrevelant as to save time you have to plug a full High grade ascendancy set + a 618 cost 2b2
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Why should one player be able to tank the damage from 30+ players? Probably because smaller gun size ,it has never make sense than smaller caliber gun could harm in such a way freighter and capital ships, pretty much like if 30 guys trying to gank a tank with sub machine gun. We all know the result 30 dead guys and some paint scracthes on the tank ....
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1688
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 18:17:10 -
[1672] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Sigh...
after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.
Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" and a high sec version of a carrier.
and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.
so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.
and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.
jmho
o/ Celly Smunt as to the first point, yes. In an extreme salutation where everything runs smoothly and no interference it could. The same way that it is currently done with moving fleets of freighters and industrials between staging points (it's not).
|
Celly S
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
336
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 18:21:32 -
[1673] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Celly S wrote:Sigh...
after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.
Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" and a high sec version of a carrier.
and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.
so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.
and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.
jmho
o/ Celly Smunt as to the first point, yes. In an extreme salutation where everything runs smoothly and no interference it could. The same way that it is currently done with moving fleets of freighters and industrials between staging points (it's not).
that should have read "is a high sec version", not "and a high sec version"
I have fixed it in the original post, and I agree that to some extent there are still the possibility of issues, but that for the majority of what's being asked, there's already a solution available.
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Celly Smunt
Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance
344
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 18:21:32 -
[1674] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Celly S wrote:Sigh...
after being trolled or at best ridiculed for making this statement earlier, I am going to make it again.
Honestly, all that I see here with the requests for "drones for defense", "more ehp", more "fitting slots" and a high sec version of a carrier.
and by adding the "jump drive" request coupled with the reduction in fatigue that an "industrial" class ship gets is just an un-nerfed version of an existing carrier with a little larger sma and less drone damage.
so in null sec: force projection could still be somewhat more viable than what it is now with safely jumped sub caps for fighting pilots and a 90% reduction in fatigue to the bowhead pilot.
and in high sec; folks are wanting the ship to be virtually ungankable and honestly, that's neither realistic, nor is it true to the core of the game.
jmho
o/ Celly Smunt as to the first point, yes. In an extreme salutation where everything runs smoothly and no interference it could. The same way that it is currently done with moving fleets of freighters and industrials between staging points (it's not).
that should have read "is a high sec version", not "and a high sec version"
I have fixed it in the original post, and I agree that to some extent there are still the possibility of issues, but that for the majority of what's being asked, there's already a solution available.
o/ Celly Smunt
Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal.
Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular.
Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself.
A sandwich can be a great motivator.
|
Mangalang
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 19:30:34 -
[1675] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Mangalang wrote:Implment a mechanic that allows the ship to carry pilots, and can discharge ships and pilots in space. That way, when the hisec gankers try to kill it, there may be a price to pay. As it is, there are no effective counters to hisec ganking other than avoiding the common gank systems. Or, you know... not being afk.
Afk auto-piloted freighters get ganked regularly, but it does not follow that an effective counter is to not be afk. Pretty sure this was covered in Logic 101, but it may have been before that, like, you know, the 3rd grade.
An effective counter is what I'm talking about, with emphasis on the word "effective." Implementing a mechanic that allows ships and pilots to be launched in space changes the calculations for the gankers. Right now it is a simple math problem. My proposal adds an element of uncertainty to the equation, especially for the bumpers. "If I bump that freighter with my shiney Mach, is he going to launch 40 gank catalysts and kill me dead?"
Talk about tank and drones and whatever else only changes the numbers in the basic calculation, but doesn't change the fundamentals. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10627
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 19:47:35 -
[1676] - Quote
Nya Kittenheart wrote: The tank is decent with faction/deadspace hardener + a booster ,it should pretty much satisfy you considering since the beginning of this tread you and some other are pleading that we should fly that ship as a fleet . Plus the argument of saving time is irrevelant as to save time you have to plug a full High grade ascendancy set + a 618 cost 2b2
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Did you quote the wrong person?
And as for flying as a fleet, yes, that should pretty much be the case. Using webs makes it all but invincible, so failing to do so should result in the ship being a gigantic target/pinata.
Quote:Probably because smaller gun size ,it has never make sense than smaller caliber gun could harm in such a way freighter and capital ships, pretty much like if 30 guys trying to gank a tank with sub machine gun. We all know the result 30 dead guys and some paint scracthes on the tank ....
Well, someone doesn't seem to understand how this works.
A freighter is not a tank. It's a Walmart truck, an 18 wheeler. In real life, yes, small arms fire from 30 people will destroy one of those. And the 30 people aren't just using 9mm pistols with basic ball rounds, they're using military grade weaponry and ammo, which is most analogous to a T2 gun w/ faction ammo...
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10627
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 19:52:33 -
[1677] - Quote
Mangalang wrote: Afk auto-piloted freighters get ganked regularly, but it does not follow that an effective counter is to not be afk.
Sure it does. Warping to zero by itself takes a big bite out of the potential chances to actually shoot at you.
Quote: An effective counter is what I'm talking about, with emphasis on the word "effective."
Yeah, like actually bothering to defend yourself.
Webbing and warping to zero is all you really need. Asking to carry other players is, among other things, incredibly broken as a mechanic.
But if you want to launch ships, you already can. You just have to have people flying alongside you to grab them. You don't get to turn every ship with an SMB into a carrier though.
Quote: Talk about tank and drones and whatever else only changes the numbers in the basic calculation, but doesn't change the fundamentals.
Nor should it. It's hauling. Point A >>> Point B, that's as complicated as it gets. Tank your ship, web your ship, warp to zero, and you succeed.
The end. Hell even if you don't do those things, ganking is so rare as to make it likely you will live anyway.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Masao Kurata
Z List
149
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 19:55:22 -
[1678] - Quote
Webbing is an incredibly effective counter and people regularly move tens of billions of cargo that way without trouble. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10627
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 19:57:42 -
[1679] - Quote
And, Hells Bells, do you even realize the implications of what you're asking for?
You're literally asking for a way that gankers can roll through anywhere in completely safety being carried by a Bowhead, pop out to wreak havoc, and pop back in to safety.
You would have to be insane to actually want this. It would be beyond broken.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13920
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 20:02:01 -
[1680] - Quote
Euripedies wrote:
^^This,
Ive seen several Orcas killed by gank fleets, an orca can do something like 400k tank.
They can yes but they chose not to. You will find that the vast bulk of dead orca will be fitting cargo rigs and mods.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
|
|
|
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 |