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) |

Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
279
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 12:29:00 -
[1831] - Quote
The bowhead is now available on Sisi (at least the stats and model are in the game now - not sure if it's seeded yet) as of this morning*. Gorgeous hunk of hauler that it is.
*Or at least I only just noticed it was there this morning.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13954
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 12:46:27 -
[1832] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
not when you just use 3 accs to move them
So use those accounts. Meanwhile the people with just one account can use this ship. Plebeians But more on topic i like the overall idea of the ship even if the low sensor strength has me confused
Most likely because of nullsec.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Sitting Bull Lakota
Black Moves First
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 12:50:25 -
[1833] - Quote
The ship looks great. I can see no reason to moan about new additions to the space faring family.
Can we have a co-release of a module that acts as an Expanded Cargo Hold for maintenance bays? I want the ability to sacrifice my valuable tank slots for the ability to haul +1-2 bs/t3's. In the interest of preserving player freedom, I'd like to protect my right to cart around 5 deadspace fit pirate battleships in a 1bil isk cardboard box! In all seriousness, I'd like to see an additional low slot mod that would allow Orcas, carriers, etc. to increase the size of their fitted ship holds.
Freighters now have the option of sacrificing safety for convenience as the Indies do. Why not the Bowhead too? Make an Expanded Maintenance Bay I and II!
On a related note, SMB's need to have a drop rate. |

Jean Luc Lemmont
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
279
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 13:02:23 -
[1834] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote: In the interest of preserving player freedom, I'd like to protect my right to cart around 5 deadspace fit pirate battleships in a 1bil isk cardboard box!
On a related note, SMB's need to have a drop rate.
Both of these need to be a thing.
A bitter vet trying to start anew.
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 15:02:12 -
[1835] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
It would save us a metric shitton of money in scrapped rigs and a lot of time in stipping fittings and assembling them again.
Right, but how would being able to transport a crap load of rigged cruisers get around the force project nerf? My point was that even if you could ship 42 rigged cruisers or whatever that your force projection hasn't changed. Only the convenience of being able to move those ships has changed.
Far it be from me to tell you guys how to successfully run an empire, but frankly I'd be surprised if you actually were stripping rigs on a massive scale to move things primarily because it seems like it would be easier just to buy in jita/build in empire and ship things to the edge of the war zone rather than all the way from your home systems. But its not like you guys have massive chests full of cash to do that or anything... |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13955
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 15:15:42 -
[1836] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Right, but how would being able to transport a crap load of rigged cruisers get around the force project nerf? My point was that even if you could ship 42 rigged cruisers or whatever that your force projection hasn't changed. Only the convenience of being able to move those ships has changed.
It would mean faster deployment times as we would not have to make as many trips to move assets and we would save billions in fuel and rigs and spend far less time stripping fits and assembling them again.
Valterra Craven wrote: Far it be from me to tell you guys how to successfully run an empire, but frankly I'd be surprised if you actually were stripping rigs on a massive scale to move things primarily because it seems like it would be easier just to buy in jita/build in empire and ship things to the edge of the war zone rather than all the way from your home systems. But its not like you guys have massive chests full of cash to do that or anything...
Yep, lets just mothball a few hundred billion in ships every time we re-deploy and just import from jita...
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 15:52:48 -
[1837] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
It would mean faster deployment times as we would not have to make as many trips to move assets and we would save billions in fuel and rigs and spend far less time stripping fits and assembling them again.
Again, I find it odd that you strip/prefit members ships for them. It seems like a waste of time for one/few person to do that when members can fit their own ships (that and the sheer inane boredom of it all). To be fair I don't know the ins and outs of how you guys actually do stuff, but it just seems like you do so incredibly inefficiently from the arguments you make
baltec1 wrote: Yep, lets just mothball a few hundred billion in ships every time we re-deploy and just import from jita...
Why wouldn't you?A few hundred billion in ships mothballed for a few months given the size of your alliance doesn't seem irrational. Given the scope of your alliance and your need to redeploy a lot would mean that over the long term it would be better to save ships in a given spot for future conflicts rather than constantly shipping and reshipping everything around. Fuel isn't free and I'd image that eventually things would wash out especially if you weren't stripping rigs. |

Yume Ookami
Cognitive Disonance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 16:44:28 -
[1838] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:The bowhead is now available on Sisi (at least the stats and model are in the game now - not sure if it's seeded yet) as of this morning*. Gorgeous hunk of hauler that it is.
*Or at least I only just noticed it was there this morning.
the bowhead is available to look at but it is not seeded and the nether is the skill book. also the information in the indy tab for the ship and the BPO are different as well. |

Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10666
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 16:53:57 -
[1839] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:A few hundred billion in ships mothballed for a few months given the size of your alliance doesn't seem irrational.
I read this at first and I wondered if you had actually gone insane.
Then I realized whose post I was reading, and it made sense.
No, Craven. No alliance can afford to eat a few hundred billion in the red every time they want to move a deployment around. That should be self apparent to all but the most painfully ignorant.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:19:14 -
[1840] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I read this at first and I wondered if you had actually gone insane.
The feeling is mutual
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, Craven. No alliance can afford to eat a few hundred billion in the red every time they want to move a deployment around. That should be self apparent to all but the most painfully ignorant.
Who said anything about "eating" a few hundred billion? Those ships aren't destroyed, they aren't lost, they just aren't where you need them at a specific given time. Its called a "stash" for a reason. But this now begs the question, just how many sub cap ships does it take for you guys to "win" a war anyway? (I could see this being a lot if you kept getting pipe bombed lol) |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13955
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:19:31 -
[1841] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
Again, I find it odd that you strip/prefit members ships for them. It seems like a waste of time for one/few person to do that when members can fit their own ships (that and the sheer inane boredom of it all). To be fair I don't know the ins and outs of how you guys actually do stuff, but it just seems like you do so incredibly inefficiently from the arguments you make
What inefficient is getting everyone to put together their own ships. We have no control over how they fit them, we have no control over what supplies each member has and we have no idea how long it would take them. We centralise everything so its a case of need a ship? Click on the contract and get the correct ship. This is how you wage wars.
Valterra Craven wrote: Why wouldn't you?A few hundred billion in ships mothballed for a few months given the size of your alliance doesn't seem irrational. Given the scope of your alliance and your need to redeploy a lot would mean that over the long term it would be better to save ships in a given spot for future conflicts rather than constantly shipping and reshipping everything around. Fuel isn't free and I'd image that eventually things would wash out especially if you weren't stripping rigs.
We moved twice in the last month. In the long term it is not better to have these cashes of ships scattered everywhere when your war chest is empty because you keep on buying hundreds of billions in gear every time you move. We take vast numbers of ships with us on deployments because we need them. Hell I am even lowballing the number massively. The true price is in the trillions.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:24:09 -
[1842] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
What inefficient is getting everyone to put together their own ships..
Why is that inefficient when you have the potential for massive parallelism?
baltec1 wrote: We have no control over how they fit them, we have no control over what supplies each member has and we have no idea how long it would take them. We centralise everything so its a case of need a ship? Click on the contract and get the correct ship. This is how you wage wars.
And you still don't. Just because you give them a ship doesn't mean they can't remove the fittings or change them. Is it so hard to give them a ship and the mods, rigs ammo, etc in the contract?
baltec1 wrote: We moved twice in the last month. In the long term it is not better to have these cashes of ships scattered everywhere when your war chest is empty because you keep on buying hundreds of billions in gear every time you move. We take vast numbers of ships with us on deployments because we need them. Hell I am even lowballing the number massively. The true price is in the trillions.
And now I'm really curious. Just how many sub caps would it take for your numbers to equal "trillions" in ship movements. Or are you suggesting that you move billions of ships? Or just incorrectly counting cap ships as part of the numbers when they aren't even part of this discussion.
|

Kaarous Aldurald
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10666
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:24:49 -
[1843] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: you guys
In case my alliance ticker has malfunctioned, I am not a Goon. Try to pay attention.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:26:34 -
[1844] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: you guys In case my alliance ticker has malfunctioned, I am not a Goon. Try to pay attention.
Your ticker is not really germane to the point I'm trying to make. How many ships would it take for you to either A. Defend what you have, or B. take more space. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13955
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:33:54 -
[1845] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
And you still don't. Just because you give them a ship doesn't mean they can't remove the fittings or change them. Is it so hard to give them a ship and the mods, rigs ammo, etc in the contract?
They do that and they get no SRP.
Valterra Craven wrote: And now I'm really curious. Just how many sub caps would it take for your numbers to equal "trillions" in ship movements. Or are you suggesting that you move billions of ships? Or just incorrectly counting cap ships as part of the numbers when they aren't even part of this discussion?
We won the battle of B-R5RB yet still lost 2.5 trillion.
6VDT-H we had 2000 pilots, 900 of which were in megathrons.
Both of those were just single battles. When we deploy on a CFC level we need thousands of ships in the initial push with tens of thousands more to keep us going.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:34:26 -
[1846] - Quote
I just did some quick math.
If you estimate the average price of a ship is 200mil (which should roughly account for either battleships or t2 cruisers) then you would have to move over 5k ships to be in the trillion mark. Is this the number of ships that people need to win wars these days? (honest question) |

Yume Ookami
Cognitive Disonance
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 17:40:32 -
[1847] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I just did some quick math.
If you estimate the average price of a ship is 200mil (which should roughly account for either battleships or t2 cruisers) then you would have to move over 5k ships to be in the trillion mark. Is this the number of ships that people need to win wars these days? (honest question)
it would seem so but then again i do not do wars. i prefer to be the person gaining lots of isk from others going to war. |

Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
272
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 18:00:03 -
[1848] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:
And you still don't. Just because you give them a ship doesn't mean they can't remove the fittings or change them. Is it so hard to give them a ship and the mods, rigs ammo, etc in the contract?
They do that and they get no SRP. Valterra Craven wrote: And now I'm really curious. Just how many sub caps would it take for your numbers to equal "trillions" in ship movements. Or are you suggesting that you move billions of ships? Or just incorrectly counting cap ships as part of the numbers when they aren't even part of this discussion?
We won the battle of B-R5RB yet still lost 2.5 trillion. 6VDT-H we had 2000 pilots, 900 of which were in megathrons. The fight became known as the flight of a thousand mega. Both of those were just single battles. When we deploy on a CFC level we need thousands of ships in the initial push with tens of thousands more to keep us going. That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that.. The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|

Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
272
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 18:13:37 -
[1849] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: And you still don't. Just because you give them a ship doesn't mean they can't remove the fittings or change them. Is it so hard to give them a ship and the mods, rigs ammo, etc in the contract?
Simple answer is the obvious. Yes it is much harder to do contracts of ships and mods than it is to do contracts for fitted ships.
Imagine you have 200 Harpies and fits to do contracts for, to make a contract and manually go through and select each item needed to fit the ship out is a long process (around 8 to 10 mins per ship). Save the fit in your fitting window, select new Harpy and fit from saved fittings, create contract (around 2 mins total).
As for the members changing the fits once they accept the contract - They don't if they want SRP.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|

Valterra Craven
378
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 18:43:16 -
[1850] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: And you still don't. Just because you give them a ship doesn't mean they can't remove the fittings or change them. Is it so hard to give them a ship and the mods, rigs ammo, etc in the contract?
Simple answer is the obvious. Yes it is much harder to do contracts of ships and mods than it is to do contracts for fitted ships. Imagine you have 200 Harpies and fits to do contracts for, to make a contract and manually go through and select each item needed to fit the ship out is a long process (around 8 to 10 mins per ship). Save the fit in your fitting window, select new Harpy and fit from saved fittings, create contract (around 2 mins total). As for the members changing the fits once they accept the contract - They don't if they want SRP.
Ok that's fine, but the question then becomes when do you rig the ship, before or after you get it to the battle front? (This is what I'm getting at, and IMO the answer is pretty obvious)
Given that you have attrition in battles I'm not convinced that you would need to derig over 5k ships, move them, and then rerig them once you needed to move. It wouldn't make since to have more than a thousand rigged and waiting at a time (and even that number may be way too high) and then once you've won, given the numbers of pilots you have it would be far cheaper just to have them fly the stuff thats already rigged to the next battle, rather then de-rig and re-rig. |
|

Syllabus Memoriae
WarBerry Bakery
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 19:38:01 -
[1851] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Syllabus Memoriae wrote:Love the idea of the ship itself, but after reading 4-5 pages of repeated ideas, the only thoughts I could add constructively would be that the only real problem with this ship is the suicide gank capability. Best solution I thought was the increase to shields and overheat effectiveness, to many variables to fix one issue. Take the idea though and make it a module that takes up multiple slots and does something like add 500000 shield for 30 seconds and when activated 180 of no moving depleted capacitor and cannot jump threw gates for 1m, or something like that, maybe call it a emergency shield fortifier or something and lock it to that ship for fit only. Would put a damper on suicide gankabilty, but would not cause to much of other changes. Give the player the option to choose and the ganker can figure ways around it, and won't screw up the future thought of nullsec potential. I least I think...
Now must continue reading. It gets more tank than any other freighter.
Well you could give it to all the freighters but then suicide ganking would die all together of the freightor verity the idea itself could be a taplateacher for something else maybe similar to it also makes sense sacrifice all power and fry your ship for a min or two to power surge the shields still would leave you vulnerable but would strive off 30 second kills cause concord would clean them up, mechanic playing on mechanic but really would know if it would work until tested. The idea to me is a sketch at best, would need work to be a real suggestion. |

Masao Kurata
Z List
154
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 20:04:15 -
[1852] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Gank a bowhead in your catalyst- get pop by concord - board bling battle ship dropped as loot and fly off - win win.
You've never actually been criminal in highsec, have you? The result of attempting to do that will be a bling battleship lossmail to CONCORD. All CONCORD responses apply to any ships you board during the criminal timer, including the remote warp drive disabling. |

Sli Anasazi
Demeanor Exports
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 21:24:09 -
[1853] - Quote
I like it! However it definitely should be given a significant boost to shields, armor, and structure for sure if it's going to be transporting other ships. Perhaps half again of current levels I think would be good enough to make it worth while at that point. Maybe a few more slots as well so it's not just a flying tank or brick for that matter. Armor and shield boosts are good but I would like to see it have the ability to equip mods to help prevent warp jams and such. rather than having to choose between them.  |

ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:40:26 -
[1854] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Gank a bowhead in your catalyst- get pop by concord - board bling battle ship dropped as loot and fly off - win win. You've never actually been criminal in highsec, have you? The result of attempting to do that will be a bling battleship lossmail to CONCORD. All CONCORD responses apply to any ships you board during the criminal timer, including the remote warp drive disabling. Yup that's why you're supposed to have a neutral alt there to loot. Going suspect is no big deal especially if you already have safe spots (which you should). |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13957
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 23:41:59 -
[1855] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that.. The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .
Tell that to BL.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
287
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 23:53:46 -
[1856] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that.. The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .
Tell that to BL.
Not sure the rhetoric matches the reality. And note that nothing in this plan relied on Bowheads...it seems that nullsec logistics are doing just fine without them. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13957
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 00:00:38 -
[1857] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that.. The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .
Tell that to BL. Not sure the rhetoric matches the reality. And note that nothing in this plan relied on Bowheads...it seems that nullsec logistics are doing just fine without them.
It will do even better with them.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

ashley Eoner
360
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 00:11:41 -
[1858] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that.. The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .
Tell that to BL. Not sure the rhetoric matches the reality. And note that nothing in this plan relied on Bowheads...it seems that nullsec logistics are doing just fine without them. It will do even better with them. There's a lot of drivel in the conversation between you and Veers. So I was just wondering if you could sum up what your argument is in relation to the bowhead.
Are you stating that it's overpowered in a null environment? |

Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 00:48:19 -
[1859] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Barton Breau wrote:
Whether or not null will use it (and dont get me wrong, im happy for ya about the 90% reduction) is irrelevant in respect of a stated goal of transporting fitted and insured ships in highsec.
In which, given the reality of fits flying around in high, the ships speed and so on, it is still 'meh'.
Its faster than manually flying the three battleships and gankers cannot blow it up and make a profit on a cargo of three t2 fit battleships.
Round and round...
You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place.
|

Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
273
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 01:05:36 -
[1860] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: That has already been fixed. There will never be a CFC level deployment again, travel restrictions have seen to that.. The CFC is now a bunch of small groups who are at the moment, still allied to an entity that is slowly becoming redundant .
Tell that to BL. Seriously, that is the best you can do? Although your link failed to post correctly, the corresponding story in no way shows coalitions have a future. In fact it really shows the large coalitions are failing. The die hard members of the large coalitions may like to tell themselves they will survive unscathed but reality is, as nulsec changes so will the need to and viability of having all your neighbors blue.
I think as do many others, things in nulsec need a change up. Big coalitions = minimal content. We have all had enough of static nulsec, time to let it burn
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
|
|
|
|
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 |