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" is 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

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.

So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp?

Perhaps this ship was intended to make the game more fun for pirates, rather than shippers?

Seems to me that the only reason you'd move ships in a maintenance bay is if you've put rigs on them, and don't want to have to destroy the rigs. Right?

So I suppose it might be handy if more people were skilling their rigging skills to IV, then fitting and selling T2 rigged ships in Jita. That could become a trade option I guess. Bring one of these ships into Jita, load up with T2 rigged contract ships, and carry them out with you?

But if it's not about rigs, then why bother?

If the gankers want to kill it, they should need to muster enough dps to do it the first time.

If you don't want it bumped, you should have to muster up the *snicker* one character and two webs necessary to avoid bumping with 100% surety the first time.

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.

the usual personal attacks

Because neutrals in highsec can't be attacked without CONCORD intervention. Carrier EHP makes a ship ungankable.

Point me to a suicide gank killmail of any of the highsec capitals if you want to contest this. I'll wait.

yes of course you are correct about the hisec capital kills, my point is that the current ganking meta, from my poor and humble perspective, is seemingly out of balance, Carrier ehp doesn't make them ungankable, just much more difficult.

See that's the thing, why must the meta for the predators be at such a low bar?

I think we should also consider that the three BSs could value in the four billion isk range. They are bulky and they are expensive. they are not faction titan BPCs being carried in an interceptor. They are in a capital hauler that's slow, give it some tank that will justify hauling around 4 bil in ships.

EDIT : Maxed out obelisk only has 370k ehp vs void. 10 talos would destroy that easily or you could go el cheapo and use 17 t2 neutron catas.

Because everyone in a gank fleet has all V skills? Or because EFT warrior-isms in any way reflect the realities of the day to day game?

Take that crap somewhere else, and stop pretending like you actually gank, you aren't fooling anyone.

Looking at some recent kills on Eve Kill
Ark, 11 Catalysts.
Obelisk 12 significant mix of Talos Brutix & Catalyst+ 1 KM stamper
Charon 6 Talos + 1 newbie ship
Charon 12 Talos, 4 Brutix + some random KM stampers.

So.... yea, lets stop with these delusions about 30+ people to kill a Freighter shall we Kaarous.

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

You can fit an entire harpy fleet in one.

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

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

then the ship is worthless

I love your perspective on this ship, however, I'm cautious to support a clone vat bay (As awesome as it would be). There is already lot's of debate on the ship as a means to circumvent the force projection changes they're making to capitol ships. IF they were to avail us of a clone vat bay, I would feel even more strongly about removing the Jump Fatigue bonus on the Bowhead.

If correct the Bow is designed to be a Hi-sec ship transport primary with lo-sec capability as a secondary role.

My point was great we can move a fitted ship to x location I now have to JC to Y to move the clone to fly it back at x