EVE Search - Sticky:[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rhea] Introducing the Bowhead

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 4468	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:47:27 - [1] - Quote 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. There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application. Because we were starting from scratch here, we decided to give a little more fitting flexibility (mid slots and rig slots), meaning the base hp is set a little lower than other freighters since you can actually get the EHP higher using rigs and a DCU. 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 Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed): 65 / .065 / 640000000 / 1.37 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 @ccp_rise

Edward Olmops Gunboat Commando 229	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:51:29 - [2] - Quote Awesome! More spaceships!! :-)
I Love Boobies All Hail Boobies 1261	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:52:15 - [3] - Quote Interesting/
John Ratcliffe Caldari Provisions Caldari State 282	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:54:27 - [4] - Quote Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 268	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:56:44 - [5] - Quote Starship, I think I love you. Travelling at the speed of love.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4148	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:56:45 - [6] - Quote Wheee! Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1391	Posted - 2014.11.10 10:58:04 - [7] - Quote Me like! Any idea of the potential price tag? Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 38	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:02:15 - [8] - Quote Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for?
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra 1235	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:02:20 - [9] - Quote Waha! Take that, tugboat! Bowhead is a much better name. Unfortunately, as many predicted, the hp is sufficiently low that this is perfect for gankers. Paired with that speed bonus instead of an agility bonus, and maximum 3 fit battleships.... eh.... I think we're not going to see many bowheads at all.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2508	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:02:26 - [10] - Quote Being made by ORE, you should troll everyone and make it only hold Industrials and Mining Barges and there T2 variants. -

Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 292	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:03:40 - [11] - Quote Very good! The community has been asking for this ship for quite some time and I'm sure it'll be put to good use. As with all highsec capitals, however, it's going to get bumped and ganked like crazy. X
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 268	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:07:03 - [12] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? Kiting. Duh. Travelling at the speed of love.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1391	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:08:51 - [13] - Quote Assuming at least one of the mids will be reserved for a MWD, and fitting a hull tank, the defences do seem a little bit weak; I think with DC2 and double bulkheads we'd be looking at about 150, 180K EHP? That's still significantly less than an armour tanked battleship even though it could potentially be carrying 3 of them inside. I can easily see transporting 3 or 4 billion isk of fitted ships around inside one of these (moving a couple of decent mission ships around could easily reach 3 billion), I think the defences need to reflect that when we live in a world of cheap ganking . Crazy idea... slightly less hull, more mids, more shield HP, and a 1000% bonus to the effects of overheating and heat damage absorbed. 500,000k EHP for 30 - 40 seconds then your modules are burnt out.
Catherine Laartii Perkone Caldari State 373	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:09:39 - [14] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? It's for fitting Polaris 10000mn mwd on so CCP fozzie can do drive-by's in his DD fit freighter against CCPs Rise and Grayscale for their secret jove space death matches. In all seriousness, the entire notion of velocity bonuses on haulers needs to be upended, and gifted with an agility bonus. Or warp speed, for that matter.

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 4469	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:12:02 - [15] - Quote John Ratcliffe wrote: Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. I'll actually go look for a picture for you, there must be one around here somewhere. @ccp_rise


CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 296	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:12:37 - [16] - Quote Whale whale whale...... CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/ccp_lebowski

Catherine Laartii Perkone Caldari State 373	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:13:23 - [17] - Quote Arronicus wrote: Waha! Take that, tugboat! Bowhead is a much better name. Unfortunately, as many predicted, the hp is sufficiently low that this is perfect for gankers. Paired with that speed bonus instead of an agility bonus, and maximum 3 fit battleships.... eh.... I think we're not going to see many bowheads at all. It CAN fit DC, and since it doesn't need cargo expanders, you can fit bulkheads on it. Dunno about those mids tho...maybe chain ecm burst? Not sure of their hisec legality.
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 268	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:15:42 - [18] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Arronicus wrote: Waha! Take that, tugboat! Bowhead is a much better name. Unfortunately, as many predicted, the hp is sufficiently low that this is perfect for gankers. Paired with that speed bonus instead of an agility bonus, and maximum 3 fit battleships.... eh.... I think we're not going to see many bowheads at all. It CAN fit DC, and since it doesn't need cargo expanders, you can fit bulkheads on it. Dunno about those mids tho...maybe chain ecm burst? Not sure of their hisec legality. Depends on the price really. JFs are ganked for ***** and giggles, if its expensive enough and there's a chance of grabbing a few hundred million its pretty much tears+profits=no brainer. Travelling at the speed of love.
Catherine Laartii Perkone Caldari State 373	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:16:05 - [19] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: John Ratcliffe wrote: Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. I'll actually go look for a picture for you, there must be one around here somewhere. Do you have one of fozzie shooting you with his DD freighter in his kite fenrir? Don't think you've fooled us; we've wised up to your shenanigans...
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4148	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:16:30 - [20] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: Assuming at least one of the mids will be reserved for a MWD, and fitting a hull tank, the defences do seem a little bit weak; I think with DC2 and double bulkheads we'd be looking at about 150, 180K EHP? That's still significantly less than an armour tanked battleship even though it could potentially be carrying 3 of them inside. I can easily see transporting 3 or 4 billion isk of fitted ships around inside one of these (moving a couple of decent mission ships around could easily reach 3 billion), I think the defences need to reflect that when we live in a world of cheap ganking . Crazy idea... slightly less hull, more mids, more shield HP, and a 1000% bonus to the effects of overheating and heat damage absorbed. 500,000k EHP for 30 - 40 seconds then your modules are burnt out. You're forgetting about Transverse Bulkheads as well. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra 1236	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:21:29 - [21] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Arronicus wrote: Waha! Take that, tugboat! Bowhead is a much better name. Unfortunately, as many predicted, the hp is sufficiently low that this is perfect for gankers. Paired with that speed bonus instead of an agility bonus, and maximum 3 fit battleships.... eh.... I think we're not going to see many bowheads at all. It CAN fit DC, and since it doesn't need cargo expanders, you can fit bulkheads on it. Dunno about those mids tho...maybe chain ecm burst? Not sure of their hisec legality. 45625 hull with skills,123187 with 2 bulkheads 3 capital transverse bulkheads (tech 1, ofc), 60% resists from damage control. so, 308k hull EHP, plus the what, 50k ehp combined from shields and armor. Gives roughly the same tank as a freighter, at the expense of not being able to fit any agility mods except a 100mn mwd to help get up to speed a little faster.
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 43	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:21:36 - [22] - Quote Quote: [...] 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! GG CCP In all seriousness, really liking the concept, and the fact we are getting new spaceships to play with.

CCP Rise C C P 4470	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:26:18 - [23] - Quote 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? @ccp_rise

Dustpuppy Rox Inc 12	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:27:22 - [24] - Quote Would like to see at least one High slot (for a cloak). Jump fatigue only makes sense when moving inventory to low/null sec or within low/null sec. But my assumption might be wrong, maybe cloak is not intended for freighters. Side question: With 1.6 mio hangar - can such a ship be used to move capitals through Highsec?
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra 1236	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:31:10 - [25] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: Crazy idea... slightly less hull, more mids, more shield HP, and a 1000% bonus to the effects of overheating and heat damage absorbed. 500,000k EHP for 30 - 40 seconds then your modules are burnt out. You'd get 1 shot by a rookie ship. Hardeners heated to over 100% Dustpuppy wrote: Side question: With 1.6 mio hangar - can such a ship be used to move capitals through Highsec? Assembled only in SMB afaik Rear Admiral Charlie wrote: What size are the rigs going to be? My money is on capital.
Rear Admiral Charlie Heroes of Taia Almost Potatoes of Fear Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:31:45 - [26] - Quote What size are the rigs going to be?
Edward Olmops Gunboat Commando 229	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:34:14 - [27] - Quote My first impulse was: can we please have more capacity? Like 5 BS? If I want to move all my stuff from one system to another, if I am thinking of a whole corp of lazy, perma-broke or newbie buddies who all want their stuff moved then 3 BS are not much. Then again, when I think of nullsec and the long-term effects of high mobility, I think maybe 3 BS is a good spot. It replaces a Carrier, it is even a bit BETTER than a Carrier, but it's still in the same ballpark. You cannot throw 100 BS around, but there is still the possibility to easily deploy a group of cruisers or BCs. Also, the defenses should discourage moving too high values without an escort.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 479	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:45:54 - [28] - 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? Given what you expect people to haul in it - probably not to be honest. Edit to add context: This is given the standard advice of only hauling <1b and when you see freighters full of mere trit getting popped....no, no I do not think it is enough. Maybe if they were immune to scanning so at least to make it a punt on killing them. Also: These look big enough to get a packaged capital into - or are there restrictions around the bays for that?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1527	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:53:41 - [29] - Quote I think it needs more tank. Freighter loads top out at about 1b max for gank efficiency so this would be no different. I don't think 1b is high enough for this ship considering the cargo. You want the cutoff to be blingy mission fits, not a couple of standard fits. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1392	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:57:07 - [30] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: I'm sure people using the hauler would want as much as possible but this range should be reasonable, yes? You'd end up having more EHP inside the ship than outside it, and that seems like bad design by whichever NPCs built it. I know the two roles are far from equal, but a double AIF + DCII carrier, which is expected to move less ships at once, pushes close to a million before heat, and that has the benefit of a jump drive to reduce its exposure to risk. Now we're talking a big lumbering freighter which is likely going to be carrying more ships, in a region of space where you can't realistically take pre-emptive action against your attackers (without getting yourself GCC'd and unable to undock something fight off whatever is left), and where you can't pop a cyno to bring in instant help. 500k to 1 million is completely reasonable in these circumstances.

dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1252	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:59:07 - [31] - Quote Would it be unrealistic to hope for a T2 jump freighter version in the future?, would be awesome for solo people outside hi-sec. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
corbexx eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 879	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:59:53 - [32] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: Crazy idea... slightly less hull, more mids, more shield HP, and a 1000% bonus to the effects of overheating and heat damage absorbed. 500,000k EHP for 30 - 40 seconds then your modules are burnt out. I don't think you realise what happens when you get 100% resist. but what you propose would get you instantly killed (red giants how do they work) Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
Fonac Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 92	Posted - 2014.11.10 11:59:54 - [33] - Quote My first thought, is that instead of a procentwise increase, it should be defecit numbers. example, 250k per lvl.. or something like it. Makes more sense to have it at lvl 5 then. My other imidiate thought is that, a capacity for a single battleship is barely worth the time, moving across high-sec. Why not just pack it then and haul it with a transporter... or even better, not pack it, and just fly the battleship to the end destination? - IT makes no sense to put it into a slower hauler... I bet, that you could probably fly the battleship to the destination, fly back in a noob ship, and pick up your cargo with a fast hauler. Faster than you could by moving it all in one go, by a slow warping Bowhead. <- This is even cheaper, than buying a big expensive ship. If it can store more battleships, the EHP should be much much higher(Same thing with all the freigthers tbh...) Suicide ganking is bad enough as it is, this just continue the trend. If i where to use this kind of ships, it would be because i had multiple large hulls i needed to move, if i had to move a battleship, i would just fly the ship there, instead of putting it into a slow transporter, that has less EHP than what i can get by flying the ship itself, and with much less risk associated....
corbexx eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 879	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:02:56 - [34] - Quote Zappity wrote: I think it needs more tank. Freighter loads top out at about 1b max for gank efficiency so this would be no different. I don't think 1b is high enough for this ship considering the cargo. You want the cutoff to be blingy mission fits, not a couple of standard fits. I typically carry around just over a bil in an Orca but wouldn't go higher. Why would I use this instead apart from the battleship size? People if they have any sense wont transport blingy fits, they will strip the expensive mods move them on there own in a tanky t3 or something and use this to haul the hull and rigs of several ships Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better
FistyMcBumBardier TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 74	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:08:43 - [35] - Quote Dustpuppy wrote: Would like to see at least one High slot (for a cloak). Jump fatigue only makes sense when moving inventory to low/null sec or within low/null sec. But my assumption might be wrong, maybe cloak is not intended for freighters. Side question: With 1.6 mio hangar - can such a ship be used to move capitals through Highsec? They do not need a cloak if they are designed for highsec use. If they make a low sec/ null oriented version of this ship then yes. Can not wait to go Harpooning for these things. Fun biology fact: Right whales can have testes weighing over 500 kilograms each, that is almost the same as male humans having two 1/2 litre jugs of baby milk between our legs.
Makari Aeron The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium 133	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:09:27 - [36] - Quote .......only 1.625m m3 ship maintence? I was hoping for 2.5m m3 :S Better than a carrier in null but...meh. Not bad, but yeah definitely a high sec ship. Will probably get one anyawys because they look kinda cool. CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty. CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1527	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:11:15 - [37] - Quote corbexx wrote: Zappity wrote: I think it needs more tank. Freighter loads top out at about 1b max for gank efficiency so this would be no different. I don't think 1b is high enough for this ship considering the cargo. You want the cutoff to be blingy mission fits, not a couple of standard fits. I typically carry around just over a bil in an Orca but wouldn't go higher. Why would I use this instead apart from the battleship size? People if they have any sense wont transport blingy fits, they will strip the expensive mods move them on there own in a tanky t3 or something and use this to haul the hull and rigs of several ships Well lots of people DON'T have sense and they should be ganked for it. 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. Otherwise this is so niche (stripped battleship hulls only) that it won't see much use. If that's the goal then fine, I just misunderstood. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 71	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:15:24 - [38] - Quote Ofcourse this assumes people who buy the giant hauly freighter of haulerie-ing dont actually want to haul **** in it... And even if i take the bling off my incursion vargur and machariel the combined hulls of them would still cost more then the freighter they are sitting in... (and then there's the logis, t3, and other assorted odds and ends in ammo i haul around) and probably have more ehp maybe... Now HTFU and such are all valid answers but it might be interesting to see whats what first... Because unless these are the most overpowered gank magnets the world has ever seen i'll end up flying one to and fro and loving it in all probability... That said: http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l182/Ecksarelle/ThisThreadisworthlesswithoutPics.gif
Arden Elenduil Scary Devil Monastery 166	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:16:01 - [39] - Quote CCP Rise Seeing the kind of gank magnet this ship can be, are there any plans on finally making it so that stuff actually drops from an SMA once the ship is destroyed? Otherwise it would be very much OP in terms of shifting hardware.
Delekon Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 10	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:20:26 - [40] - Quote Can the mass be lowered to 300000000? So it can fit in all wormhole types. If it stays like this the ship will only be available to the residents of the c5/c6. You can also give us a rig that reduces mass for this ship, by smth like 20% (sort of the opposite of the planned higgs anchor rig) . This way we get to use it without making the ship more bump-able in highsec. Otherwise totally cool idea.

Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 20	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:25:03 - [41] - Quote Using this for moving around "multiple fitted battleships", and being "useful for incursion runners", is unfortunately mitigated by the really low ehp. As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. And that's not even taking into account the cost of the Bowhead at all. I was rather hoping it would reach about 600k ehp when max tank fitted.
Jackie Fisher syrkos technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate 396	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:29:46 - [42] - Quote Will there be a BPO for this? If yes, null ORE stations only? Fear God and Thread Nought
Seiko Hikitari Everlasting Vendetta. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:29:57 - [43] - Quote corbexx wrote: Zappity wrote: I think it needs more tank. Freighter loads top out at about 1b max for gank efficiency so this would be no different. I don't think 1b is high enough for this ship considering the cargo. You want the cutoff to be blingy mission fits, not a couple of standard fits. I typically carry around just over a bil in an Orca but wouldn't go higher. Why would I use this instead apart from the battleship size? People if they have any sense wont transport blingy fits, they will strip the expensive mods move them on there own in a tanky t3 or something and use this to haul the hull and rigs of several ships Why would I ever want to strip the mods ? Currently fitted mods on a ship in a ship maintenance bay cannot be ship or cargo scanned. It's actually a rather sneaky safe way to move your 20 estamel invulns or whatever : put on frigs and put in a tanked orca, no one will know. And even if they did they couldn't get a loot drop which makes ganking it unprofitable 100% of the time. This new hull exacerbates an issue that exists already: We need to know what's inside and fitted on a ship inside an SMB Ships have to be able to drop from an SMB (you managed to fix SMAs, I'm sure someone at CCP will find how to do that without deleting boot.ini)
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4148	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:32:32 - [44] - Quote Any idea of a ballpark cost? Blueprint cost? numbers of components? Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
TAckermassacker Troll-Republic The Initiative. 67	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:32:33 - [45] - Quote So much talk about filling a niche in Highsec, so i ask: can it be doomsdayed?
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1252	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:32:47 - [46] - Quote Shalashaska Adam wrote: As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. If the incursion community was not so god damn awful at playing eve, maybe they would move their stuff in groups with some logi support. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1527	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:33:44 - [47] - Quote Yeah, I'm assuming SMBs will be fixed like SMAs were for drops (but it is an assumption). Then again, empty freighters get ganked these days so I doubt a boat load full of hulls will be safe even now. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Fonac Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 92	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:34:26 - [48] - Quote dexington wrote: Shalashaska Adam wrote: As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. If the incursion community was not so god damn awful at playing eve, maybe they would move their stuff in groups with some logi support. I'm not an incursioner. But this logic is flawed in many ways. For example, a gank is fast, sometimes you pop before you can react( if it's done proberly atleast) .... Logi's will give exactly 0% protection.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 481	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:37:56 - [49] - Quote Fonac wrote: I'm not an incursioner. But this logic is flawed in many ways. For example, a gank is fast, sometimes you pop before you can react( if it's done proberly atleast) .... Logi's will give exactly 0% protection. Freighters dont get alphaed. At least, not often as far as I know.
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1252	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:39:37 - [50] - Quote Fonac wrote: dexington wrote: Shalashaska Adam wrote: As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. If the incursion community was not so god damn awful at playing eve, maybe they would move their stuff in groups with some logi support. I'm not an incursioner. But this logic is flawed in many ways. For example, a gank is fast, sometimes you pop before you can react( if it's done proberly atleast) .... Logi's will give exactly 0% protection. Unless you are saying gankers normally materialize out of thin air and doomsday you in hi-sec, have someone scout and jump the logi and freighter in an sensible way... maybe you too are also awful at playing eve. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1392	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:50:03 - [51] - Quote afkalt wrote: Freighters dont get alphaed. At least, not often as far as I know. Close to it tbh, pure gank fit talos will put out close to 1,600 dps. With a small gang of them you'd be through any meaningful shield and armour (i.e. those defences with logistics ships capable of putting out some amount of bonused protection) before you could pop a couple of cycles. dexington wrote: Unless you are saying gankers normally materialize out of thin air and doomsday you in hi-sec, have someone scout and jump the logi and freighter in an sensible way... maybe you too are also awful at playing eve. Irrelevant until bumping mechanics give GCC or aggression. Freighters can be held held indefinitely until the gank squad arrives, the only limit being downtime. As can this new ship, I assume.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1633	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:51:22 - [52] - Quote does the SMA work just like they do on other ships? module fittings and in space switching and such?
Nox52 Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 40	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:51:40 - [53] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: As promised, here is your brand new ship-moving ship - the Bowhead. 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 Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed): 65 / .065 / 640000000 / 1.37 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 Please please please lower the mass so it fits through the lower end wormholes to make life easier for those that are stuck with the god forsaken POS codes and ****** SMAs. I know it's a freighter but it isn't going anywhere fast so plenty of opportunity for tackle while a huge quality of life improvemnet, so you can actually store a decent stash of personal ships. Imagine nomading out of an orca and a bowhead, it would be amazing.
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 20	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:55:43 - [54] - Quote dexington wrote: Fonac wrote: dexington wrote: Shalashaska Adam wrote: As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. If the incursion community was not so god damn awful at playing eve, maybe they would move their stuff in groups with some logi support. I'm not an incursioner. But this logic is flawed in many ways. For example, a gank is fast, sometimes you pop before you can react( if it's done proberly atleast) .... Logi's will give exactly 0% protection. Unless you are saying gankers normally materialize out of thin air and doomsday you in hi-sec, have someone scout and jump the logi and freighter in an sensible way... maybe you too are also awful at playing eve. Coordination solves every problem. With multiple people involved, you would just fly the battleships to the destination with 200+ ehp travel fits. Sort of like how everyone does it now. The purpose surely of this ship, is for a single pilot, to move several battleships by himself. Though, apart from it being alot slower, its also bordering on being less safe, even with just a single battleship. With it's current ehp I wouldn't risk placing more than a trio of T1 ravens in it. Which would be just fine, but doesn't make it a useful ship for incursion runners, as was detailed.
David Kir Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 476	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:58:10 - [55] - Quote It needs a bit more EHP, in my opinion. Somewhere in the 500k ballpark. Any details on the building requirements? I can see it becoming very successful if it were to cost below the 500 million. Edit: lower the mass, pretty please. And if you're gonna keep the EHP the way it is, turn the velocity bonus into an agility or a mass one. Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Alty McAltypants Eretz Israel 1	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:59:29 - [56] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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 Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed): 65 / .065 / 640000000 / 1.37 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 Looking at this in terms of the following points: Ship movement capacity: If, as you say, 1.6 with ore freighter 5 that's approx. 3 battleships or 6 battlecruiser or 13-14 HACs or 90-100 frigates. The only comment I would have is...[Oliver Twist] could I please have more space sir[/Oliver Twist] may 4 battleships? Would that be ok, pleeeeassee. Tell you what how about we trade a slight cut in warp speed for one more battleship, fair, I would shake on it. Say 1.1 base warp speed for a tinnie-winnie more ship maintenance bay space? Empire ganking: Suicide ganking in empire is a function of: value lost (by gankers, which is arbitrarily minimal), the amount transported and, to some extent, intelligence and systems used. I am of the opinion you should let eve players choose how much high value junk they want to move as possible (reward = time saved) while maintaining the current defense stats (risk = of being ganked). Let evolution take its course. ISIS and ship class This is definitely a capital ship then? Pictures Gawdddamit, more pictures
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 146	Posted - 2014.11.10 12:59:39 - [57] - Quote I think it should have a covert cloak, and 5 times the EHP of a titan, a built-in MJD and 5 points of warp stabs, and if anyone even tries to gank you in it they get auto-banned and their characters biomassed. Oh, and as you fly through space it constantly yells WARNING THIS VEHICLE IS PROTECTED BY CCP MOVE AWAY FROM THE SHIP and if anyone approaches within 2500m they are preemptively concorded. Actually I think 350k ehp sounds just fine. It's about the same EHP as the battleships it carries, so a full load of ships aren't magically safer just by sticking them inside. Incursion runners wanted The Tug because transporting multiple fitted ships was a pain, now it's less of one.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1633	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:01:41 - [58] - Quote Do ships in SMA drop like normal loot when ship dies?
Arden Elenduil Scary Devil Monastery 166	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:03:32 - [59] - Quote Rowells wrote: Do ships in SMA drop like normal loot when ship dies? No, they don't As mentioned before, CCP should fix that, and at the same time allow mods fitted to ships in an SMA be scanned
Judas II Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes 27	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:06:58 - [60] - Quote Can you say anything how to acquire this Bow-boat? I reckon blueprints from the ORE stations as usual? And what about it's production costs? In line with T1 Freighters? Watch my videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/JudasIIEVEOnline Visit my blog at https://www.judasii.blogspot.com

Dustpuppy Rox Inc 12	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:12:31 - [61] - Quote Klyith wrote: Actually I think 350k ehp sounds just fine. It's about the same EHP as the battleships it carries, so a full load of ships aren't magically safer just by sticking them inside. Incursion runners wanted The Tug because transporting multiple fitted ships was a pain, now it's less of one. Looking at gankers only one detail counts: how much hp does the target have and how much do I get when it pops. The more hp, the more expensive is it to gank the ship. Doesn't make sense to use a ship which has the same amount of hp like a typical ship transported with it (here: BS) because as soon as you put in more than one the target is more attractive than flying the BS on it's own. And to be honest: 1 billion as "gank limit" in this case is not a lot.
RoAnnon Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 10366	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:13:26 - [62] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? Going faster... So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter.
Caiman Graystock Confederation Navy Research Epsilon Fleet 25	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:14:10 - [63] - Quote 650,000 EHP minimum with max skills please
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 839	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:28:21 - [64] - Quote Delekon wrote: Can the mass be lowered to 300000000? So it can fit in all wormhole types. If it stays like this the ship will only be available to the residents of the c5/c6. You can also give us a rig that reduces mass for this ship, by smth like 20% (sort of the opposite of the planned higgs anchor rig) . This way we get to use it without making the ship more bump-able in highsec. Otherwise totally cool idea. That may not be a good idea necessarily. While it would be interesting to fit this through wormholes, being able to cram what would be an army of ships into a random wormhole (c2-c4), with 1 guy, might be a bit unbalancing and more like how nullsec would supply their line. Don't think c1 through c4 space needs this ship in there. Yaay!!!!

CCP Rise C C P 4476	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:30:04 - [65] - Quote Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. @ccp_rise

Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 270	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:32:03 - [66] - Quote Caiman Graystock wrote: 650,000 EHP minimum with max skills please Oh ffs. Why don't we just have all incursion sites spawn in Yulai while we're at it? Travelling at the speed of love.
Rear Admiral Charlie Heroes of Taia Almost Potatoes of Fear Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:32:05 - [67] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: It will use capital rigs. . Thank you for confirming
Darirol Origin. Black Legion. 11	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:32:19 - [68] - Quote why do all those industrial ships have a speed bonus?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 969	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:33:10 - [69] - Quote Not gonna lie -- I miss the name "tug." Oh well. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 839	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:33:59 - [70] - Quote People are concerned a fleet of catalysts will just begin alphaing these ships left and right. Because one battleship drop will cover most of the cost of the gank (even if it was just a t2 fit battleship). The issue isn't really the ship, it's that the ship escorts can't do anything for it in highsec (reps won't help). Boosters would though, but that would need to be looked at. Yaay!!!!

BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 908	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:34:18 - [71] - Quote Honestly the tank on this doesn't seem worth it enough for me to stop moving mods with a tengu and just putting istabs on my tank fit BS/Logi The fatigue reduction is neat tho, but seriously the Bowhead? Who's in charge of naming things at CCP

CCP Rise C C P 4476	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:35:40 - [72] - Quote 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. @ccp_rise

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2509	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:38:37 - [73] - Quote 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. But most haulers spend the vast majority of their time in warp. Could the velocity bonus maybe get changed to a max warp speed? -
Arden Elenduil Scary Devil Monastery 169	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:40:34 - [74] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Thank you for clarifying that. Having the loot drops will be a really big plus. That said, imo they don't need more ehp. They already have the mids to fit a 100MN MWD to enable 10-second warps and have a good sized tank on top of that, they don't need more. And that's not even counting people that work together for added protection (even 1 person or alt in a hyena can make these ships UNGANKABLE!!!). The only ones that are going to be losing these ships are the ones who are too lazy to take the minimum amount of effort required to protect themselves in a game that is known to be harsh and unforgiving.
Praal Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 12	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:41:24 - [75] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Because travel speed is one of the most important characteristics for haulers. Capacity, gank resilience and travel speed are basically it. Travel speed is made up of align, warp and (only for autopilot) speed. An align bonus would be far more interesting for this as it benefits at-keyboard play not autopilot AFK. EHP needs to be higher. 3 T1 battleships, with rigs and T2 fits are pushing its gank efficiency limit. A single faction battleship with rigs does as well. As it stand this is far more of a gank support ship (carry pre-fitted catalysts and taloses) than something a sane person would move mission/incursion ships in.
Seiko Hikitari Everlasting Vendetta. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:42:24 - [76] - Quote 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. It puts the emphasis on autopiloting though, ie. not being in front of your client. Is that the direction you want to go and encourage ? Having the skill affect the bay size (lowering base size to compensate), align time, ehp or warp speed makes it more compelling.
BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 908	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:43:06 - [77] - Quote 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. I'm sorry what

CCP Rise C C P 4478	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:43:53 - [78] - Quote 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? @ccp_rise

Arden Elenduil Scary Devil Monastery 169	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:44:41 - [79] - Quote Praal wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Because travel speed is one of the most important characteristics for haulers. Capacity, gank resilience and travel speed are basically it. Travel speed is made up of align, warp and (only for autopilot) speed. An align bonus would be far more interesting for this as it benefits at-keyboard play not autopilot AFK. EHP needs to be higher. 3 T1 battleships, with rigs and T2 fits are pushing its gank efficiency limit. A single faction battleship with rigs does as well. As it stand this is far more of a gank support ship (carry pre-fitted catalysts and taloses) than something a sane person would move mission/incursion ships in. Ehp doesn't need to be higher. Fly the ships intelligently for once. With the main load being in its SMA, you can utilize all slots for tank, which as said before, gives it a 350k ehp tank (which is pretty damn tough, even for ganking standards) and you can even fit a 100MN MWD on top of that. That's solo. Flying with an alt in a hyena makes you ungankable due to instant warps. So no, this doesn't need extra ehp, it's fine where it is
Viscis Breeze No Vacancies 72	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:45:21 - [80] - Quote What an ironic ship, so its main role is to move fitted catalysts to choke points so that it can be ganked by them! Recruitment: http://bit.ly/1r4G5Pv Website: http://www.no-vacancies.net/ Channel: No Vacancies

Belligerent Undesirable 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:47:33 - [81] - Quote Change the speed bonus to 4% shield resist per level and give it +1 mid
Jess Tanner Hard Knocks Inc. Irresponsible Use of Capital. 151	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:49:18 - [82] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. MFW CCP Rise said he would give me a loot pinata for christmas! Go with Bob, keep Him always in your heart. He is your Sword, Shield, and the Knife in your back.
Seiko Hikitari Everlasting Vendetta. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:51:08 - [83] - 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. Gank with what. Because the numbers are going to be entirely different depending on whether we're talking meta catalyst, t2 catalyst, thrasher, vexor, talos, or strawman tornado, and whether you're taking security tags cost into account.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3907	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:51:52 - [84] - Quote Here's a teaser image that CCP released at EVE Vegas. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 71	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:54:46 - [85] - Quote I dunno man, if i add up the ships ehp i would probably end up moving in my theoretical one i end up with ~500k ehp in ships stored in mine... Adding up to (without refitting, juggling expensive mods or anything) several billion isk... My orca in its current fit pulls 233k when rigged for travel speed, would say 450-500 when speed rigged to 600-750k full on buffer be excessive? I think more then that would be NICE but it might push it into "ungankable" territory. That said i wouldnt be opposed to it having ~carrier levels of ehp if it turns out to be balanced...
Revileushin Eyri High Life Industries The Black Sails 21	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:55:17 - [86] - Quote Seiko Hikitari wrote: 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. Gank with what. Because the numbers are going to be entirely different depending on whether we're talking meta catalyst, t2 catalyst, thrasher, vexor, talos, or strawman tornado, and whether you're taking security tags cost into account. Give the hull native thermal resists, and gankers will become VOID! Funny. Taking Wing - A rambling blog that's mostly EVE stuff.
Nox52 Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 40	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:55:59 - [87] - Quote Come on rise, lower the mass so it fits through the low class wormholes. You know you want to!
Praal Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 13	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:56:05 - [88] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: With the main load being in its SMA, you can utilize all slots for tank, which as said before, gives it a 350k ehp tank (which is pretty damn tough, even for ganking standards) and you can even fit a 100MN MWD on top of that. That's solo. Flying with an alt in a hyena makes you ungankable due to instant warps. No, it doesn't make it ungankable, it just requires the gankers to fit points and/or have a couple extra gankers to alpha the Hyena as soon as it decloaks. Ask all the "insta"-align ceptors that get killed in nullsec how that works out for safety. Besides, to use a Hyena you need a second pilot, which means you could already be moving 2 battleships with the resources you're expending, and doing it faster.
Maddaxe Illat HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi 3	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:57:36 - [89] - Quote I love it but a ORE Freighter for ship not ore?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 13:59:36 - [90] - 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. At 350k hp it IS inefficient to gank it with the hope of 1.5 T2 fit BS dropping. What on earth makes you think it's not? Do the math on it yourself. It has all the hitpoints of a tanked freighter (which are no slouch to take down) and has the ability to fit active modules to resist a gank. It can align, jam, etc - it will be significantly harder to take down than a tanked freighter.

Arthur Aihaken X A X 3907	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:00:27 - [91] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me. Agility is definitely preferable. Not that it necessarily matters, but what's the total rig calibration - 300, 350 or 400? 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. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arden Elenduil Scary Devil Monastery 173	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:01:17 - [92] - Quote Praal wrote: Arden Elenduil wrote: With the main load being in its SMA, you can utilize all slots for tank, which as said before, gives it a 350k ehp tank (which is pretty damn tough, even for ganking standards) and you can even fit a 100MN MWD on top of that. That's solo. Flying with an alt in a hyena makes you ungankable due to instant warps. No, it doesn't make it ungankable, it just requires the gankers to fit points and/or have a couple extra gankers to alpha the Hyena as soon as it decloaks. Ask all the "insta"-align ceptors that get killed in nullsec how that works out for safety. Besides, to use a Hyena you need a second pilot, which means you could already be moving 2 battleships with the resources you're expending, and doing it faster. The advance warning you get when a ship being webbed into warp is arriving is such that it's nigh on impossible to time properly. Not to mention the fact that you can hardly scan it when that happens. I'll admit, there is a VERY remote possibility that the hyena might be ganked, but even then, the odds of it happening are so ridiculously slim, it's hilarious. Also, I think using a second pilot to counteract the combined efforts of at least a dozen people counts as pretty balanced.
handige harrie Hedion University Amarr Empire 278	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:01:59 - [93] - Quote I like the idea for the ship, making it have a bigger SHA than a carrier is somewhat awkward though, but i guess being a jack of all trades, makes you a master of none. I don't think that it's really fitting to the ORE faction. It's a ship moving Ships. There is nothing industrial about it, it's all logistics. Lore wise I think it would be better fitting to move the ships to the Factions and have ORE as the designer. Something like: ORE came up with the design, but decided it would be to nich+¬ and not fitting their core business (being industrial with mining etc) enough to go through to final production. Instead they sold the almost finished Designs to interested factions which then had to finish designing them, before being able to produce them an masse and put Blueprints out for interested parties. This way you can use the same model, with different shaders and make some minor adjustments to stats like how the regular freighters are done. You can also use the respective races freighter skill to fly the ship. Baddest poster ever
Fonac Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 92	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:07:09 - [94] - 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. CCP Rise for president!
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 969	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:07:35 - [95] - 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. Dropping align doesn't really make much sense, as the ship has enough grid to fit a prototype 100mn mwd, which lowers the align to 10-12s. I guess if you are autopiloting, it is nice, but the 5% velocity is also nice in that situation too. The only compelling bonus is warp speed, but honestly, it doesn't really matter. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Medalyn Isis Rosewood Productions 419	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:16:08 - [96] - 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. Wow, that was quick. I'm impressed, never seen CCP respond to feedback this quickly. Has someone slipped happy pills into the office coffee machine this morning or something?
Dave Stark 7127	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:17:28 - [97] - Quote fits 3 battleships. fits 100mn mwd if you sacrifice a low (or maybe even don't have to depending on the rest of your fit, i fail at mentally fitting ships while at work). 3 rig and 3 lows mean it should fit a decent tank, too. overall, 10/10, good job. will probably purchase one. can you refit from it? guessing not but...
Seiko Hikitari Everlasting Vendetta. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:21:21 - [98] - Quote Querns wrote: 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. Dropping align doesn't really make much sense, as the ship has enough grid to fit a prototype 100mn mwd, which lowers the align to 10-12s. I guess if you are autopiloting, it is nice, but the 5% velocity is also nice in that situation too. The only compelling bonus is warp speed, but honestly, it doesn't really matter. +1 in favor of warp speed bonus
Kalina Sabree While in Empire Accidental Overdose 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:23:11 - [99] - Quote Any idea what if any wormhole class restrictions this new ship will have?
Delekon Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 10	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:24:02 - [100] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Delekon wrote: Can the mass be lowered to 300000000? So it can fit in all wormhole types. If it stays like this the ship will only be available to the residents of the c5/c6. You can also give us a rig that reduces mass for this ship, by smth like 20% (sort of the opposite of the planned higgs anchor rig) . This way we get to use it without making the ship more bump-able in highsec. Otherwise totally cool idea. That may not be a good idea necessarily. While it would be interesting to fit this through wormholes, being able to cram what would be an army of ships into a random wormhole (c2-c4), with 1 guy, might be a bit unbalancing and more like how nullsec would supply their line. Don't think c1 through c4 space needs this ship in there. The ship can't really carry that much. I think it's like 10 t3s. The limiting factor in sieges is always the number of pilots and never the number of hulls. Having the ship will mean you can log off and get out in case of a siege. This could be a bad idea to some extent but i think whspace needs a bit more accessibility atm. The ships also provide some help with security. It takes far less time to just adjust the mass of this hull to be more like the orca than to fix the POS code, right?

Medalyn Isis Rosewood Productions 419	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:26:02 - [101] - Quote 350k ehp, according to my suicide ganking spreadsheet at least, would take about 1 billion isk of Talos's, or 20 to 30 catalysts to take it down in a 0.5 system. I guess it depends what you are looking at having it transport though, if it is 3 faction or T2 battleships then I would think ehp should be higher. Perhaps 500k ehp would be a nice number.
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 38	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:29:29 - [102] - Quote 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. ok
CopyCatz gaming is not a crime The Volition Cult 77	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:30:19 - [103] - Quote At what skill level is the 3 battleship mark met? It would be nice if level 4 of the new skill would enable 1.5m hangar capacity. Training up freighters to lvl 5 has been a real pita in the past, and since most lvl5 reqs usually get toned down to 4 later on it would be nice in this case also. EHP could be a bit higher; mobile missioners will be carrying at least 2 marauders in the bowhead, raising loot value well over 2B. With about 1B in gank ships needed this is way too profitable.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 839	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:30:21 - [104] - Quote The limiting factor of a siege is the number of people and the number of hulls. Still being able to put into c1 through c4 space, what is essentially a freighter, is not a good idea in my opinion. They have options already, though c5 and c6 would be interesting. Yaay!!!!
Ghaustyl Kathix Rising Thunder 45	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:32:46 - [105] - Quote Who ganks for profit anymore, though? I've seen ganks on tank-fit Charons not carrying anything. Also, pre-empting the people who are going to complain about the fatigue bonus it gets, if you're concerned about people moving ships en masse with these to staging systems, they don't carry very many ships. You'd need tons of these for a single fleet.
Dave Stark 7127	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:32:51 - [106] - Quote 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.
Suicide Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:32:53 - [107] - Quote All in All I like it. I would like to see an extra mid, putting it more in line with an Orca.. Seeing as how it doesn't have highs or drones.. So 0/4/3. Love that the HP is getting a buff. Love that the speed bonus might be changed for an agility bonus.. though Warpspeed would be <3 Would like to see a little more Cargo.. Really don't want to have to carry around Industrial(s) in the main bay just to haul around more ammo.. I'd rather see 6-8000.. Or add a Corp Hangar like an Orca has with a few thousand m3.. All in all though I like it :)
Dave Stark 7127	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:34:38 - [108] - Quote CopyCatz wrote: At what skill level is the 3 battleship mark met? It would be nice if level 4 of the new skill would enable 1.5m hangar capacity. Training up freighters to lvl 5 has been a real pita in the past, and since most lvl5 reqs usually get toned down to 4 later on it would be nice in this case also. EHP could be a bit higher; mobile missioners will be carrying at least 2 marauders in the bowhead, raising loot value well over 2B. With about 1B in gank ships needed this is way too profitable. level IV of the skill gets you 1.56m m3 if my maths is correct.
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 486	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:36:13 - [109] - Quote Viscis Breeze wrote: What an ironic ship, so its main role is to move fitted catalysts to choke points so that it can be ganked by them! You do realize that you can already move 1,1mil m3 of fitted catalyst using freighter and courier contract? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Arla Sarain 104	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:38:31 - [110] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? The time constant, and hence acceleration, depend on max velocity. Whilst for any velocity the time constant is the same, accelerating quickly and then having someone apply webs to drop your max speed and hence the warp speed threshold means you warp out faster. Basically faster speed means you accelerate faster. At a certain point if your max speed is dropped you end up above the warp threshold. This brings you to that point quicker. Still, too much effort and too ambiguous in the grand scheme of things.

Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 486	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:40:43 - [111] - 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. good change. as for HP I think that 3 t2 bs'es with t2 rigs (faction fit travel in separate much safer transport i presume) should be a baseline, so assuming 1-2 of the three drops (if drop is fixed at all) thats 1-2b drop and 4b tears. sooo 2b worth of taloses of damage in ehp please? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Dave Stark 7127	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:42:00 - [112] - 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. there's no need for this thing to exceed 400k ehp with a full tank fit. no need what so ever. If people want to stuff 3bn isk worth of marauder hulls in it... well they deserve what they get. however changing the velocity bonus would be very welcome, i'm not even sure an align time bonus would be that much more helpful if you can fit an MWD to it anyway. I'd rather a warp speed bonus, than an align time bonus.
Slevin-Kelevra Origin. Black Legion. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:42:43 - [113] - Quote 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.
Dave Stark 7127	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:44:29 - [114] - Quote 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?
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra 1236	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:44:58 - [115] - Quote 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.
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 486	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:46:44 - [116] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? The time constant, and hence acceleration, depend on max velocity. Whilst for any velocity the time constant is the same, accelerating quickly and then having someone apply webs to drop your max speed and hence the warp speed threshold means you warp out faster. Basically faster speed means you accelerate faster. At a certain point if your max speed is dropped you end up above the warp threshold. This brings you to that point quicker. Still, too much effort and too ambiguous in the grand scheme of things. No, I don't think You understand how it works. Max speed have no correlation with align time. You can put all overdrives in the world into the ship and align time will stay the same. Same goes for webbing - it reduces not by fixed amount but by percentage, so it does not matter what is your max speed at all. Align time is function of MASS and INERTIA. As long as mass stays the same and inertia stays the same the ship will accelerate at the same rate in relation to your max speed. Modules like nanofibers, inertia stabs, plates, microwarpdrives, afterburners all change mass and/or inertia of your ship - therefore affecting your align time. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Slevin-Kelevra Origin. Black Legion. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:47:47 - [117] - Quote 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,
Arden Elenduil Scary Devil Monastery 174	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:49:16 - [118] - Quote Max Kolonko wrote: Max speed have no correlation with align time. You can put all overdrives in the world into the ship and align time will stay the same. Same goes for webbing - it reduces not by fixed amount but by percentage, so it does not matter what is your max speed at all. 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).
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 75	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:52:20 - [119] - Quote 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 goo d portion of the complaints made by people about these types of chenges always seem to neglect geographical strategy.
Aloh Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 13	Posted - 2014.11.10 14:53:49 - [120] - 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? No just no. It has the same EHP as an Orca if you put a similar tank on it. So how about you put a similar tank an Orca and put three hulks in it and make a run from the north to Jita through Amarr to a southern jump off point and see how far you get. Once the needed changes to ship maintenance arrays come in no one will be using them outside of deep blue SOV space. It is a good idea but useless in practice. Ask yourself why orcas have fallen out of favor for ship transport

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.

Pokket Sez Danneskjold Repossessions. 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:03:12 - [151] - Quote CCP make it right the first time please ... Listen to the community and make it happen instead of "fixing it later" after people refusing to fly it, because of meh low 1.6m m3 (make it at least 2m m3), meh resists, meh high price (keep it same as freighter prices), meh gang land flavor of the month, meh slots (+1 low slot minimum). Every time I relocate my operation is such a pain in the arse that almost make me regret how many ships I own. Thank you for the Whale!
Summer Isle Autumn Industrial Enterprises 135	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:04:02 - [152] - Quote Entity wrote: 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. To be fair, A-type adaptive plates are pretty cheap (especially compared to the cost of the ship). You could use a pair of those, a 1600mm T2 plate, and a trio of Trimarks to give yourself a bit of armor EHP, which logi could realistically rep, but you're also losing out on a lot of the actual EHP available simply by taking advantage of 3x the hull base HP as compared to the armor base HP. I could see the hull-tanked version being used by pilots flying solo, while the armor-tanked version would be preferred by those flying in a convoy, but to lessen the massive disparity between EHP between hull- and armor-tanked versions, drop the base Hull HP to 31500 and move that extra 5k base HP to armor (giving it 16000 base Armor HP). -áTalk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.
Entity X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence 772	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:04:19 - [153] - Quote Manic Velocity wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the cargo of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships? yo dawg, I herd u liek ships... `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?
Slevin-Kelevra Origin. Black Legion. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:05:23 - [154] - Quote Querns wrote: 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? Yea because you would totally admit this was a solution to jump fatigue? ' 1) Jump freighters can not fit a third of the amount of fitted ships. 2) Exactly, you jump from one system to another across the map, force projection. 3) One of these getting caught on a jump bridge in a bubble and killed is just as likely as a fleet getting caught on a jump bridge and killed, 0% chance, do to intel channels.
Summer Isle Autumn Industrial Enterprises 135	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:06:06 - [155] - Quote Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Maddaxe Illat wrote: I love it but a ORE Freighter for ship not ore? I agree. Seems more like an Interbus role. That would actually be interesting. Give Interbus some LP worth using and have both a BPO available (for large-scale production) and a BPC available for mission-runners and one-off builds. Having more options for LP is always a plus. ...actually, do Interbus even have agents? Now that I think about it, I've never seen one, but I've also never sought them out. -áTalk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 719	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:07:36 - [156] - Quote Manic Velocity wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the cargo of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships? Almost certainly not as you can only put assembled ships into Ship Maintenance Bays. However, kudos for the wording of your question. Made me chuckle. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Valtrinor S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 11	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:09:23 - [157] - Quote NOTE: I say the following not in this character's current role as a nullsec pilot, but as someone who also does highsec logistics and has done many different things in highsec, lowsec, and wormhole space as well. Keep that in mind for my comments to fully make sense, I'm not primarily talking about this in a nullsec context! So let me get this straight... Less HP than an Orca (10,750 / 6,900 / 46,000) 2.6x the mass of an Orca (250,000,000 kg) and 5.8x the sig radius Can fit an absolute maximum of 3 battleships, the only class it's actually needed for at current. No High slot(s) to counteract any of the Orca comparison, which the Orca has highs Less HP than any single ship which actually justifies the use of this ship in moving Yeah, I'll pass. This looks like a giant blinking neon "GANK ME" sign with two strobe lights on top, and nothing to make that risk worthwhile. Please tell me it's meant to troll the entire community? That's pretty much how it comes across. Twitter: @Valtrinor
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 719	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:10:24 - [158] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: 3) One of these getting caught on a jump bridge in a bubble and killed is just as likely as a fleet getting caught on a jump bridge and killed, 0% chance, do to intel channels. Not quite zero, but still very low. ALODs still happen on jump bridges when folks don't pay attention to intel channels. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Utremi Fasolasi La Dolce Vita 424	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:11:24 - [159] - Quote Summer Isle wrote: Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Maddaxe Illat wrote: I love it but a ORE Freighter for ship not ore? I agree. Seems more like an Interbus role. That would actually be interesting. Give Interbus some LP worth using and have both a BPO available (for large-scale production) and a BPC available for mission-runners and one-off builds. Having more options for LP is always a plus. ...actually, do Interbus even have agents? Now that I think about it, I've never seen one, but I've also never sought them out. They do. They share stations of other NPC corps. It's been more than once that I petitioned GMs about why my standing for X Corp wasnt going up.. then realized it was a dang IB agent :-\
Zloco Crendraven BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel 657	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:12:06 - [160] - Quote I'd go for a minimum of 500k EHP and at least space for 4 Battleships. And the price should not be less than regular freighters. BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.

Mr Hyde113 Origin. Black Legion. 181	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:12:35 - [161] - Quote +1 for making moving solo pvp ships around easier :D
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 970	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:13:35 - [162] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: Querns wrote: 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? Yea because you would totally admit this was a solution to jump fatigue? ' 1) Jump freighters can not fit a third of the amount of fitted ships. 2) Exactly, you jump from one system to another across the map, force projection. 3) One of these getting caught on a jump bridge in a bubble and killed is just as likely as a fleet getting caught on a jump bridge and killed, 0% chance, do to intel channels. Yes, but jump freighters can fit quite a few more unrigged ships, and ship them to wherever they are needed. This is quite a bit more efficient than "have everyone train into a niche ship with a requirement outside of all of the ships of the line, then expect fleets of them to waddle towards where the fights are without getting dropped, dragged, or otherwise destroyed due to being, y'know, defenseless, slow industrials." Also, uh, were you paying attention, like, at all in the last month or so? Are you not aware of the veritable slaughter that occurred on our jump bridges due to the concentrated efforts of one individual? If your "intel channels afford 100% protection against all ganks in 0.0" argument held even a little bit of water, why did we lose billions upon billions of ships in YA0-XJ, on the very jump bridges you decry, with the very intel channels you claim afford invincibility? Daresay I believe that your playbook runneth a bit thin. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

CCP Rise C C P 4498	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:14:59 - [163] - Quote Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. @ccp_rise

Crashtec Teutate raiders DARKNESS. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:15:16 - [164] - Quote Need more place in the ship maintenance and more tank then its good
John Ratcliffe Caldari Provisions Caldari State 282	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:15:26 - [165] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: John Ratcliffe wrote: Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. I'll actually go look for a picture for you, there must be one around here somewhere. edit: bad news =/ art says no WIP pictures so I guess you have to wait a week or two for it to show up on Sisi. I saw it though and it looks amazing, if that helps. I shall take your word for it! Thanks Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Christopher AET hirr Northern Coalition. 827	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:16:10 - [166] - Quote With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious. +1 I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Emma Muutaras State War Academy Caldari State 66	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:18:42 - [167] - Quote Its role bonus makes no sense you state its designed for high sec and give it a role bonus that cant be used in high sec unless im missing something you cant use bridges/jump in high sec i was reading evenews24 and someone posted a idea about changing the role bonus to X reduction in mass when transiting through a wormhole. This idea sounds good it will open the ship up to all areas from high to null and even wormhole space as not only a transport ship but a spearhead in a attack by moving in large amount of ships for a quick shock and awe strike
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1634	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:20:45 - [168] - Quote Emma Muutaras wrote: Its role bonus makes no sense you state its designed for high sec and give it a role bonus that cant be used in high sec unless im missing something you cant use bridges/jump in high sec i was reading evenews24 and someone posted a idea about changing the role bonus to X reduction in mass when transiting through a wormhole. This idea sounds good it will open the ship up to all areas from high to null and even wormhole space as not only a transport ship but a spearhead in a attack by moving in large amount of ships for a quick shock and awe strike its role bonus is standard for ships designated as "haulers"
Bertucio Chandra Labs 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:20:47 - [169] - Quote It would be great to see a bump in tug capacity & EHP capability. From an industrialist perspective, it would be nice to see more integration of planetary components into building. Not too worried about cost - this ship is going to be a one time purchase for your average capsuleer/missioner - so it should be expensive given its role and utility. But it shouldn't be so easy to gank. Again: a T2 version would be nice.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 970	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:20:55 - [170] - Quote Christopher AET wrote: With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious. +1 We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs. Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

John Ratcliffe Caldari Provisions Caldari State 282	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:21:35 - [171] - Quote Gospadin wrote: 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... If interesting = crap, then you're right. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Callic Veratar 641	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:23:04 - [172] - Quote The rig slots should be dropped and the hull HP bumped up to a minimum 70k. They should always have 3 Transverse Bulkheads. It's the same issue that arose with the old mining barges or industrials. You had to fit cargo extenders to them to make the ships useful. The mids and lows are interesting.
Emma Muutaras State War Academy Caldari State 66	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:24:46 - [173] - Quote Rowells wrote: Emma Muutaras wrote: Its role bonus makes no sense you state its designed for high sec and give it a role bonus that cant be used in high sec unless im missing something you cant use bridges/jump in high sec i was reading evenews24 and someone posted a idea about changing the role bonus to X reduction in mass when transiting through a wormhole. This idea sounds good it will open the ship up to all areas from high to null and even wormhole space as not only a transport ship but a spearhead in a attack by moving in large amount of ships for a quick shock and awe strike its role bonus is standard for ships designated as "haulers" that maybe true still i think the role bonus i suggested would open the ship up to more and new possibilities that are as yet poorly explored in the eve universe
Slevin-Kelevra Origin. Black Legion. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:26:19 - [174] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. however unlike haulers this carries fitted ships, making it more like a carrier than a hauler, just saying.
Makari Aeron The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium 133	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:27:34 - [175] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. You say it's not incentived for use out of hisec, but it is far larger than a Carrier in terms of ship hauling. I can see it being used in nullsec. Lowsec, not so much. CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty. CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 719	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:28:43 - [176] - Quote Valtrinor wrote: NOTE: I say the following not in this character's current role as a nullsec pilot, but as someone who also does highsec logistics and has done many different things in highsec, lowsec, and wormhole space as well. Keep that in mind for my comments to fully make sense, I'm not primarily talking about this in a nullsec context! So let me get this straight... Less HP than an Orca (10,750 / 6,900 / 46,000) 2.6x the mass of an Orca (250,000,000 kg) and 5.8x the sig radius Can fit an absolute maximum of 3 battleships, the only class it's actually needed for at current. No High slot(s) to counteract any of the Orca comparison, which the Orca has highs Less HP than any single ship which actually justifies the use of this ship in moving Yeah, I'll pass. This looks like a giant blinking neon "GANK ME" sign with two strobe lights on top, and nothing to make that risk worthwhile. Please tell me it's meant to troll the entire community? That's pretty much how it comes across. I tend to agree with you that it's not worth the risk. However, let me point out a few things: 1. It has more armor than, and one more low slot than, the Orca. Drop in an additional reinforced bulkhead and it comes out with roughly the same structure, less shield-tanking ability, and a touch more armor. Overall, they're about the same in terms of EHP. (Mind you, this is still wildly in favor of the Orca considering the relative worth of the cargo involved.) 2. If the mass/agility isn't low/high enough to allow the MWD-into-warp technique, the Bowhead will be almost as vulnerable as a freighter which would reduce it's appeal considerably. 3. The Orca needs high slots to fulfill its role as a command ship. The Bowhead does not. Being able to cloak one would be nice though. 4. Although not absolutely needed for hauling battlecruisers, being able to haul more than one at a time in an Orca would be a welcome benefit to the Bowhead and may make for a more justifiable risk situation. 5. Although I'm pretty sure that this will have more EHP potential than any one battleship, it's far harder to say the same about any two or three battleships. This also factors into my unfavorable assessment of the Bowhead's utility. I'll pass as well. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Slevin-Kelevra Origin. Black Legion. 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:28:55 - [177] - Quote Querns wrote: Christopher AET wrote: With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious. +1 We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs. Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places? Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do.
Ross Sylibus SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 27	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:30:45 - [178] - Quote With that much ability to move crap, too much tank. High sec doesn't need more safety net.
Pokket Sez Danneskjold Repossessions. 1	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:33:03 - [179] - Quote CCP Rise ... sorry for the spoiler I found a pic of the ship http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2011/pavel_m/pavel_m_02.jpg Here is the one posted on Facebook and also on the Vegas Keynotes: (unskinned) Tug Front Tug Back
Vulfen Snuff Box Snuffed Out 151	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:33:42 - [180] - Quote I'm a little disappointed in the size of the bay. This ship has a bay that is just too small to fit 3 of the largest battleships (Machariel) CCP please can you consider giving it that level of space in the bay. This ship has interesting implementations and i am impressed with everything else on it i just think that maybe that value needs to be looked at a little. Thanks Vulfen

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:34:07 - [181] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: Querns wrote: Christopher AET wrote: With Phoebe jump changes and the reduction in fatigue these could become very popular for nullsec deploying alliances moving their subcaps to a staging point. If you set up a titan chain ahead of time you can regain a (modest) portion of former force projection. Of course the risks are high, a bowhead moving fleet whelp would be absolutely hilarious. +1 We debunked this in an earlier thread with travel industrials. Attempting to set up a single chain like this required 16 accounts, two trillion isk in initial outlay, 16 accounts, and a recurring cost of 13B a month just to cover subscription costs. Why do this when you can use jump freighters to move packaged ships and interceptors to get places? Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do. The ships in question are far more useful when amongst their peers, not sitting in lowsec doing nothing but cannoning nerds all over the place. Fatigue only exacerbates this by preventing the titan in question from joining its entourage at a moment's notice. In order for this contrived vignette to work, you need dedicated pilots, ships, and accounts for the purpose. There's just no point to doing this when you can have a modest jump freighter fleet for several orders of magnitude less outlay and maintenance cost. If jump freighters get kneecapped, perhaps we can revisit this ludicrous scenario. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Emma Muutaras State War Academy Caldari State 66	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:35:16 - [182] - Quote Pokket Sez wrote: CCP Rise ... sorry for the spoiler I found a pic of the ship http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2011/pavel_m/pavel_m_02.jpg Here is the one posted on Facebook and also on the Vegas Keynotes: (unskinned) Tug Front Tug Back i think the first link is spot on thats all these ships will really be used for as they currently stand targets that will get ganked non stop
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1638	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:37:07 - [183] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. however unlike haulers this carries fitted ships, making it more like a carrier than a hauler, just saying. except the vast difference between the two. So, not more like a carrier, but more like a hauler.
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory. 1082	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:38:46 - [184] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: And you're right about afk travel vs active travel, switching to agility to support align time sounds good to me. This sounds like a better bonus to me, maybe in low-value ships velocity bonuses are valuable for autopiloting, but a warp speed bonus or align time bonus for larger ships are much more useful at the moment due to freighter ganks causing pilots to actively navigate instead of with autopilot. (I would be more attracted to a warp speed bonus because having 2 seconds faster align time isn't going to save a ship from getting ganked 90% of the time, but having reasonably less time travelling overall via warp speed improvements could.) TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us My ship fits
Goddess Amarr DucKtape Unlimited SpaceMonkey's Alliance 2	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:39:03 - [185] - Quote I'm actually really excited since I can't use my carrier to move ships without taking 50 years to do it I now have a replacement not as fast as a carrier used to be but who cares it looks really cool!! Ty CCP!
Rashar Arji Lazerhawks 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:39:29 - [186] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to max velocity per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level CCP Rise wrote: Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Is it supposed to be Ship Maintenance Array or Bay? Since as far as I know SMA's do drop ships whereas SMBs don't.
Dave Stark 7129	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:40:10 - [187] - Quote i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying. it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP. "but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship.
Jack Strom Concentrated Evil The Marmite Collective 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:42:45 - [188] - Quote VOU METER TIRO NA CARA DESTES VERMES AI. ;,.; Jack Strom
Coelomate Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic 3	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:43:13 - [189] - 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? I worry that the EHP is too low for the capacity. For a ship to be worth moving intact instead of selling or shipping packaged, it needs to be valuable. 1 or 2 pirate / tech 2 battleships inside make this a compelling gank target with current HP values. And even a low risk of such a gank will discourage smart players from actually using it. The alternative to the bowhead is redfrog or individual shipping/flying. Why would you train into and purchase this ship if it's too risky to use for your valuable ships and redfrog (or buying/selling) can handle transporting your cheap ships for next to nothing?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:46:35 - [190] - Quote Slevin-Kelevra wrote: Working on the premise that large alliances/ coalitions don't already have the ships and accounts needed, which they do. We'd still be taking two trillion isk of supercaps and making them useless except for this dumb chain and spending 13b on characters used exclusively for this dumb chain. That is still an absurd amount to do something worse than existing methods.

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 483	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:46:51 - [191] - Quote Why not simply make them unscannable instead of a major EHP hike? Also echoing sentiments that people aren't going to mess about hauling T1 BS just to save the T1 rig cost, FAR better of manually flying them, which leads us to the shinier stuff being the only thing "worth" hauling, yet simultaneously...not worth the risk of hauling. And @CCP_Rise: Just because it is a transport and you dont want to hurt null logisitics - remember this ship doesnt exist. Therefore there is no "harm" done removing the "industrial" bonuses to fatigue. You cannot lose what you never had in the first place. Plenty of precedent on this in removing MMJD from ABC, for example.
Kaj'Schak Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 4	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:48:16 - [192] - Quote with just 1.6m-¦ it is useless. If you need to relocate your corp or alliance, you need and escort fleet for a freighter that carries most of the things. A base shipbay like a titan(5.000.000m-¦)+bonuses. Also a hell of a tank so if you get tackled during a relocation op in 0.0 the attacker first has to kill the enemy fleet then the big thing. Maybe make it give the fleet some awekward high bonuses to the ship itself gets 95% resits while recieving fleet bonuses. Because we need a defense fleet for 4-5 of them, likely carriers to carry more stuff, and our stuff moved at once for some hours. If it doesn't get a major advantage in shipbay over a carrier, why should one use that at all. We as corp have some dozen fleet battleships in our corporation hangar, we can hardly ever relocate them to anywhere again until at least this thing is out. Still moving things will be even more time-destroying then before. Time which I BTW don't have so all my 4 accs are now unsubbed .) (NO ONE CAN HAZ MY STUFF, BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF YOUR REACH ANYWAY 8) )
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1638	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:51:42 - [193] - Quote just remember, with highsec ganking being very focused on specific ships and fits, you can tank specifically for those damage types to increase survivability. If you notice gankers changing ships, switch tank. Gankers using split doctrines? back to omni tank, but with higher survivability due to less effective damage. Not a guarantee (nothing ever is) but definitely an option.
LordTazou Premier Industries Inc. Outlanders United 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:54:24 - [194] - Quote I would sure as hell use it. Would make moving my ships around easier...
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 296	Posted - 2014.11.10 16:59:53 - [195] - Quote The EHP and the SMA capacity are fine I would say. With respect to the EHP, this ship will get ganked in Uedama no matter what the EHP turns out to be. However, avoiding systems like Uedama (or anywhere else CODE. is operating), very few players/groups are going to have the incentive to gank a tank-fitted Bowhead unless you have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo. I say this after having done extensive research on what the safest hauler is--do some research on whether tank-fitted Orcas are ever ganked on a site like zbillboard, for instance. And, if you do have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo (you are moving incursion BSes for instances) then you should have an alt or friend webbing the Bowhead into warp. IF the ship is given more EHP, I would say make it around 10m/s slower for every 100k EHP added when tank fit, otherwise everyone will use this ship to afk haul. With respect to the SMA capacity, if much more space is added the ship it starts to make subcap deployment too easy, especially given that the price of the Bowhead is going to be less than freighters.
chumbucket Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate 25	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:06:15 - [196] - Quote oh lookie another macherial magnet they will just be bumped into eternity and nailed with wave after wave of catalysts ccp needs to fix broken crap before adding more junk............ seriously tho ganking frieghters is a joke ccp needs to fix it its becoming an exploit once your bumped once these not jack all you can do and its way to cheap to do it it needs to be back up to 20+bs to do it like it used to be its an exploit now fix your broken junk first!
Marcel Devereux Aideron Robotics 394	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:06:43 - [197] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. So no jump drives? Why are you guys focusing only on high-sec? While carriers can be used to move stuff in low-sec, why not open this up to everyone to use. If someone wants to specialize in hauling prefitted ships, why not let them? Give them a jump drive and let us use these ships in low/null.
Dave Stark 7130	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:08:27 - [198] - Quote Marcel Devereux wrote: So no jump drives? Why are you guys focusing only on high-sec? While carriers can be used to move stuff in low-sec, why not open this up to everyone to use. If someone wants to specialize in hauling prefitted ships, why not let them? Give them a jump drive and let us use these ships in low/null. there are no less than 4 ships that already fill that criteria.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:14:55 - [199] - Quote Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: The EHP and the SMA capacity are fine I would say. With respect to the EHP, this ship will get ganked in Uedama no matter what the EHP turns out to be. No one is saying make the ship absolutely gank proof. Just that a billion ISK investment shouldn't be easily gankable. Even in Uedama. Quote: However, avoiding systems like Uedama (or anywhere else CODE. is operating), very few players/groups are going to have the incentive to gank a tank-fitted Bowhead unless you have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo. Right - avoid systems like Uedama. Good luck. And yes, there are players out there that do fit tank to avoid the usual yahoo gankers with their cheap dessies who don't have to spend a billion ISK to do their ganking. So you tell me - who's paying a bigger price? Quote: I say this after having done extensive research on what the safest hauler is--do some research on whether tank-fitted Orcas are ever ganked on a site like zbillboard, for instance. And, if you do have a stupid amount of isk in the cargo (you are moving incursion BSes for instances) then you should have an alt or friend webbing the Bowhead into warp. You mean have a scout for your tugboat in hi-sec? So anyone that wants to move her missioning/incursion ships around will not only have to spend a billion ISK for a tugboat, but also have a scout in hi-sec? What's the point then? The entire game should bow down to cheap dessy gankers because it ain't fun otherwise? Quote: IF the ship is given more EHP, I would say make it around 10m/s slower for every 100k EHP added when tank fit, otherwise everyone will use this ship to afk haul. If people want to afk haul then let them. It takes a hell of a lot longer in game time to do so. There is already a cost. And in addition, even IF the EHP is boosted as most people are suggesting here on the thread, any large group can gank almost any freighter if they're determined to do so. You don't have to use just dessies to do it. The point here is to beef it up to do so the cost/benefit to gank is more in line to the guy hauling all his ships (their cost, and also the time the player put into building the ships that are being tugged) should be equal to what is being used to gank. Yeah - an AFK freighter should be a little more worried about possible gank - and should have to buff a lot more, but also it will be a lot slower getting his stuff around. Quote: With respect to the SMA capacity, if much more space is added the ship it starts to make subcap deployment too easy, especially given that the price of the Bowhead is going to be less than freighters. The price of the Bowhead should be at least at freighter level if not more, given it's very useful role and utility that it will have. The whole point of the Bowhead is to make subcap deployment easier. Not necessarily fast, and not necessarily cheap though. But also - the Bowhead should be so weak that it can carry almost nothing and it is easily gankable by a bunch of cheap dessies.
Masao Kurata Z List 126	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:18:58 - [200] - Quote For people begging for buffs to an unreleased ships, here are some facts about the ship as originally specified. The maths to reach them is below if you're interested or doubt me: Properly fitted (see below for fitting) this has 429k EHP. Base all 5 alignment time is 29.2s One MWD cycle is enough to enter warp This ship when properly fitted is both more tanky than a freighter and more agile. I don't care what the stats are with failfits and nor should you. There is absolutely no need to buff this, people are just imagining gankers under their beds. Flown sensibly this will be reasonably safe. MATHS BELOW TANK: First the fitting: After 25% fitting skills we have 1687.5 MW and 268.75 tf to play with. Damage Control II [1 MW, 30 tf] Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf] Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf] Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I [1250 MW, 75 tf] Thermic Dissipation Field II [1 MW, 44 tf] Limited Kinetic Deflection Field I [1 MW, 36 tf] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Total fitting parameters: 1255/1687 MW, 265/268 tf, 225/400 calibration Now some readers are probably already recoiling in horror at T2 capital rigs, but let's take a brief detour to talk about the cost of those. Although their current market price is over 200M/unit, there is no demand for them now. That will change with this ship. The actual material cost when inventing without a decryptor is http://evepraisal.com/e/3921936 74.6M. I have rough estimates for the amount of time per successful invention but let's just say that the final price is 100M each. The cost of the fit therefore is around 300M, very reasonable considering that the hull should cost around as much as a freighter and it's meant to haul valuable cargo. NOTE: I am also going to assume you are NOT AN IDIOT and have trained thermodynamics. The hardeners will be overheated for this calculation. Shield resistances after overheated hardeners are 12.5% EM 76.2% thermal 79% kinetic 56.25% explosive. Armor resistances I'll assume follow the gallente profile of 50/35/35/10, which after damage control is 57.5/44.75/44.75/23.5. 1 point of void damage (50% thermal, 50% kinetic) does 0.224 HP of damage to shields or 0.5525 HP of damage to armor. Back to EHP calculation vs void: HULL: 348091 = 36500 * 1.25 {mechanics} * 1.25^3 {rigs} * 1.25^2 {bulkhead modules} * 2.5 {60% resists from DCU2} SHIELDS: 55803 = 10000 * 1.25 {shield management} / 0.224 ARMOR: 24887 = 11000 * 1.25 {hull upgrades} / 0.5525 TOTAL: 428782 EHP vs void, more than any freighter. WARPING: The base inertia modifier is 0.065, which is reduced by spaceship command (0.9), advanced spaceship command (0.75) and evasive maneuvering (0.75). This ship has is a fairly significant SP and ISK investment, not having these skills maxed is your own damn fault. The inertia modifier after skills is 0.0329. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Acceleration Plugging the inertia modifier and mass in we get 29.19s = 0.0329 640 * -ln 0.25, a very reasonable alignment time, but it gets better with a 100MN MWD. I forget the reference for this formula but propulsion modules follow this: Actual max velocity bonus = stated max velocity bonus taking acceleration control into account * thrust / (ship mass + module mass) For the tug: 100MN MWD velocity multiplier: 2.3587 = 1 + 6.25 * 150MN / (640M kg + 50M kg) Fraction of MWD velocity required to enter warp after cycle ends: 0.75 / 2.3587 = 0.318 Going back to the acceleration time formula (using the mass including mass addition) we have time to reach 0.75 * normal velocity while under 100MN MWD: 8.69s = 0.0329 * 690 * -ln (1 - 0.318) 8.69s is significantly less than one MWD cycle so you will be able to enter warp after a single cycle with this, much like the orca. You don't even need to overheat.

Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 486	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:19:21 - [201] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: Max Kolonko wrote: Max speed have no correlation with align time. You can put all overdrives in the world into the ship and align time will stay the same. Same goes for webbing - it reduces not by fixed amount but by percentage, so it does not matter what is your max speed at all. 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). exactly - it works because you are suddenly changing the max speed to be much closer to current speed. Not because max speed have anything to do with how long it takes to enter warp. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Masao Kurata Z List 126	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:19:46 - [202] - Quote Now, this post is for CCP: we need to talk about something. Ship maintenance bay drop mechanics. The lack thereof. You fixed ship maintenance arrays, as in the anchorable starbase structures, but orcas, carriers, supers, titans... none of those have any mechanic to drop assembled ships. Unless you fix that, nor will the Bowhead, and there will be absolutely zero financial motivation for anyone to ever kill one. Fix this, now. You absolutely cannot release this ship in a state where it will never drop any of its valuable cargo. I don't care if it's hacky, it just has to work. Spawn two wrecks if you have to, a normal one and an SMA wreck, just do something that lets us loot / launch / board the assembled ships. This has been irksome for a long time but with the introduction of this new ship it is a critical issue. IN ADDITION neither cargo scanners nor ship scanners see either the fittings or cargo (charge category) of assembled ships in the ship maintenance bay of the scanned ship, so there is absolutely no way to tell whether you are carrying a bunch of merlins or a bunch of merlins fitted with officer modules. This is an exploit that we don't often talk about, but let's talk about it now: you can UNDETECTABLY haul officer modules RIGHT NOW in an orca and there is ZERO financial motivation for anyone to gank you EVEN if they knew what you were hauling because there is no mechanic for the ships to drop. The release after Rhea is not acceptable, these issues need to be fixed in Rhea or the release of this ship has to be delayed.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 154	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:20:29 - [203] - Quote Entity wrote: 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. Sure there's choice in what to use slots for. For example, you could choose to align-fit and carry 3 ordinary T1 battleships and a few cruisers. Even with way less tank than an all-bulkhead fit, that cargo isn't worth a gank attempt. Just because the people who want this ship the most want to carry around 3 pimp-fit pirate battleships, does not mean that the thing should be built to give them their every desire on a platter. It's not like you can't run incursions in a plain T1 BS if you wanted to.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force Cult of War 148	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:24:21 - [204] - Quote Why does everything with this current crop of developers have to be over complicated? Why does someone who wants to be able to move a ship in a ship because you idiots nerfed Jump Drives, now have to train additional skills? Why not simply have the same skill prerequisite as a Freighter since it is most likely going to be existing Freighter/Jump Freighter pilots moving the bloody stuff? Stop trying to be clever for the sake of being clever and adopt the KISS principle for a change.
Jacob Katruun Vehement Insanity Forward Unto Glory 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:24:31 - [205] - Quote Awesome! As an incursion runner, this will be amazing It's a pain to be that guy who wants a DPS ship, a snipe ship, a t3, and a logi and get all your ships there without abusing your alts. This will be incredibly useful, if not indispensable. I, for one, am getting one as soon as it's available. -Jacob Katruun
Dave Stark 7130	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:20 - [206] - Quote Klyith wrote: Entity wrote: 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. Sure there's choice in what to use slots for. For example, you could choose to align-fit and carry 3 ordinary T1 battleships and a few cruisers. Even with way less tank than an all-bulkhead fit, that cargo isn't worth a gank attempt. Just because the people who want this ship the most want to carry around 3 pimp-fit pirate battleships, does not mean that the thing should be built to give them their every desire on a platter. It's not like you can't run incursions in a plain T1 BS if you wanted to. this, so much. it shouldn't be designed to be unprofitable to gank with 3 marauders/pirate battleships inside it. unprofitable to gank with 3 unfit megathrons? sure, but not 3 unfit vindicators.
Kassasis Dakkstromri Yumping Amok Circle-Of-Two 267	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:25 - [207] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. SO not true CCP Rise - it was only after tons of screaming and 404 pages that CCP Greyscale backed off a bit and gave in about JF's and logistics. Anyway that aside - very excited to see this ship enter game and the opportunities and content it will generate! .... so where's that image of the ship you were looking for? CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 486	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:25:31 - [208] - Quote Makari Aeron wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. You say it's not incentived for use out of hisec, but it is far larger than a Carrier in terms of ship hauling. I can see it being used in nullsec. Lowsec, not so much. It will cost almost as much as carrier, have less ehp than carrier, have very little defense capabilities (3 med slot allow for some jamming, maybe target breakers, but not much more) and in exchange you ONLY get 50% more ships in SMA (60% with level 5), yeahhhh, nooooo. Ofc the fatigue bonus makes it usable for rapidly moving tons of ships, but thats something You can already do in freighter (all you had to do is move than as courier contract) and you had 1,1mil m3 in freighter already so I dont see much diffrence to be honest and much incentive to use this one. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4150	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:26:53 - [209] - Quote John McCreedy wrote: Why does everything with this current crop of developers have to be over complicated? Why does someone who wants to be able to move a ship in a ship because you idiots nerfed Jump Drives, now have to train additional skills? Why not simply have the same skill prerequisite as a Freighter since it is most likely going to be existing Freighter/Jump Freighter pilots moving the bloody stuff? Stop trying to be clever for the sake of being clever and adopt the KISS principle for a change. Which freighter? You know, they do have different racial skills. (Their prerequisites are the same, other than the Ore industrial. Which is just a few hours.) Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 31	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:29:57 - [210] - Quote I am very happy to see Rise taking feed back from the players! Awesome!!! As for the ship giving it more EHP is something that should be looked at. i would also look at letting it fit 3battle ships and say a battle cruiser. that way people can fit 3 battleships ( thinking of incursion runners that have 3 main battle ship concepts) and still have room for a hauler and maybe a frig. face it if someone buys this they will A. never use but for that blue moon. or B live in the thing going system to system chasing sansha or hauling ships for corp or alliances. and in the end its not gonna be OP no matter what you do. i think taking the mass down for all the wormhole bro's is a amazing thought those guys suffer enough as it is, and even more so when T3's get kicked in the jewels, might as well give them some kind of comfort. P.S its off topic but since it seems your reading this. Fix the ishtar. :)

Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1638	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:31:53 - [211] - Quote Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. SO not true CCP Rise - it was only after tons of screaming and 404 pages that CCP Greyscale backed off a bit and gave in about JF's and logistics. Anyway that aside - very excited to see this ship enter game and the opportunities and content it will generate! .... so where's that image of the ship you were looking for? They gave the 90% to JF/Rorqual in the original proposal. They decided to break uniformity. So it went both ways.
RonUSMC Kree Advanced Research Products Agency 9	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:34:14 - [212] - Quote I'm trying to think of this from a lore perspective. ORE Industries is designing a ship in response to the changing world. I would imagine they would give the designers these goals in their design. I am a product designer at work and usually the way we do it when we design a product is we define success. So if I were to define success for the ORE designers, I would say that it has to meet all of the design goals. This of course is designing to your goals but also including physics in the end, so everything may not be achievable. Goals: It needs to be able to transport very expensive ships (ala Incursion fighting squads) better than existing methods It needs a better chance of surviving than existing methods Given: The default configuration does not need to be considered. Since you might be hauling 20B in ships, you will want to officer mod it, so any existing modules can be used. Existing methods are a Carrier or a Jump Freighter. So, to achieve success with this goal I would say that it needs to have much more capacity than a Carrier and survivability than a Jump Freighter. A Carrier is a defensive platform with a small cargo. A (Jump) Freighter is a large cargo platform with low defenses. How can we bridge that gap between the two? 1. It has to have more capacity than a carrier. 2. It has to be more survivable than a JF/F. We cannot add active weapons to a Freighter, so it needs to be able to survive using 1 or 2 different methods. The first method is tank and the second method is escape. Those are the only two methods of surviving a gank. So, how does the current design match up to the requirements? If it's EHP cannot be larger, then it needs more methods of escape. Why not fit a Large Micro Jump Drive?
Maxwell Smiles Exiled Kings The Fearless Empire 1	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:35:00 - [213] - Quote Hmm This ship will never be seen in high sec with these stats, which is a shame as the artwork looks impressive. a 5% velocity bonus on 62m/s is about 2.5m/s per level, i can so see people maxing out the ore skill for this. This should probably be agility, so that its is actually usefull Incursion runners are the only people in eve that move large ships regularly, mission runners may rebase 1-2 times in a year and buying an expensive ship (im guessing carrier prices) to cut down the number of round trips by 2/3 seems like a bit of overkill People will have to train another skill (i am guessing it will cost the same as the freighter skill at 100m) to fly a ship that can move 3 battleships. i cannot imagine many people will be training it to use a ship they may fly 2-3 times a year being able to carry 3 battleships is very pointless needs to be at least 5 to make its designed functionality with while The tank is way too weak a properly tanked orca can hit 410k ehp, it needs to be double an orca at least, and should be comparable to a carrier (as should all capitals given the number of capital armour plates required) It is technically a carrier minus the drones and triage reps and if you do allow carriers in hi sec this ship will probably be dead on arrival in terms of usefulness. People who will end up using this ship probably wont know the first thing about proper tanks and will use it to stick all there worldly possessions into and will rage quit when the loose everything flying through udema. The cargo hold is way to small for someone wanting to use this ship to rebase by the time you fill the 4k with cap charges tractor units, depot ammo you will still need to jump into a hauler to get most of the stuff you will need, cargo bay needs to be bigger perhaps on par with the orca, so the ship actually becomes convenient. To make it actually more useful to more people 1) perhaps give it a jump drive so hot droppers can use it to pick up their ships after they pod home after a hotdrop. 2) Make the bay re-configurable through modules, One could give it a really large cargo hold, one a ship maintenance bay, another a large fleet hanger that could be used in ice belts similar to how the freighter/orca combos currently work, as well as speciallized bays for moving ore, minerals etc. The ship will need to be able to have everyday uses or it will never be used 3) Both
SoulRipper666 Blue-Fire 30	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:36:45 - [214] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: BOWHEAD Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to max velocity per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed): 65 / .065 / 640000000 / 1.37 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 My corp lives in wspace and this ship is highly anticipated from us as we suck at PVP and go through lots of T1 doctrine ships. However, the ship maintenance array of 1.3M-1.6M is quite a bit underwhelming. A rough estimate puts that at 100 Frigs / 15 Cruisers / 3 Battleships. I feel like this ship should be much more capable if it is going to require us to train another (rank 10?) skill and buy a ship that will most likely be 1-2 billion ISK or more. The amount of time and effort that will be required to adopt this ship is easily mitigated by removing rigs from your 15 cruisers and using a normal freighter or jump freighter. Rig's are not that expensive... I think myself and many others were looking for a ship that would be at least twice as useful as a carrier in terms of transporting ships. I realize there is a concern of bridging large quanitity of ships around nullsec to avoid jump fatigue or moving large quantities of fitted ships through wormholes, but there has to be some middle ground. Increase the mass of the ship or put a restriction on bridging this type of ship. I am sure there are a number of ways to counter these issues. Personally, I think if you're going to make us train a high rank skill to fly this expensive ship, it should come with a ship skill bonus of 25% SMA capacity per level. At max skill it would have around 3.9M m3 of ship cargo space which is around 8 battleships. I think that is a much more reasonable capacity for the time and effort of escorting this ship around. Maybe 8 battleships is too many. Maybe 4-6 is a better range, but seriously 3? You could probably make 3 trips across highsec moving 3 individual battleships before you could move the bowhead across highsec once. Some less important criticisms I have of the ship... It sounds like you were basing the attributes off of the Orca, which is perhaps why it has rig slots and mid slots, however it if is supposed to be a freighter, I think it should stick with only low slots and higher base HP. This would remove the MWD ability and force people to escort these ships rather than provide more gank magnets in highsec as people will be tempted to move them solo using MWD. Give us a reason to sign up for the power of two...or three...or fifteen. :) Blue-Fire Best Fire
Masao Kurata Z List 126	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:38:25 - [215] - Quote RonUSMC wrote: Given: The default configuration does not need to be considered. Since you might be hauling 20B in ships, you will want to officer mod it, so any existing modules can be used. Just web it into warp, people do this all the time with freighters full of goodies and don't get caught because it is actually very very hard to catch them and you never get to scan them in the first place.
Ghurthe KRH Mining 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:39:03 - [216] - Quote If things remain as they are, and SMB's don't drop ships, then I think the low EHP is fine. That means that while yes you can suice the Bowhead, you're not getting any loot from it. If they change, and SMB's can drop ships, then I think bringing their EHP up a little bit is warranted. If their EHP doesn't get raised, then moving anything more than one marauder in them is effectively useless. I suppose for moving 3 Tech 1 Battleships it's fine. But at that point, why bother unless for simple rebasing. Incursion fleets typically run faction BS, and CCP said they wanted to make incursion runners benefit from this. Unless CCP Increases the EHP, this will not substantially benefit incursion runners as they've previously stated it would. It would only help the odd corp trying to move their flotilla of ships across eve. Even then, 1.5 Million m/3 of HACs is just as juicy a target as an SMA full of Marauders. This ship will almost never be able be used to it's fullest capacity with the exception of moving lots of ships through a JB Network, or with moving oodles of T1 ships in high sec, unless it's changed.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 776	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:39:44 - [217] - Quote Praal wrote: Ask all the "insta"-align ceptors that get killed in nullsec how that works out for safety. how does this work? instawarping means you cant lock it regardless of your scan res, leaving smartbombs as only option at your disposal to kill them.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 162	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:41:58 - [218] - Quote Excellent addition to the fleet. the stats look right to me. I will be buying and using one regularly. Now I don't want to include myself among the whiney doomsayer players and all, so while I do want to stress my joy about this ship, I would also like to propose that there be a T2 version capable of transporting fitted caps - not jump drive capable. So basically would do a couple of things. 7 billion ISK capital ship high sec hauler that would have to risk going through low to pick up the capitals and get back to high. Could be interesting content generator. And second, well, I am trying to move caps from Derelik to Khanid. 15 jumps and with fatigue it will take me a week. Miserable. The situation needs to be alleviated. Bravo on this ship. Sure only a few battleships for the incursion runners. But I have fitted frigates, destroyers, and cruisers sitting all over everywhere that I hate repackaging. This ship will be great and it will see use, despite what the complainers say. A T2 cap ship mover version would provide additional content and meet an additional need.
Makalu Zarya Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 216	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:42:06 - [219] - Quote I came here hoping to see a ship that will actually be useful now that you have basically made long range rebasing an extremely painful process and came away disappointed (que the bittervet soundtrack). Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) So it carriers about 50% more in ships than a carrier and less than half worth of cargo. Granted for people who only have carriers maybe this is a worthwhile ship. While I understand that you stated that it is a niche ship and I guess it can go into high sec (which is totally useless for someone like me) this seems to make it way too limiting. I think you should consider bumping those stats to at least 10k m^3 cargo room and AT LEAST match a supercarrier worth of ship space. Otherwize you've basically made a purpose designed ship which gets outdone by a non purpose designed ship. Granted not everyone has a super or a titan but those ships are no means few and far between anymore.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 31	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:43:18 - [220] - Quote Maxwell Smiles wrote: Hmm This ship will never be seen in high sec with these stats, which is a shame as the artwork looks impressive. a 5% velocity bonus on 62m/s is about 2.5m/s per level, i can so see people maxing out the ore skill for this. This should probably be agility, so that its is actually usefull Incursion runners are the only people in eve that move large ships regularly, mission runners may rebase 1-2 times in a year and buying an expensive ship (im guessing carrier prices) to cut down the number of round trips by 2/3 seems like a bit of overkill People will have to train another skill (i am guessing it will cost the same as the freighter skill at 100m) to fly a ship that can move 3 battleships. i cannot imagine many people will be training it to use a ship they may fly 2-3 times a year being able to carry 3 battleships is very pointless needs to be at least 5 to make its designed functionality with while The tank is way too weak a properly tanked orca can hit 410k ehp, it needs to be double an orca at least, and should be comparable to a carrier (as should all capitals given the number of capital armour plates required) It is technically a carrier minus the drones and triage reps and if you do allow carriers in hi sec this ship will probably be dead on arrival in terms of usefulness. People who will end up using this ship probably wont know the first thing about proper tanks and will use it to stick all there worldly possessions into and will rage quit when the loose everything flying through udema. The cargo hold is way to small for someone wanting to use this ship to rebase by the time you fill the 4k with cap charges tractor units, depot ammo you will still need to jump into a hauler to get most of the stuff you will need, cargo bay needs to be bigger perhaps on par with the orca, so the ship actually becomes convenient. To make it actually more useful to more people 1) perhaps give it a jump drive so hot droppers can use it to pick up their ships after they pod home after a hotdrop. 2) Make the bay re-configurable through modules, One could give it a really large cargo hold, one a ship maintenance bay, another a large fleet hanger that could be used in ice belts similar to how the freighter/orca combos currently work, as well as speciallized bays for moving ore, minerals etc. The ship will need to be able to have everyday uses or it will never be used 3) Both ummm please dont listen to this guy. what you propose is make a gank proof swiss army knife that does all the things better than any of the things. that just silly. i can see giving it more EHP as it needs a little more. i can see giving it a LITTLE bit more room for ships as i agree 3BS is pretty useless. all that other Crazy you wrote how ever is insane and would make this the most seen ship in eve since titans. P.S. Fix the Ishtar

Makalu Zarya Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 216	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:45:57 - [221] - Quote Cr Turist wrote: ummm please dont listen to this guy. what you propose is make a gank proof swiss army knife that does all the things better than any of the things. that just silly. i can see giving it more EHP as it needs a little more. i can see giving it a LITTLE bit more room for ships as i agree 3BS is pretty useless. all that other Crazy you wrote how ever is insane and would make this the most seen ship in eve since titans. P.S. Fix the Ishtar he knows what he is talking about...I didn't have to read this to know it though.
PotatoOverdose Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 2522	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:48:36 - [222] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: this, so much. it shouldn't be designed to be unprofitable to gank with 3 marauders/pirate battleships inside it. unprofitable to gank with 3 unfit megathrons? sure, but not 3 unfit vindicators. Sure, it should have enough tank to be unprofitable to gank while carrying unfit megathrons in Niarja. It's role necessitates traveling from one side of hisec to the other. Going through 0.5 systems (like Niarja) is a necessary part of that role, ergo it should have sufficient tank to do the job of carrying the unfit megathrons throughout hisec.
Masao Kurata Z List 126	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:50:12 - [223] - Quote In addition to everything I've said I'd like to add that I would be happy to use one or at least know a friend who has one with the current stats. In fact I'm a little concerned that it might already be OP on the basis of making switching to a battleship when not aggressed too easy (then again command ships are pretty powerful so it might not be that big a deal).
Masao Kurata Z List 126	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:52:36 - [224] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Dave Stark wrote: this, so much. it shouldn't be designed to be unprofitable to gank with 3 marauders/pirate battleships inside it. unprofitable to gank with 3 unfit megathrons? sure, but not 3 unfit vindicators. Sure, it should have enough tank to be unprofitable to gank while carrying unfit megathrons in Niarja. It's role necessitates traveling from one side of hisec to the other. Going through 0.5 systems (like Niarja) is a necessary part of that role, ergo it should have sufficient tank to do the job of carrying the unfit megathrons throughout hisec. It already does, properly fitted this has over 400k EHP while at the same time getting 10s warps with a MWD. I would be very comfortable moving three T2 fitted battleships without an escort with those stats and if you aren't, that sounds like a problem for a psychiatrist.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24672	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:54:25 - [225] - Quote Just over 400k EHP with full tank and enough space to carry 4 BS should hit the sweet spot. That way, you can carry a lot of cheap ships quickly (speed fit) or a couple of expensive ships somewhat safely (tank fit) and not have the whole thing be absurd. If the agility bonus can push it down to below the standard 10s for and MWD fit, then that's the bonus it should have, if not, it's pretty pointless GÇö give it warp speed instead. Hideously expensive meta-bajillion mods should travel separately in a BR regardless, so that's not even a factor. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Cr Turist Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 32	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:54:46 - [226] - Quote IDEA why not have the expander rigs give its bonus to the ship hanger. if you want to hold more ships give up some rig slots.
Ezra Endashi LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide 10	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:55:10 - [227] - Quote I like it so far! Any pictures?
Summer Isle Autumn Industrial Enterprises 138	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:58:22 - [228] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Praal wrote: Ask all the "insta"-align ceptors that get killed in nullsec how that works out for safety. how does this work? instawarping means you cant lock it regardless of your scan res, leaving smartbombs as only option at your disposal to kill them. Without having the nitty-gritty details, it deals with ping time. Those who are close to the servers (aka, Londoners) are able to beat the clock under specific conditions (such as keeping their points hot while furiously mashing their ships overview after seeing a gate flash or being given advanced notice from a scout). I don't have the fullest details available, unfortunately. There was a post either on the EVEO forums or on Reddit some months back where someone went through the numbers and showed that to have a truly-unlockable ship, you have to be below something like 1.75 seconds for your align (not sure on the exact numbers) and not be using an y iStabs (meaning there are very, very few ships that can actually accomplish this). In my own experiences, looking at various 'insta-warping' fits that show up on the killboards, a lot of people seem to forget that they don't have all skills at V when fitting up their ships, so while their fit may have 1.9 seconds to align at all V's, their own skills are above the 2-second threshold. All in all, it's pretty uncommon. At least personally, I do a lot of travel through lowsec in a 1.92-second-align Atron, and I've only ever been caught once (negated by having a stab fit, fortunately). Mind you, all of this is what I could remember from the aforementioned thread. I may well be remembering it incorrectly, so if someone either has a link to the thread in question or remembers it more clearly, by all means, please do correct me! -áTalk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.
Jian Mira Aliastra Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2014.11.10 17:59:18 - [229] - Quote Why No Drones??????? A Orca has Drones... Don't see any uses for this ship Only a ideat would fly this ship with a ship inside it!
Maul555 Enso Corp 421	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:00:34 - [230] - 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. Wow!!!

Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 162	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:01:43 - [231] - Quote Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains active jump/gate drives, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal.
Rockstede 30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 39	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:01:49 - [232] - Quote Seeing as these are fitted ships or that is to say, fully operational ships. Is it not feasible to assume that the defensive capabilities of the ships onboard could be added to the Bowheads systems? By this I mean that a Bowhead with 3 x incursion fitted pirate battleships would be harder to kill than the same ship with 3 fitted Ravens. Perhaps the HP of the Bowhead could be set quite low to start with and then cumulated with the ships it has stored, upto some theoretical maximum?
TerminalSamurai Sunji Bureau of Explosions 2	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:03:44 - [233] - Quote Valtrinor wrote: NOTE: I say the following not in this character's current role as a nullsec pilot, but as someone who also does highsec logistics and has done many different things in highsec, lowsec, and wormhole space as well. Keep that in mind for my comments to fully make sense, I'm not primarily talking about this in a nullsec context! So let me get this straight... Less HP than an Orca (10,750 / 6,900 / 46,000) 2.6x the mass of an Orca (250,000,000 kg) and 5.8x the sig radius Can fit an absolute maximum of 3 battleships, the only class it's actually needed for at current. No High slot(s) to counteract any of the Orca comparison, which the Orca has highs Less HP than any single ship which actually justifies the use of this ship in moving Yeah, I'll pass. This looks like a giant blinking neon "GANK ME" sign with two strobe lights on top, and nothing to make that risk worthwhile. Please tell me it's meant to troll the entire community? That's pretty much how it comes across. I completely agree, if CCP is going to take the time to add a new ship and new skills to go along with that ship, at least take the time to think this through. Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank and utility (no cloaking high) than an orca. Not really sure where the logic is. Also the fact that my hauling toon will have yet another reason to train ORE skills is beyond me. With the advent of ships actually dropping from this thing it's way to gank efficient to be used.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:07:10 - [234] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains cyno capable ships, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal. But the remaining stats on the Bowhead Using chains of titans to bridge things around post-Phoebe is impractical, because the titans themselves are subject to fatigue and cannot be rapidly redeployed to handle the very multi-front combat you allude to in your post. Pre-positioning titans is also infeasible due to the high cost and the fact that account sharing is forbidden under the Eve: Online Terms of Service. Not to mention, interceptors + jump freighters are far more efficient at the job. Why does everyone forget about jump freighters and interceptors? While they are a thing, none of these complicated, fatigue-beating vignettes work. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Petra Hakaari Caldari Provisions Caldari State 111	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:07:32 - [235] - Quote Belligerent Undesirable wrote: Change the speed bonus to 4% shield resist per level and give it +1 mid Indeed, as CCP Rise said on #1, this ship has a very clear intended role: CCP Rise wrote: There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. And for all its known how soam pirates like to talos down some shinny fitten vindicators of them incursionbears XD So it'd make perfect sense. Besides, "travel speed" means sublight engine... which is totally stupid, because if someone is autopiloting this in bearsec it deserves to be ganked, but like, bigtime XD Because tities .
Masao Kurata Z List 126	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:10:24 - [236] - Quote TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank ... If by "less" you mean "more". The extra low lets you fit an extra bulkhead, giving you almost the same amount of hull while having more shield and armor HP.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 906	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:14:37 - [237] - Quote Querns wrote: 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? There are no bubbles on a titan bridge route.
HK -56 State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:14:53 - [238] - Quote Am I the only capsuleer that doesn't like seeing yet another new skill being introduced that affects just a single thing?
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 162	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:15:16 - [239] - Quote Querns wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains cyno capable ships, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal. But the remaining stats on the Bowhead Using chains of titans to bridge things around post-Phoebe is impractical, because the titans themselves are subject to fatigue and cannot be rapidly redeployed to handle the very multi-front combat you allude to in your post. Pre-positioning titans is also infeasible due to the high cost and the fact that account sharing is forbidden under the Eve: Online Terms of Service. Not to mention, interceptors + jump freighters are far more efficient at the job. Why does everyone forget about jump freighters and interceptors? While they are a thing, none of these complicated, fatigue-beating vignettes work. Yes, my knowledge about Titan bridging logistics operations post-Phoebe is limited as I haven't been in proximity to it since the changes and have not thought about it deeply. However, I still think it is worthwhile to remove the fatigue bonus and potentially implement a fatigue nerf just to completely cement these things outside the realm of cyno operations and prevent some niche use that some creative players could potentially make use of. Also if the game evolves and there are changes to jumping with future updates. For instance if CCP develops some sort of bridging ship other than Titans in order to improve some other aspect of the game at some point, it will already be established that bridging is just something you don't do with this ship, and avoiding the need for a future nerf that may frustrate players. Better to implement a meaningless penalty now so it's set in everybody's mind that you just don't bridge this thing and from the beginning it will be excluded from anything CCP may want to do with bridging in the future.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 232	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:17:52 - [240] - Quote 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. Given the current highsec meta of "GANK ALL THE THINGS", I think many people, myself inluded, see a raw speed bonus as a waste. With Bumper Cars Online, a speed bonus is less than useless - it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. Please consider an agility or (!) hull resistance bonus modifier per level. A bitter vet trying to start anew.

Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 906	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:17:57 - [241] - Quote Querns wrote: But the remaining stats on the Bowhead Using chains of titans to bridge things around post-Phoebe is impractical, because the titans themselves are subject to fatigue and cannot be rapidly redeployed to handle the very multi-front combat you allude to in your post. Pre-positioning titans is also infeasible due to the high cost and the fact that account sharing is forbidden under the Eve: Online Terms of Service. Not to mention, interceptors + jump freighters are far more efficient at the job. Why does everyone forget about jump freighters and interceptors? While they are a thing, none of these complicated, fatigue-beating vignettes work.[/quote] That is only a problem for people with a very limited number of titans -- a category, you and others don't fall under.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1639	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:18:10 - [242] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains active jump/gate drives, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal. god forbid they use 2+ titans to move 3 BS around while the guy in a JF is moving more unfitted ones around with greater range and less risk.
Chandaris Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 627	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:18:31 - [243] - Quote W2B a t2 version with a jumpdrive to replace my suitcase carrier kthxbai
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1639	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:20:20 - [244] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. I agree agility would be more useful, but max speed has no direct affect on align time.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:22:29 - [245] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: There are no bubbles on a titan bridge route. I suppose, in your world, you cannot bubble stations, or drag off of POS? Hint: drag bubbles work at any distance and grids can be shaped to be hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers long, well outside of the range of any POS gun. Even if the aggressor is scouted and is unable to catch the bowheads, travel is still disrupted until the aggressor is punished. Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, my knowledge about Titan bridging logistics operations post-Phoebe is limited as I haven't been in proximity to it since the changes and have not thought about it deeply. However, I still think it is worthwhile to remove the fatigue bonus and potentially implement a fatigue nerf just to completely cement these things outside the realm of cyno operations and prevent some niche use that some creative players could potentially make use of. Also if the game evolves and there are changes to jumping with future updates. For instance if CCP develops some sort of bridging ship other than Titans in order to improve some other aspect of the game at some point, it will already be established that bridging is just something you don't do with this ship, and avoiding the need for a future nerf that may frustrate players. Better to implement a meaningless penalty now so it's set in everybody's mind that you just don't bridge this thing and from the beginning it will be excluded from anything CCP may want to do with bridging in the future. This contrived, impractical vignette is not worth the cost of the causal use of these ships outside of your vignette. Interceptors fall into this category as well GÇö-áthey allow force projection in concern with stashes by making travel extremely fast and 99.999% safe. Yet, curiously, no one seeks to punish the interceptor due to its ability to do this. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Baneken Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 369	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:23:15 - [246] - Quote dexington wrote: Shalashaska Adam wrote: As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. If the incursion community was not so god damn awful at playing eve, maybe they would move their stuff in groups with some logi support. Not much use when you get alpha and your 'support fleet' can't do anything to stop it.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 162	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:24:20 - [247] - Quote Rowells wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains active jump/gate drives, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal. god forbid they use 2+ titans to move 3 BS around while the guy in a JF is moving more unfitted ones around with greater range and less risk. If you'll read back a bit I am trying to ensure that these ships are set up conceptually to be locked into a specific role in the hope that one day CCP may consider a T2 version of the ship that can move fitted caps. I'm just trying to ensure that the concept of a fitted ship mover is established from the beginning so if they want to play with and expand upon it in the future they can confidently do so. Also, everybody is just thinking of this thing in terms of 3 battleships. I am an industrialist who has previously in my eve career been tasked with providing 100 fitted Atrons to make available on alliance contract. Don't be so narrow-minded. These things will be doing more than just moving 3 battleships. Given that there is a fairly large potential use for these things, I think their role should be firmly cemented as high sec non-bridged movers from the beginning.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 948	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:25:50 - [248] - 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. i think it needs to be able too haul 4 battleships , tank 4 gank tornados and be no more than 700mil fully fitted (cap rigs aren't cheap).. .. otherwise i don't see many people going through the long train and expense .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:26:08 - [249] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: That is only a problem for people with a very limited number of titans -- a category, you and others don't fall under. While we do have a lot of titans, we're not about to ask individual pilots to consign their expensive ships to a life of sitting in a dingy lowsec point for the sole purpose of flinging around tugs. They're far more useful defending the homeland. Really, you only have yourselves to blame GÇö the fact that everyone hates us necessitates this concentration of power. Besides, like I've strenuously stated, the expense just isn't necessary while Jump Freighters and Interceptors exist. Why bother when there's a superlative option at significantly less expense? If you want to hurt the seat of our power, going after interceptors is going to do a lot more to help than trying to craft convoluted fanfiction about ships you've never flown and organizations of which you will never belong. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
darkdooku Malicious Mission Murderers 6	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:26:56 - [250] - Quote I'm in agreement with some previous posters that the Bowhead seems more like an Interbus ship (lore-wise at least). Seeing as the Interbus crop description from Evelopedia reads: InterBus is jointly owned by the empires, but it has been careful to maintain its neutrality in all aspects. This has allowed the company to fulfill its intended role as a freighter company that ferries people and goods to and from any place in the world of EVE I don't see a better lore source than that. Plus we definitely need more bright yellow ships in eve!!

TerminalSamurai Sunji Bureau of Explosions 2	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:27:23 - [251] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank ... If by "less" you mean "more". The extra low lets you fit an extra bulkhead, giving you almost the same amount of hull while having more shield and armor HP. I was refering to base rates: Quote: Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Orca: 10750 / 6900 / 46000 - So to give you credit, yes. Rorqual: 90000/30000/250000 - Just for ***** and giggles. since this one ACTUALLY is a capital ship (Quit calling ships what there not? I need the skill Capital Ships to fly a real capital ship. ) One benifiet of the orca is being able to overheat an active shield tank while you pray. Yes you get more hull, and yeah DCII helps with hull but you can't overheat DCII so paying attention while this ship is getting ganked adds no benefit to the owner. Last I checked ORE had a shield icon, not a hull icon, Cost to risk ratio does not make this viable at the moment, I will wait for updated figures
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 948	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:32:20 - [252] - Quote TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank ... If by "less" you mean "more". The extra low lets you fit an extra bulkhead, giving you almost the same amount of hull while having more shield and armor HP. I was refering to base rates: Quote: Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Orca: 10750 / 6900 / 46000 - So to give you credit, yes. Rorqual: 90000/30000/250000 - Just for ***** and giggles. since this one ACTUALLY is a capital ship (Quit calling ships what there not? I need the skill Capital Ships to fly a real capital ship. ) One benifiet of the orca is being able to overheat an active shield tank while you pray. Yes you get more hull, and yeah DCII helps with hull but you can't overheat DCII so paying attention while this ship is getting ganked adds no benefit to the owner. Last I checked ORE had a shield icon, not a hull icon, Cost to risk ratio does not make this viable at the moment, I will wait for updated figures indeed all ORE ships are meant too be shield tank .. how about ...Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 45000 / 8000 / 26500 .. reduce the lowslots to 1 DCU. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:34:59 - [253] - Quote Querns wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: That is only a problem for people with a very limited number of titans -- a category, you and others don't fall under. While we do have a lot of titans, we're not about to ask individual pilots to consign their expensive ships to a life of sitting in a dingy lowsec point for the sole purpose of flinging around tugs. They're far more useful defending the homeland. Really, you only have yourselves to blame GÇö the fact that everyone hates us necessitates this concentration of power. Besides, like I've strenuously stated, the expense just isn't necessary while Jump Freighters and Interceptors exist. Why bother when there's a superlative option at significantly less expense? If you want to hurt the seat of our power, going after interceptors is going to do a lot more to help than trying to craft convoluted fanfiction about ships you've never flown and organizations of which you will never belong. honestly I think you could create a bot that auto-replies to anyone in a non-sovholding corp that makes a post with the word "bridges" in it with "interceptors exist, therefore your point is wrong" and be exactly on point rebutting their post about 95% of the time you might have to tweek the corp rules a little but that'd be it
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 906	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:38:04 - [254] - Quote Querns wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: There are no bubbles on a titan bridge route. I suppose, in your world, you cannot bubble stations, or drag off of POS? Hint: drag bubbles work at any distance and grids can be shaped to be hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers long, well outside of the range of any POS gun. Even if the aggressor is scouted and is unable to catch the bowheads, travel is still disrupted until the aggressor is punished. That does not matter at all if you get bridged all the way through. The only points, where bubbles could catch your Bowhead is the first warp in to a POS and the final warp to a station. -- Querns wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: That is only a problem for people with a very limited number of titans -- a category, you and others don't fall under. While we do have a lot of titans, we're not about to ask individual pilots to consign their expensive ships to a life of sitting in a dingy lowsec point for the sole purpose of flinging around tugs. They're far more useful defending the homeland. Really, you only have yourselves to blame GÇö the fact that everyone hates us necessitates this concentration of power. Besides, like I've strenuously stated, the expense just isn't necessary while Jump Freighters and Interceptors exist. Why bother when there's a superlative option at significantly less expense? If you want to hurt the seat of our power, going after interceptors is going to do a lot more to help than trying to craft convoluted fanfiction about ships you've never flown and organizations of which you will never belong. Who is talking about Low sec? I am certainly not talking about Low sec. I am talking about moving lots of fitted ships from staging points to other staging points without incurring any Fatigue to the combat pilots and carrier pilots. These ships land fitted and ready and completely safe on their destinations. I have no idea from where you gathered I would talk about moving fitted ships into your Null sec from High sec; that's a completely ridiculous task to even consider with JF around and where you are supposed to build them in your Null home. Besides, you ask your titan pilots already to consign their expensive toys in POS to be used as Jump portals. I haven't seen them roam around by gates and fight for a change.
Pic'n dor Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda 39	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:40:52 - [255] - Quote Here some other feature that will help this paper thin freighter be more useful : Dedicated ammo bay ? Fitting service ? Fleet hangar ? 5% agility / lvl ? unscanable ship maintenance ? +2 warp strengh ? Bubble immunity ? Jump drive ? Covert cloack ? Give it something really special apart of being a downgraded highsec carrier ... or... add the feature of this ship to the rorqual and allow it in high sec... Rejoignez-nous : http://www.epsilon-lyr.com
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1640	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:43:06 - [256] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Rowells wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Yes, after reading some posts, please removed the jump fatigue reduction. Can't have null guys Titan bridging these things everywhere. These are high sec ships, or ships to be used locally in deep blue space like freighters are used in null (with the exception of their moving gigantic system upgrades around by Titan bridging - something that needs to change). And same goes for a T2 version for moving caps that I suggested a few posts back. Actually, these things should have a role penalty that makes them generate 10 times MORE fatigue. Especially for any future version that might move capital ships - lore reason would be that if a ship is cyno'd that contains active jump/gate drives, the space-time continuum gets messed up or something. Kinda like John Malkovich going through his own portal. god forbid they use 2+ titans to move 3 BS around while the guy in a JF is moving more unfitted ones around with greater range and less risk. If you'll read back a bit I am trying to ensure that these ships are set up conceptually to be locked into a specific role in the hope that one day CCP may consider a T2 version of the ship that can move fitted caps. I'm just trying to ensure that the concept of a fitted ship mover is established from the beginning so if they want to play with and expand upon it in the future they can confidently do so. Also, everybody is just thinking of this thing in terms of 3 battleships. I am an industrialist who has previously in my eve career been tasked with providing 100 fitted Atrons to make available on alliance contract. Don't be so narrow-minded. These things will be doing more than just moving 3 battleships. Given that there is a fairly large potential use for these things, I think their role should be firmly cemented as high sec non-bridged movers from the beginning. It is a very straight-forward role to begin with. Large SMA to carry fitted ships. the 90% fatigue is not specific to the role of the SMA, but rather as the blanket bonus to haulers in general. Removing it does not mean there will be a T2 version later with a 90% bonus. It wouldnt be worth the extra cost for simply that single bonus, considering the extremely nice use it would have. And considering the only other T2 capital has a jump drive with reduction in cargo, it is in a perfectly fine place to improve should they decide to add it. It wouldn't make sense to cut features your willing to have now, simply to add them later. and I'm not sure what you mean narrow minded. If 3 BS = 100 frigates then fine. The same idea applies to JF. I could supply the same amount to a JF cargohold with better benefits and much less hassle/investment. Your idea would add needless restrictions to be lifted later, or to not address the already existing methods which are existing now. It becomes needless and ineffective restriction on this ship.
Ydnari Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire 387	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:45:38 - [257] - Quote Rear Admiral Charlie wrote: CCP Rise wrote: It will use capital rigs. . Thank you for confirming That's what they said about freighters though my teapot is ready
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 233	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:46:12 - [258] - Quote Rowells wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. I agree agility would be more useful, but max speed has no direct affect on align time. Doesn't it take you more time to reach 75% of your max as your max increases, or does the acceleration also rise so that the overall time stays the same? Genuinely curious. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 971	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:48:56 - [259] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: That does not matter at all if you get bridged all the way through. The only points, where bubbles could catch your Bowhead is the first warp in to a POS and the final warp to a station. Just as an aside, you're severely betraying your lack of knowledge about how the game works with this post. When moving non-supercapital ships via non-jump-bridge jumps, you always light the cyno at a station, not at the POS. Lighting the cyno at a pos is a suicidal measure due to the inefficacy of pos guns and, while theoretically possible, is just stupid compared to the alternative that removes a significant portion of the risk. Rivr Luzade wrote: Who is talking about Low sec? I am certainly not talking about Low sec. I am talking about moving lots of fitted ships from staging points to other staging points without incurring any Fatigue to the combat pilots and carrier pilots. These ships land fitted and ready and completely safe on their destinations. I have no idea from where you gathered I would talk about moving fitted ships into your Null sec from High sec; that's a completely ridiculous task to even consider with JF around and where you are supposed to build them in your Null home. Titan bridge chains often cut through lowsec to get between two nullsec points as a consequence of wanting to take the shortest path to a destination. Taking the shortest path cuts down on the pilots needed to do the task and, mighty though the CFC may be, we are still limited by the number of available titan pilots. See trail_of_tears.png for more info. Again, betraying your lack of knowledge about the things which you discuss. You know what else does what you've described? Interceptors and Jump Freighters. In fact, interceptors do it up to eight times more quickly than the tug (depending on how much warp speed both options have been afforded and the exact route.) They do it significantly more safely to boot, due to being able to ignore bubbles. You simply cannot craft this vignette without compensating for the existence of the Interceptor. It's just not possible. Rivr Luzade wrote: Besides, you ask your titan pilots already to consign their expensive toys in POS to be used as Jump portals. I haven't seen them roam around by gates and fight for a change. This is because you actually don't observe or have any real information about what we actually do. You're just making up fanfic due to the nature of the mechanics in question fomenting a position of extreme cognitive dissonance. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1640	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:52:04 - [260] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Rowells wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. I agree agility would be more useful, but max speed has no direct affect on align time. Doesn't it take you more time to reach 75% of your max as your max increases, or does the acceleration also rise so that the overall time stays the same? Genuinely curious. agility is a representaion of how long it takes to reach max speed (factoring in mass). Thats why the new higgs rigs only affect agility +10% (because agility bonus was greater than mass adittion) even though max speed was reduced by 75%. If i fit argo expanders to one interceptor and overdirves to another, align time should be the same, even with vast difference in top speed.

Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn Querschlaeger 9	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:56:10 - [261] - Quote Cool, finally a transport for gank catalysts. Looks a little bit thin. I think 500k eHP would be nice. Or the ability to fit a target spectrum breaker. Maybe then these moduls will be used. Good for active hauler and bring nothing for afk hauling.
Kynric Sky Fighters 198	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:57:28 - [262] - Quote This ship would be a lot more interesting if it were under 300 000 000 mass. It would enable more nomadic gameplay if it could transit wormholes in the same manner as the orca. The freighter size eliminates many use cases.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 234	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:58:51 - [263] - Quote Rowells wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Rowells wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. I agree agility would be more useful, but max speed has no direct affect on align time. Doesn't it take you more time to reach 75% of your max as your max increases, or does the acceleration also rise so that the overall time stays the same? Genuinely curious. agility is a representaion of how long it takes to reach max speed (factoring in mass). Thats why the new higgs rigs only affect agility +10% (because agility bonus was greater than mass adittion) even though max speed was reduced by 75%. If i fit argo expanders to one interceptor and overdirves to another, align time should be the same, even with vast difference in top speed. Ok that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Powers Sa 1378	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:59:11 - [264] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application. Because we were starting from scratch here, we decided to give a little more fitting flexibility (mid slots and rig slots), meaning the base hp is set a little lower than other freighters since you can actually get the EHP higher using rigs and a DCU. RIP the hopes and dreams of small null/lowsec merc crews without titans. Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Syri Taneka NOVA-CAINE 110	Posted - 2014.11.10 18:59:51 - [265] - Quote 5% velocity/level feels kinda wasted on what is already a brick that should never be slowboating in the first place. How about a buff to agility, warp speed, or hull HP?
inta Vakaria Orbital Offence 3	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:00:17 - [266] - Quote Can it have some doors on the ship maintenance area that open so we can do drive-by's. Or let pilots dock up in frigates so they can be unleashed in space on any would be attacker.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 140	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:04:16 - [267] - 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so.
Jadeheart Heart Ores and Minerals 1	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:06:15 - [268] - Quote Guys, I'm just another dumbass redneck indy pilot that knows ****. Can someone explain why we need a ore hauler?
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 162	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:06:15 - [269] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so. We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 972	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:09:01 - [270] - Quote Jadeheart wrote: Guys, I'm just another dumbass redneck indy pilot that knows ****. Can someone explain why we need a ore hauler? It's a ship created by Outer Ring Excavations (ORE), not a hauler of raw asteroid material (ore.) Or, in case I read that wrong, it's because sometimes it is nice to be able to move more than one fitted ship at once. Carrier havers have been able to do this for years; tugs bring the ability to do it without the lengthy carrier skill investment, as well as the ability to do it in highsec. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:12:56 - [271] - Quote Why does this new freighter not have a jump drive?
KnowUsByTheDead Sunlight...Through The Blight. 2140	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:19:35 - [272] - Quote Good. Good. +1 overall. I imagine a great deal of content being made at these expense of these. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 234	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:19:59 - [273] - Quote Henry Plantgenet wrote: Why does this new freighter not have a jump drive? Why would it? No other T1 freighter has one. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 906	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:22:05 - [274] - Quote Querns wrote: Just as an aside, you're severely betraying your lack of knowledge about how the game works with this post. When moving non-supercapital ships via non-jump-bridge jumps, you always light the cyno at a station, not at the POS. Lighting the cyno at a pos is a suicidal measure due to the inefficacy of pos guns and, while theoretically possible, is just stupid compared to the alternative that removes a significant portion of the risk. That's what Jump Beacons are for. But for the sake of argument I concede the occasional use of cynos on stations. That still does not put these ships in any danger as proper fleets to kill of potential bubbles are on the POS. It only takes a couple of ceptors to drive off Sabres or prevent them from decloaking, and a scout on the POS to tell whether there are bubbles or not. It also only takes a couple of ships to remove anchored bubbles, should there be any. Querns wrote: Titan bridge chains often cut through lowsec to get between two nullsec points as a consequence of wanting to take the shortest path to a destination. Taking the shortest path cuts down on the pilots needed to do the task and, mighty though the CFC may be, we are still limited by the number of available titan pilots. See trail_of_tears.png for more info. Again, betraying your lack of knowledge about the things which you discuss. You know what else does what you've described? Interceptors and Jump Freighters. In fact, interceptors do it up to eight times more quickly than the tug (depending on how much warp speed both options have been afforded and the exact route.) They do it significantly more safely to boot, due to being able to ignore bubbles. You simply cannot craft this vignette without compensating for the existence of the Interceptor. It's just not possible. No titan bridge to any of your areas of space cuts through any Low sec. Neither from Deklein to Fountain nor from Deklein to Vale. Moot point. Other areas of conflict I don't consider as they are outside your space. It only takes 12 titan bridges to get from Deklein to the border system in Delve, or 5 to get to border systems in Vale, and none of them come even close to Low sec. What else you do with your titans and bridges is of no concern to me. What is of concern, however, is the fact that ships can be moved with little effort and little Fatigue within your space, and that goes against what Phoebe intends to change. I don't describe JF as JF cannot move fitted ships and transporting fitted ships with ease is the problem. I also don't describe ceptors as ceptors can only carry 1 pilot through space and not ships for a full squad in a fleet. They sure can move 1 pilot to a stash, but are near useless if there is no stash. And such a stash can be created easily with the Bowheads and of course also JF, albeit with more effort for the transporters. That is a big difference for me. Querns wrote: This is because you actually don't observe or have any real information about what we actually do. You're just making up fanfic due to the nature of the mechanics in question fomenting a position of extreme cognitive dissonance. That fanfic, how you like to call it, is certainly very close to reality. I have already seen super capital camps and roams, albeit only on screenshots of friends. But I have not seen your titans, or any titans for that matter, roaming around, freeing themselves of the shackles that POS and bridge tool impose on them. Correct me, if I am wrong.
Utari Onzo United System's Commonwealth 10	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:23:19 - [275] - Quote I will be training all of my characters to fly this for the wormhole, and sell my orca
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5477	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:23:49 - [276] - Quote My thoughts on the tugbowtieheadthingy... Needs more capacity - both cargo and SMA space - maybe 20k / 2000k - enough for 4 smaller battleships but only 3 of the over 500k variety. Maybe let the skill level affect both holds too. This is your "I'm a solo pilot and need to move all the things at once" ship. 4k isn't enough space for me to move all my fittings/loot. The max EHP level is about right, but giving it fitting slots but only (mostly) structure is a reeeeally limited choice. Go with ~18k/18k/18k spread and 4 mids, 4 lows for some actual variety. Make the difficulty of ganking the ship in the figuring out what to expect after scanning the fittings. Give it a 25/25 drone bay for giggles and mediocre defense ability. C'mon, live a little... I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 906	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:24:02 - [277] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so. Are you complaining that you cannot gank as easy as it used to be any more? Does this really surprise you, after all the hard work that Miniluv and Code have poured into educating haulers and miners to use the best tanked ships available, that ganking has become harder? What are you complaining about next? That people use webbers to web their freighters into warp, making it 100% impossible to gank them?
MonkeyBusiness Thiesant randomly named no tax corp v2 30	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:31:21 - [278] - Quote Clearly this new tug ship will open up different possibilities. A courier job, but for ships. I propose contracts add an option for "Tug Jobs".
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1531	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:31:22 - [279] - 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. Thank you. Cutoff sounds reasonable but remember that your target audience flies a lot of Marauders (I think) which I guess you wanted to help with. I just don't want the ship too difficult to use 'responsibly'. Sure, autopiloting it through Uedama with some faction battleship hulls should get you killed but ganking is becoming less and less about the efficiency. I'd love to see some sort of module requiring good active play to defend against freighter ganks. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 972	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:36:41 - [280] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: That's what Jump Beacons are for. But for the sake of argument I concede the occasional use of cynos on stations. That still does not put these ships in any danger as proper fleets to kill of potential bubbles are on the POS. It only takes a couple of ceptors to drive off Sabres or prevent them from decloaking, and a scout on the POS to tell whether there are bubbles or not. It also only takes a couple of ships to remove anchored bubbles, should there be any. Your vignette is becoming increasingly large and infeasible as a result. Trying to argue for the removal of jump fatigue bonuses outside of the band of all other haulers due to an increasingly contrived, infeasible example is poor arguing. Rivr Luzade wrote: No titan bridge to any of your areas of space cuts through any Low sec. Neither from Deklein to Fountain nor from Deklein to Vale. Moot point. Other areas of conflict I don't consider as they are outside your space. It only takes 12 titan bridges to get from Deklein to the border system in Delve, or 5 to get to border systems in Vale, and none of them come even close to Low sec. What else you do with your titans and bridges is of no concern to me. What is of concern, however, is the fact that ships can be moved with little effort and little Fatigue within your space, and that goes against what Phoebe intends to change. You're arguing unimportant semantics. The original point of this was to describe the languishing of the titan pilot. Lowsec was only mentioned to color the uselessness of the titan's role, as lowsec is a pretty pointless place to be. Interceptors create zero fatigue, and jump freighters are cheaper and have longer range. Next. Rivr Luzade wrote: I don't describe JF as JF cannot move fitted ships and transporting fitted ships with ease is the problem. I also don't describe ceptors as ceptors can only carry 1 pilot through space and not ships for a full squad in a fleet. They sure can move 1 pilot to a stash, but are near useless if there is no stash. And such a stash can be created easily with the Bowheads and of course also JF, albeit with more effort for the transporters. That is a big difference for me. What's so magical about fitted ships? The only advantage the tug affords is the ability to move rigged ships, and rigs are cheap. Maintaining a few strategic caches of ships is also cheaper than the 12 dedicated titans, the POSes for each, the outposts for each, and the 16 associated accounts (read: 12 titan + 4 cyno) subscription fees, paid by plex, not to mention the cost and training time for the tugs themselves. It's far safer and far more efficient to maintain these caches, rig in place, and use interceptors to move. Rivr Luzade wrote: That fanfic, how you like to call it, is certainly very close to reality. I have already seen super capital camps and roams, albeit only on screenshots of friends. But I have not seen your titans, or any titans for that matter, roaming around, freeing themselves of the shackles that POS and bridge tool impose on them. Correct me, if I am wrong. Ah, yes, the screenshots from friends. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Cartridgexxxx BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:47:34 - [281] - Quote I would prefer T2 re-fittable rigs
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1856	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:49:24 - [282] - Quote Quote: GÇ£What hangs on a wall and you can dry your hands on it?GÇ¥ GÇ£Um, a towel.GÇ¥ GÇ£No, a herring.GÇ¥ GÇ£A herring! A herring doesnGÇÖt hang on a wall.GÇ¥ GÇ£But you could hang it there.GÇ¥ GÇ£But who wants to dry his hands on a herring?GÇ¥ GÇ£Well, you donGÇÖt have to.GÇ¥ -Sigmund Freud It was stated to be a hisec ship. Why are you all in a tizzy about its usage (or lack of therein) in low or null? Yes you can take it there if you want to but you don't have to. I asked for this ship knowing damn well it would be a gank target and in discussion with people in hisec most of them understood that as well. NOBODY should expect total safety and balancing your safety vs the want to do things is a part of the game. Live with it or don't fly it. Simple as that. I appreciate all the theory crafters and people showing what the fit can be. I agree it could use a shade more ehp and am discussing it internally but I am NOT trying to make it invulnerable to the point that sufficient gankers will tidi themselves into boredom. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Bearcastle Bionesis Technologies 13	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:56:22 - [283] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: As promised, here is your brand new ship-moving ship - the Bowhead. BOWHEAD, well better than a Tug, as Tug are small push/pull ship. This ship is not in the line of the Orca or Roaqual either. What about OCTO (from octopus) with the ability to carry at least 8 BS, as octopus got 8 arms. And in order to add some other tacticals habilities, would be nice to have a hight slot that could be use for a cloack. Imagine a full fleet of BC, carried.... the rest will be history in the sandbox... And may be we could already dream of a T2 version with the hability to use a Cov Op Cloacking Device. This T2 version could be a heavily shield or tank ship, like an old iron clad. But in this case it's a Heavy Ship Carrier.
TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 308	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:58:39 - [284] - 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. There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application. Because we were starting from scratch here, we decided to give a little more fitting flexibility (mid slots and rig slots), meaning the base hp is set a little lower than other freighters since you can actually get the EHP higher using rigs and a DCU. 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 Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed): 65 / .065 / 640000000 / 1.37 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 1,600,000. that's 3 fitted battleships. Could it be made to allow packaged ships in it's maintenance hold? make it like 800,000 (1 million at level 5) but allow packaged ships?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 948	Posted - 2014.11.10 19:58:51 - [285] - Quote bowhead .. who thought of that anyway? .. i prefer tugboat Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1531	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:00:24 - [286] - Quote Gospadin wrote: 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... I agree. The ships I referred to are certainly not worth 4b. Um, do you happen to mission in your T3? Just curious. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Valterra Craven 313	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:08:56 - [287] - Quote I'm honestly curious if the ship given the size of the SMA is even statistically relevant for moving a few ships at a time. Under what scenario besides moving rigged battleships does this ship make sense to use besides just flying the ship to destination? In other words several questions need to be answered: A. How many rigged ships does the average pilot have that they want to move? B. How quickly are those rigged ships moved versus the time it would take for this slow ship to move them? C. Does the cost of this ship and the possible loss of billions in ships this ship would carry worth the cost of the ship itself plus its cargo? Lets say I have a rigged battleship, a rigged cruiser, and a rigged frigate I need to move 10 jumps. How does the math work out that it makes more sense for me to spend roughly a billion on a ship to move these three ships 10 jumps? I've seen a lot of people talk about HP but not about how efficient it would be to even move ships with such a small SMA. More relevant, does CCP even ask itself these questions in the planning meetings and if so why isn't the math disclosed to the players?
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1641	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:09:31 - [288] - Quote and we chose not to name them ferries because?
Wrinkle Reducer Isk Liberation Guild Psychotic Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:15:13 - [289] - Quote no more god damn ships, or effects updates, or 0.0 nerfs, for ** sake finish the god damn station interiors. FINISH THE YOU START ON ...... hopefully the legions expantion for dust will cause you people to finish this. and Btw Pheobe is absolutly . finish what you have promised us since 2006 when it was known as "Ambulation" aka "WIS" we dont need anymore ships to lose or space gadgets . not saying ill stay in station if this is ever finished but damn I was liking the idea of Corp owned bars and what not. I would love to accully walk into a corp office not just a god damn apartment which really has no practical use. you idiots whine and *** that CCP never has the funds to expand or do other interesting stuff, finish that up and i bet you get a lot bigger playerbase.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 973	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:16:22 - [290] - Quote Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Masao Kurata Z List 130	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:18:22 - [291] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I appreciate all the theory crafters and people showing what the fit can be. I agree it could use a shade more ehp and am discussing it internally but I am NOT trying to make it invulnerable to the point that sufficient gankers will tidi themselves into boredom. Well it already has more EHP (properly fitted and not afk) than any other highsec industrial apart from jump freighters, whose buff was completely over the top, that should be plenty for normal use especially considering that deep cargo scans aren't even on the table yet and we haven't got a commitment to drops in Rhea. The people who think everything gets ganked in highsec these days are basing this mostly on the activity of a single fleet operated by a member of an idealistic organisation formed in reaction to the creep towards safe sec. I think we all know what organisation and what fleet commander I'm talking about, yes? This is not the norm for ganking. The norm for ganking is that a high expectation of profit must first be established to not waste the gank ships (normally not catalysts! Most FCs are unable to assemble the numbers to use catalysts for freighter EHP targets), the effort of the logistics pilots, the security status of the gankers (going -10 is also not the norm! Some gankers do but -10 fleets have logistical disadvantages, facpol and can be engaged freely even before starting the gank) and everyone's time. Hell even when said fleet is operating, most targets, even high value targets, get through safely because it is in fact just one fleet and they cannot juggle targets flawlessly.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 483	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:21:00 - [292] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Quote: GÇ£What hangs on a wall and you can dry your hands on it?GÇ¥ GÇ£Um, a towel.GÇ¥ GÇ£No, a herring.GÇ¥ GÇ£A herring! A herring doesnGÇÖt hang on a wall.GÇ¥ GÇ£But you could hang it there.GÇ¥ GÇ£But who wants to dry his hands on a herring?GÇ¥ GÇ£Well, you donGÇÖt have to.GÇ¥ -Sigmund Freud It was stated to be a hisec ship. Why are you all in a tizzy about its usage (or lack of therein) in low or null? Yes you can take it there if you want to but you don't have to. I asked for this ship knowing damn well it would be a gank target and in discussion with people in hisec most of them understood that as well. NOBODY should expect total safety and balancing your safety vs the want to do things is a part of the game. Live with it or don't fly it. Simple as that. I appreciate all the theory crafters and people showing what the fit can be. I agree it could use a shade more ehp and am discussing it internally but I am NOT trying to make it invulnerable to the point that sufficient gankers will tidi themselves into boredom. m any chance you can float this I mentioned earlier: I wrote: Just because it is a transport and you dont want to hurt null logisitics - remember this ship doesnt exist. Therefore there is no "harm" done removing the "industrial" bonuses to fatigue. You cannot lose what you never had in the first place. Plenty of precedent on this in removing MMJD from ABC, for example. To give it this reduction devalues the point of the original change. No logisitcs were planned around an unreleased hull and the damned thing is intended for high sec. It undermines the jump changes, imho. We should be reducing fatigue bonused hulls, not adding bleeding new ones.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3908	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:24:51 - [293] - Quote Orca, Rorqual, BowheadGÇª all whales. Must be an Icelandic thing. At least they didn't call it the "Tuna". I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 973	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:27:17 - [294] - Quote Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1643	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:30:31 - [295] - Quote Querns wrote: Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. How do I get on serenity. I must know. I've always wanted to meet the Chinese players.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1531	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:30:53 - [296] - Quote P.S. Please nerf the Ishtar. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 289	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:46:18 - [297] - Quote Random wondering, how are these supposed to work with courier contracts? Or are we going to have to be not lazy? Travelling at the speed of love.
Red Frog Rufen Red Frog Freight Red-Frog 323	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:47:21 - [298] - Quote May I suggest a tweaking of the contract system to allow anyone to transport ships outside a package so we can use this to effectively transport ship? That way you could put a collateral value on a item (a ship!), transport it the way you want, then deliver that item at the destination. We regularly transport Freighter and JF for customers, and we use the method of selling/reselling, which caused some problems at time. I'm not sure if this is at all technically possible, but it would be nice!
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 974	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:48:37 - [299] - Quote Having special ship couriers that can go into Ship Maintenance Arrays would be extremely cool. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 104	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:50:28 - [300] - Quote afkalt wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Quote: GÇ£What hangs on a wall and you can dry your hands on it?GÇ¥ GÇ£Um, a towel.GÇ¥ GÇ£No, a herring.GÇ¥ GÇ£A herring! A herring doesnGÇÖt hang on a wall.GÇ¥ GÇ£But you could hang it there.GÇ¥ GÇ£But who wants to dry his hands on a herring?GÇ¥ GÇ£Well, you donGÇÖt have to.GÇ¥ -Sigmund Freud It was stated to be a hisec ship. Why are you all in a tizzy about its usage (or lack of therein) in low or null? Yes you can take it there if you want to but you don't have to. I asked for this ship knowing damn well it would be a gank target and in discussion with people in hisec most of them understood that as well. NOBODY should expect total safety and balancing your safety vs the want to do things is a part of the game. Live with it or don't fly it. Simple as that. I appreciate all the theory crafters and people showing what the fit can be. I agree it could use a shade more ehp and am discussing it internally but I am NOT trying to make it invulnerable to the point that sufficient gankers will tidi themselves into boredom. m any chance you can float this I mentioned earlier: I wrote: Just because it is a transport and you dont want to hurt null logisitics - remember this ship doesnt exist. Therefore there is no "harm" done removing the "industrial" bonuses to fatigue. You cannot lose what you never had in the first place. Plenty of precedent on this in removing MMJD from ABC, for example. To give it this reduction devalues the point of the original change. No logisitcs were planned around an unreleased hull and the damned thing is intended for high sec. It undermines the jump changes, imho. We should be reducing fatigue bonused hulls, not adding bleeding new ones. To assume that they didn't know about this ship when making the jump changes where made is stupid. They showed the ship off at eve Vegas before the jump changes went into effect

Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 236	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:54:37 - [301] - Quote Querns wrote: Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. You really need to update your definition of Ferry. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 975	Posted - 2014.11.10 20:58:58 - [302] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Querns wrote: Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. You really need to update your definition of Ferry. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20ferry Quote: a boat or ship for conveying passengers and goods, especially over a relatively short distance and as a regular service. Seems to be apt to me. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 236	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:02:07 - [303] - Quote Querns wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Querns wrote: Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. You really need to update your definition of Ferry. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20ferry Quote: a boat or ship for conveying passengers and goods, especially over a relatively short distance and as a regular service. Seems to be apt to me. Yes, but they are definately not restricted to lakes and rivers as you said, and the term short is relative. Some ferry routes are 1,000 km long, or more. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 975	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:04:28 - [304] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Yes, but they are definately not restricted to lakes and rivers as you said, and the term short is relative. Some ferry routes are 1,000 km long, or more. I'll take your word for it. Being the man that I am, I am inclined to stick to the rivers and lakes that I'm used to. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Garnt TheBrobarian Hole Violence 22	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:04:49 - [305] - Quote Klyith wrote: Just because the people who want this ship the most want to carry around 3 pimp-fit pirate battleships, does not mean that the thing should be built to give them their every desire on a platter. It's not like you can't run incursions in a plain T1 BS if you wanted to. No you don't get it. I can fit 10 blingy T3s in there so it should have at least as much tank as 10 blingy T3s combined, and should require 10 blingy T3s worth of ganking ships to gank, because that's somehow a logical equivalency that works, apparently?
Rin Nagamori Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:04:56 - [306] - Quote Given what the new ship is designed to do, "Heavy Lift Ship" or "Heavy Lift Vessel" might be more appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_ship
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 33	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:14:07 - [307] - 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. Seriously. This is an issue.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 976	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:18:57 - [308] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: 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. Seriously. This is an issue. Not while interceptors exist. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 296	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:31:50 - [309] - Quote The demands of risk-adverse players are rampant in this thread. Give it 500k EHP!! Give it 600k EHP!! Allow it to carry 4-5 fitted battleships AND give it 600k EHP!!! But as many people have reasonably pointed out, just because you can carry X does not mean you should have a tank that makes it necessarily unprofitable to be killed while hauling X. The more convenient / useful something is in EVE, the more potential risk it should involve. Moving a fitted battleship manually, the old way, is less convenient than hauling a few in the Bowhead--the Bowhead should Not also be safer as well, as that completely reverses the risk-reward balance. The Bowhead is going to make life a lot easier for many groups, including solo players such as myself. As a result though, it should bring with it great potential risk, such as being a prime target for ganks.
Lurifax Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda 17	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:38:57 - [310] - Quote Does this mean that the Rorq will get some love ?

Santa Spirit Christmas Spirit and Goodwill Toward Man 260	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:39:45 - [311] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: John Ratcliffe wrote: Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. I'll actually go look for a picture for you, there must be one around here somewhere. edit: bad news =/ art says no WIP pictures so I guess you have to wait a week or two for it to show up on Sisi. I saw it though and it looks amazing, if that helps. doesn't the speed bonus simply mean that as you increase it's stats by skilling it higher, you also increase the amount of time it takes to get into warp? just saying. :P Santa On Occasion, I must apologize for the things I say because they sometimes make me sound as though I have a clue. Please feel free to join in on the fun Dec 14th. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3918380 (2013) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=183205 (2012)
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 486	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:40:48 - [312] - Quote Querns wrote: Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. I don't doubt you, what I dislike is the undermining the message of the mechanic - why add more bonused hulls? At all? Even taking you at your word (and I do, for clarity) there is almost no POINT in it being bonused. They are trying to limit projection and teleporting around the map - what message does the first new hull since the change having a reduction bonus send? By their own admission, it is a high sec intended vessel - what harm would it not being fatigue reduced bring? Particularly if they are as useless as you've shown for rapid deployment? Then the message of "teleporting travel is dying" is retained. Lady Rift wrote: To assume that they didn't know about this ship when making the jump changes where made is stupid. They showed the ship off at eve Vegas before the jump changes went into effect You miss my point - I wasn't talking about the devs, I was talking about null logistics chains - you cannot cry about the "removal" of something you never had. That would be like moaning about ABCs "losing" MMJDs. If a new ship is added without reduction bonuses, how can you reasonably state that breaks current logistic chains?
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 2024	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:44:39 - [313] - Quote A jump drive would be nice. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 292	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:53:16 - [314] - Quote 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. Top speed is irrelevant unless autopiloting. Autopiloting one of these will be a death sentence in HS since it will get bumped and ganked, in which case total EHP are also irrelevant. If the answer to either of these is 'get a webbing buddy' then you're not autopiloting, and the top speed bonus is still irrelevant. If SMA's can drop ships then this thing will be a loot pinata flown only by the clueless. This is 'Nestor'-level bad design mate. At least make it an agility bonus, which can also help if someone's foolish enough to fly on AP by helping them get to top speed faster. X
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:55:46 - [315] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: A jump drive would be nice. No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers... (not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy) and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!! wink o7 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 978	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:56:59 - [316] - Quote afkalt wrote: Querns wrote: Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. I don't doubt you, what I dislike is the undermining the message of the mechanic - why add more bonused hulls? At all? Even taking you at your word (and I do, for clarity) there is almost no POINT in it being bonused. They are trying to limit projection and teleporting around the map - what message does the first new hull since the change having a reduction bonus send? By their own admission, it is a high sec intended vessel - what harm would it not being fatigue reduced bring? Particularly if they are as useless as you've shown for rapid deployment? Then the message of "teleporting travel is dying" is retained. The point of it retaining the bonus is because it allows the hull to be used in more casual, PvE related environments. An example: the vagaries of nullsec production and the varied push/pull motivators added in Crius demand that ships, modules, and ammo be produced in disparate systems, and sold in yet others. Having the ship retain a fatigue bonus allows it to be used for production and to move fitted hulls around. Without the fatigue bonus, there's little reason to use it over a Jump Freighter. Forcing an individual into one particular choice is a hallmark of bad design. (Interceptors also fall into this category.) What I'm primarily trying to do is diffuse the alarmingly prevalent belief that all forms of gameplay must suffer because a complicated, unrealistic vignette constructed by people with little expertise in the matter paints a diabolic picture. These vignettes are overwhelmingly constructed by folks who have an irrational distaste for the mechanic in question (largely brought about by their inability to USE this mechanic, fomenting an emotionally charged, inaccurate picture.) Under no circumstances have these vignettes been backed up by a single fact, calculation, or vetted by someone with a demonstrable amount of domain knowledge in the field in question. It also doesn't help that these vignettes are painted in stark refusal to accept the fact that the Interceptor exists. I'm not really sure how to reconcile this Interceptor-shaped blind spot. I find the "but the ship is intended to be used in highsec" argument to be complete garbage, in general. The only time these arguments hold any water is when the game physically restricts the ship from being in a certain area of space (e.g.: carriers in highsec.) As an avowed nullsec haver, I'm just as capable of building and operating a Bowhead in 0.0 as I am in highsec. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Bearcastle Bionesis Technologies 13	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:57:27 - [317] - Quote Bearcastle wrote: CCP Rise wrote: As promised, here is your brand new ship-moving ship - the Bowhead. BOWHEAD, well better than a Tug, as Tug are small push/pull ship. This ship is not in the line of the Orca or Roaqual either. What about OCTO (from octopus) with the ability to carry at least 8 BS, as octopus got 8 arms. And in order to add some other tacticals habilities, would be nice to have a hight slot that could be use for a cloack. Imagine a full fleet of BC, carried.... the rest will be history in the sandbox... And may be we could already dream of a T2 version with the hability to use a Cov Op Cloacking Device. This T2 version could be a heavily shield or tank ship, like an old iron clad. But in this case it's a Heavy Ship Carrier. I would like to add few point. Alone, with the spec now, it"s useless. The only good use might be for Incursion. I will not use this kind of ship to move only 3 BS... I prefer to repackage and use a freighter. The ship like it is, will not be worth the investment. You have very good exemple in SF about this kind of ship. They are use as group support for long deployment. Then you could refit, reload, repair without having to go back to base and you could carry specialze ship, replacement or a whole squadron. As for the T2 I mentionned, it should have jump capabilities. As you say CCP Rise you see it as a Cap Class Ship, in that case make it really usefull. It could be a very good ship to bring support in battle or long deployment, but it need a bit more capacity and possibility to hide. As for moving ship in high sec, as some say, manually one by one, would be better than a huge investment, for a ship that will take dust the rest of the time. Yes it's a good idea, so make it usefull.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:57:52 - [318] - Quote Santa Spirit wrote: CCP Rise wrote: John Ratcliffe wrote: Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. I'll actually go look for a picture for you, there must be one around here somewhere. edit: bad news =/ art says no WIP pictures so I guess you have to wait a week or two for it to show up on Sisi. I saw it though and it looks amazing, if that helps. doesn't the speed bonus simply mean that as you increase it's stats by skilling it higher, you also increase the amount of time it takes to get into warp? just saying. :P Santa SEE? even Santa knows that's a bad idea LOL o/ Santa 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.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1648	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:59:46 - [319] - Quote afkalt wrote: Querns wrote: Arguments re: fatigue in this thread are funny because they imply that fatigue reduction is tantamount to the complete elimination of fatigue in general. This is patently false GÇö even fatigue bonused ships must wait before jumping, and have their ability to travel significantly hampered by fatigue. Don't believe me? Go do a jump freighter run on Serenity right now, and then do one on Tranquility later. I don't doubt you, what I dislike is the undermining the message of the mechanic - why add more bonused hulls? At all? Even taking you at your word (and I do, for clarity) there is almost no POINT in it being bonused. They are trying to limit projection and teleporting around the map - what message does the first new hull since the change having a reduction bonus send? By their own admission, it is a high sec intended vessel - what harm would it not being fatigue reduced bring? Particularly if they are as useless as you've shown for rapid deployment? Then the message of "teleporting travel is dying" is retained. Lady Rift wrote: To assume that they didn't know about this ship when making the jump changes where made is stupid. They showed the ship off at eve Vegas before the jump changes went into effect You miss my point - I wasn't talking about the devs, I was talking about null logistics chains - you cannot cry about the "removal" of something you never had. That would be like moaning about ABCs "losing" MMJDs. If a new ship is added without reduction bonuses, how can you reasonably state that breaks current logistic chains? it sends a message of uniformity. They extended the 90% to industrials after the players brought up the major impact it would have on logistics without introducing a viable method to replace it at home. Allowing the bnus to stay opens up content for those willing to to find niche uses and put up more risk than the average player. Its needlessly restrictive. Just because major alliances won't be using these en masse does not mean individual players or smaller groups wont find purpose in them. When the rest of industrial ships lose their bonus (when nullsec finds itself with basic sustainability) then it will be reasonable to desire the mechanic removed. Its possible abuses are very limited, but its benefits could be found useful in certain edge cases.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 978	Posted - 2014.11.10 21:59:54 - [320] - Quote Celly S wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: A jump drive would be nice. No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers... (not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy) and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!! wink o7 Celly Smunt That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA. I'd be in favor of a T2 version of the Bowhead that has jump drive capability. This mirrors the original split of carriers and jump freighters, where the former had its ability to carry industrials packed with materiel castrated, allowing the latter to have a role as a dedicated logistics vehicle. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1648	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:03:35 - [321] - Quote Celly S wrote: Santa Spirit wrote: CCP Rise wrote: John Ratcliffe wrote: Well where's the picture? Stats are obviously useful, but I want to see what it looks like. Happy with the Mids - pop a prop mod on there for faster warp engagement. I'll be getting one for sure. I'll actually go look for a picture for you, there must be one around here somewhere. edit: bad news =/ art says no WIP pictures so I guess you have to wait a week or two for it to show up on Sisi. I saw it though and it looks amazing, if that helps. doesn't the speed bonus simply mean that as you increase it's stats by skilling it higher, you also increase the amount of time it takes to get into warp? just saying. :P Santa SEE? even Santa knows that's a bad idea LOL o/ Santa Celly Smunt Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:05:46 - [322] - Quote Bearcastle wrote: As for the T2 I mentionned, it should have jump capabilities. No, 1000 times NO a jump drive is useless in high sec and if you're in low sec or null you have carriers. people seriously stop trying to get a reduced fatigue carrier already again, I'm not trying to be an ass, but there are close to 1000 pages in 2 other threads where people went back and forth about this and CCP said NO Honestly, instead of trying to get back what you had, learn to use what you have and be happy with it. 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 S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:08:02 - [323] - Quote Rowells wrote: Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed. The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in. The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO :) 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.
Harrigan VonStudly Osmosis Inc The Bastion 108	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:10:35 - [324] - Quote With all the demands by the never happy high sec risk averse doomsdayers, the people who, for some reason, want the ship to not be used by null sec while having no play or interest in null other than to wish misery upon them for some ****** reason, I'd like to suggest to CCP to remove the plans for the ship. ** these people. Take it off the drawing board.
TiberiusBravus Veni Vidi Vici Reloaded 2	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:10:59 - [325] - Quote YAY . A ship shipping ship shipping ships!
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1648	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:12:09 - [326] - Quote Celly S wrote: Rowells wrote: Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed. The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in. The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO :) Celly Smunt I agree the agility bonus would be better, but the max speed has no affect on agility. Only mass and inertia modifier. if you take two interceptors and fit one with cargo ecpanders (slower speed) and one with overdrives (higher speed) align time is the same. That is the purpose behind using 100mn MWD on capitals to get into warp faster. E: technically yes, the warp drive minimum speed is increased, but the time to reach that speed is unchanged.
Juvenius Drakonius 8	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:15:41 - [327] - Quote This will be the most ganked ship in the game after that patch, a true SPACE PI+æATA with no guns and full of ships. A Good Idea and a needed Ship, but if it can't tank well. Here's an IDEA, make a HI-SEC Carrier! No jumpdrive, but it can have some drones to defend it self Or at best a NEW module "CONCORD DIRECT PATCH LINE" to make concord instantly appear in the event of a gank. There is no shame in saying you don't know something, and there is no glory in keeping knolege to yourself.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:15:45 - [328] - Quote Rowells wrote: Celly S wrote: Rowells wrote: Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed. The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in. The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO :) Celly Smunt I agree the agility bonus would be better, but the max speed has no affect on agility. Only mass and inertia modifier. if you take two interceptors and fit one with cargo ecpanders (slower speed) and one with overdrives (higher speed) align time is the same. That is the purpose behind using 100mn MWD on capitals to get into warp faster. E: technically yes, the warp drive minimum speed is increased, but the time to reach that speed is unchanged. I never said it did, I simply commented on Santa's post/question about the result of a higher max speed being taking longer to go into warp, which is a bad idea in my opinion and evidently in his as well. 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.
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 357	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:19:08 - [329] - Quote I must admit I was surprised when CCP picked up this idea from F&I. I thought any implementation would, by necessity, be too fragile and slow to justify the cargo it would be carrying. But, I figured I'd wait and see if CCP pulled a rabbit out of its hat. We are still rabbitless. But hey, the work has been mostly done, so: Gankers, rejoice! Celly S wrote: The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in. But it's irrelevant because acceleration is a percentage of top speed. So, whether the Bowhead goes 10m/s or 1000m/s, it's going to go into warp at the same moment. And whether it's webbed at 1m/s or 100m/s respectively, it will still go into warp at the same just as quickly. The only times when top speed matters on a hauler are a) gate crashing and b) those times when you warp to a station outside docking radius. If you're trying to do (A) with this, then you already screwd up royal and you'll die regardless of the 25% boost, and (B) can be taken care of with proper bookmarks, or is such a small percentage of transit time not to be worth considering.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 2024	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:19:12 - [330] - Quote Celly S wrote: people seriously stop trying to get a reduced fatigue carrier already Don't really need reduced fatigue. Nor the combat capabilites of a carrier. Just a 10LY ship hauler. Cyno chains are boring. snores Using a mighty Archon to haul is... sad. sheds a tear Want a jump-capable ship hauler. looks at CCP with big round eyes Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Rockstede 30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 39	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:22:57 - [331] - Quote Wrinkle Reducer wrote: no more god damn ships, or effects updates, or 0.0 nerfs, for ** sake finish the god damn station interiors. FINISH THE YOU START ON ...... hopefully the legions expantion for dust will cause you people to finish this. and Btw Pheobe is absolutly . finish what you have promised us since 2006 when it was known as "Ambulation" aka "WIS" we dont need anymore ships to lose or space gadgets . not saying ill stay in station if this is ever finished but damn I was liking the idea of Corp owned bars and what not. I would love to accully walk into a corp office not just a god damn apartment which really has no practical use. you idiots whine and *** that CCP never has the funds to expand or do other interesting stuff, finish that up and i bet you get a lot bigger playerbase. Requesting a player lockdown immediately! This man is insane and does not speak for the majority! (also moar ships plz) (also, The Bowhead is ugly)
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1648	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:24:46 - [332] - Quote Celly S wrote: Rowells wrote: Celly S wrote: Rowells wrote: Thats not how top speed and agility works unfortunately. Align speed (agility) is independent of speed. The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in. The max speed bonus should be replaced with an agility bonus IMHO :) Celly Smunt I agree the agility bonus would be better, but the max speed has no affect on agility. Only mass and inertia modifier. if you take two interceptors and fit one with cargo ecpanders (slower speed) and one with overdrives (higher speed) align time is the same. That is the purpose behind using 100mn MWD on capitals to get into warp faster. E: technically yes, the warp drive minimum speed is increased, but the time to reach that speed is unchanged. I never said it did, I simply commented on Santa's post/question about the result of a higher max speed being taking longer to go into warp, which is a bad idea in my opinion and evidently in his as well. o/ Celly Smunt PS. not talking about the mwd trick, just base ships only differing in the pilot's skills. I'm trying to tell you that higher speed =\= longer time to get into warp
Riikard Thexder Cup Of ConKrete Cup Of ConKrete. 22	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:44:28 - [333] - Quote So it is effectively a JF with more cargo room? How far can it jump because if it is only as far as a carrier...might as well use a carrier. If on the other hand its cargo was a lot more then 3 fitted BS say 4-5 then I could see it being used. That being said...any new ships are welcomed
Iam Widdershins Project Nemesis 879	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:46:23 - [334] - Quote Pretty cool and all, this fills a good niche. My biggest question, pretty pertinent to the ship's general operation and lifespan, is regarding looting mechanics. As I recall, ships like carriers, Orcas, and Titans don't actually ever drop anything from their ship maintenance bays when they go down. What will be the story here? Will it only drop from cargo to match current (I think) mechanics? Or will it provide a wreck with launchable ships like a pos maintenance array? If the latter, are we also going to see a difference in behavior for other ships with maintenance bays? Thanks for your work as always. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1648	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:51:23 - [335] - Quote Riikard Thexder wrote: So it is effectively a JF with more cargo room? How far can it jump because if it is only as far as a carrier...might as well use a carrier. If on the other hand its cargo was a lot more then 3 fitted BS say 4-5 then I could see it being used. That being said...any new ships are welcomed There is no jump drive
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 2026	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:52:35 - [336] - Quote Rowells wrote: Riikard Thexder wrote: So it is effectively a JF with more cargo room? How far can it jump because if it is only as far as a carrier...might as well use a carrier. If on the other hand its cargo was a lot more then 3 fitted BS say 4-5 then I could see it being used. That being said...any new ships are welcomed *Sadly,* there is no jump drive FTFY Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Lachesiss Chaos From Order Manifest Destiny. 9	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:55:36 - [337] - Quote Sooooo.... Plastic wrap ship with tank?... Cmon Ccp Rise. Tell us how much you wanted a full rack of blasters on that
Bertucio Chandra Labs 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:57:10 - [338] - Quote Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: The demands of risk-adverse players are rampant in this thread. Give it 500k EHP!! Give it 600k EHP!! Allow it to carry 4-5 fitted battleships AND give it 600k EHP!!! But as many people have reasonably pointed out, just because you can carry X does not mean you should have a tank that makes it necessarily unprofitable to be killed while hauling X. The more convenient / useful something is in EVE, the more potential risk it should involve. Moving a fitted battleship manually, the old way, is less convenient than hauling a few in the Bowhead--the Bowhead should Not also be safer as well, as that completely reverses the risk-reward balance. The Bowhead is going to make life a lot easier for many groups, including solo players such as myself. As a result though, it should bring with it great potential risk, such as being a prime target for ganks. I'm not sure what your definition of risk is here. You spend a billion ISK on a hi-sec freighter (assuming you buy the right buff mods etc). You put in near a billion worth of ISK of ships to freight around. And you get ganked by 10-20 cheap dessies in Uedama. So who is doing all the risk and who isn't? Gwanker: when you can't gank a 2 Billion ISK freighter for virtually free in hi-sec - and swear up and down the freighter pilot isn't taking enough risk.
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1259	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:57:12 - [339] - Quote Celly S wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: A jump drive would be nice. No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers... (not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy) and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!! wink o7 Celly Smunt Carriers got nerfed, but jump freighters didn't, logistics was not the reason why jump drives got nerfed. Using carriers to move anything now requires an alt to get around the fatigue mechanic, and takes forever because of the short jump range, it really would be nice to get a non-combat ship as an replacement for the pre-nerf suitcase carrier. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Dave Stark 7134	Posted - 2014.11.10 22:59:14 - [340] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: The demands of risk-adverse players are rampant in this thread. Give it 500k EHP!! Give it 600k EHP!! Allow it to carry 4-5 fitted battleships AND give it 600k EHP!!! But as many people have reasonably pointed out, just because you can carry X does not mean you should have a tank that makes it necessarily unprofitable to be killed while hauling X. The more convenient / useful something is in EVE, the more potential risk it should involve. Moving a fitted battleship manually, the old way, is less convenient than hauling a few in the Bowhead--the Bowhead should Not also be safer as well, as that completely reverses the risk-reward balance. The Bowhead is going to make life a lot easier for many groups, including solo players such as myself. As a result though, it should bring with it great potential risk, such as being a prime target for ganks. I'm not sure what your definition of risk is here. You spend a billion ISK on a hi-sec freighter (assuming you buy the right buff mods etc). You put in near a billion worth of ISK of ships to freight around. And you get ganked by 10-15 cheap dessies in Uedama. So who is doing all the risk and who isn't? Sigh. Gankers - they are the biggest cry babies in Eve when they can't gank your 2 Billion ISK freighter for free in Hi-Sec. And they swear up and down that you're not taking enough risk gankers, the biggest cry babies in eve. said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg.

Candente Navy Veteran Club 36	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:01:57 - [341] - Quote First of all. Has CCP clarified on whether the ships in the SMA of this ship will actually drop or no upon getting ganked? It's an important question on the whole risk vs reward scale. Also, as someone already said in this thread, the greatest need for solo pilots to move multiple rigged BS in highsec are incursion runners moving between sites. If this group is CCP's intended target for using Bowhead, then obviously the ships maximum tanking capability needs to be increased (or else they'd use alternative methods of moving ships, which makes a lot of things pointless). A simple solution is to create more dedicate modules to let pilot to choose the space vs tank vs travel time. The current modules are not enough. For example, make a module to reduce SMA space but to give the ship more EHP. The bottom line is the new ship's function should not solely be introducing inferior ways to do things that other methods do better.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:02:50 - [342] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg. Yeah I'd like to see some gankers in Uedama take some real risk for a change - like spend a billion ISK to take down a billion ISK freighter. Oh yeah - crickets. I thought so.
Dave Stark 7134	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:05:09 - [343] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Dave Stark wrote: said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg. Yeah I'd like to see some gankers in Uedama take some real risk for a change - like spend a billion ISK to take down a billion ISK freighter. Oh yeah - crickets. I thought so. isk is not a balancing factor. and nor will it ever be, because that's ********. also if you don't want to get ganked, don't go through uedama, and don't auto pilot, and don't make basic errors like most people who get ganked in obvious choke point systems.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 2028	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:05:37 - [344] - Quote Candente wrote: First of all. Has CCP clarified on whether the ships in the SMA of this ship will actually drop or no upon getting ganked? It's an important question on the whole risk vs reward scale. Also, as someone already said in this thread, the greatest need for solo pilots to move multiple rigged BS in highsec are incursion runners moving between sites. If this group is CCP's intended target for using Bowhead, then obviously the ships maximum tanking capability needs to be increased (or else they'd use alternative methods of moving ships, which makes a lot of things pointless). A simple solution is to create more dedicate modules to let pilot to choose the space vs tank vs travel time. The current modules are not enough. For example, make a module to reduce SMA space but to give the ship more EHP. The bottom line is the new ship's function should not solely be introducing inferior ways to do things that other methods do better. Maybe the intended use is ganker ghostriding? Inconspicuous Bowhead pulls up next to a freighter and ejects 20 catalysts. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5619	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:08:57 - [345] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Warr Akini wrote: 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so. We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough. Let's be honest here. High sec ganking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move. I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears. The Paradox
Dave Stark 7134	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:11:10 - [346] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Warr Akini wrote: 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so. We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough. Let's be honest here. High sec tanking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move. I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears. yeah except this ship already has ~400k ehp, it's already equalling the orca's ehp. there's literally no justification for more ehp than "i want to mindlessly overload my cargo with no negative repercussions for my stupidity".
Bertucio Chandra Labs 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:13:00 - [347] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: [quote] isk is not a balancing factor. and nor will it ever be, because that's ********. You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk.
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 184	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:13:19 - [348] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Warr Akini wrote: 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so. We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough. Let's be honest here. High sec ganking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move. I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears. The thing is, it's already at the point where it's not profitable to suicide gank with "just" 3 T2 fit battleships inside
Dave Stark 7134	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:16:14 - [349] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Dave Stark wrote: [quote] isk is not a balancing factor. and nor will it ever be, because that's ********. You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk. i didn't say it didn't. try reading my post.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 5	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:18:42 - [350] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Bertucio wrote: Dave Stark wrote: [quote] isk is not a balancing factor. and nor will it ever be, because that's ********. You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk. i didn't say it didn't. try reading my post. try making sense other than pulling whatever you can out of your butt

Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:22:41 - [351] - Quote point blank.... if this TUG... or bowhead or what ever name ya give it... can not with stand a multiboxer with 40 suicide tornados then its worthless. plain and simple.... This ship will be used by lots of folks in high sec to move their fleets around in highsec.... and yes incursioners will be the number one users... BUT NOT if the ship can not not be fitted or skilled in a way to make it next to impossible to gank before concord can show up to save it.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:29:09 - [352] - Quote Furthermore... i can tank out an ORCA and get over 450,000 EHP on it... this Tug boat will be hauling far more valuble cargo... thus should have an achievable tank well over 500,000 EHP other wise its worthless... you really think incursioners.. your target market... are going to use this ship to move their multi billion isk battleships around with out there being some secruity that the ship will be stupidly hard to gank.... also the cargo should be closer to 10k not 5k.... or give it another bay for ammo that way mods and parts in the cargo bay... and ammo in the ammo bay
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 460	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:37:02 - [353] - Quote We will probably need one too to scoop the ships that drop from all the anti-tanked variants that will autopilot trough the system. The option to insanely ubertank that ship so the anti-gank scrubs can't possibly kill it is highly appreciated. Thx the Code ALWAYS wins
Randy Roid Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:38:35 - [354] - Quote Having this thing viable for wormholes, would help reduce the sting of the jump travel when it comes to evictions
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 518	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:41:51 - [355] - Quote Looks like a new shiny pinata for gankers.... Dear CCP Rise - I suggest you spend a few days making multi-billion ISK loot-filled freighter runs from Jita to Oursulaert or from Dodixie to Rens, before you finalize the stats on this new pinata. You should get a better idea of how much damage gankers can quickly and cheaply bring to bear, and how effective your new ship will be, in its designated role. The in-game research may save you some time in rebalance passes, as well as from pages of complaints on the forums.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 2029	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:50:52 - [356] - Quote Give it an auto-ghostride feature. While flying the Bowhead, if you access the SMB and select any ship, you can insta-switch to it without the hassle of ejecting the ship, ejecting yourself, boarding the ship before anyone points it (if IIRC the procedure). For highsec (yawn) it would work as a pinata-shield. Assuming the Bowhead won't be too expensive, you can put a pinata-ship inside, by the time the gankers are about to pop the Bowhead you board the pinata. CONCORD is already on grid, you're safe (maybe)! Out of highsec, opens up fun possibilites - maybe. At least it would give the poor whale a unique feature... Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:51:41 - [357] - Quote Querns wrote: That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA. [/quote] no it is not part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability. if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise. I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier. 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.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1674	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:54:36 - [358] - 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. The problem is T2 fitted BS are the very cheapest BS's. If you are flying a BS, T2 fitting is barely more expensive than T1, either way nearly all your cost is in the base hull, and possibly T2 rigs if you have those. BS with some faction fitting are the standard for BS anywhere outside a Null Sec doctrine fleet. And given even certain null groups have Navy BS fleets you are putting your price point for planning vastly too low, because you aren't addressing the actual reality currently in game. I'm not wanting to say 'this ship shouldn't be gankable profitably'. But if you want to run the numbers you need to look at a realistic ship that actually would be moved around in highsec, and thats a Navy BS with limited faction fittings (Probably on the damage mods). That's pretty much the minimum anyone who is using BS's regularly in high sec to make money with uses. While Marauders and Pirate BS are also highly common as well. So you need to base your gank calculations off this actual reality rather than the T1 BS with only T2 fittings that is almost never seen after week 1 of running whatever it is you are. Obviously if you are fitting a whole bunch of A/X type deadspace or officer you are going to become a juicy target.
Max Greene Cantstandya's Human Fund 0	Posted - 2014.11.10 23:58:43 - [359] - 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? It seems a bit low for what will be inside and the capacity. Its meant to be hauling hulls when stripped that are probably worth over 2 bill all together, so add in modules, rigs and that ups the value greatly. Im not saying make them gank proof but make the gank cost enough on a "properly" tanked ship to deter gankers on to the weaker less tanked counterparts that will assuredly be out there.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:00:23 - [360] - Quote dexington wrote: Carriers got nerfed, but jump freighters didn't, logistics was not the reason why jump drives got nerfed. Using carriers to move anything now requires an alt to get around the fatigue mechanic, and takes forever because of the short jump range, it really would be nice to get a non-combat ship as an replacement for the pre-nerf suitcase carrier. Jump freighters did in fact get nerfed as well, while BLOPs got buffed 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 S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:04:57 - [361] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: I must admit I was surprised when CCP picked up this idea from F&I. I thought any implementation would, by necessity, be too fragile and slow to justify the cargo it would be carrying. But, I figured I'd wait and see if CCP pulled a rabbit out of its hat. We are still rabbitless. But hey, the work has been mostly done, so: Gankers, rejoice! Celly S wrote: The higher a ship's max speed is, the faster it has to be going for the warp drive to kick in. But it's irrelevant because acceleration is a percentage of top speed. So, whether the Bowhead goes 10m/s or 1000m/s, it's going to go into warp at the same moment. And whether it's webbed at 1m/s or 100m/s respectively, it will still go into warp at the same just as quickly. The only times when top speed matters on a hauler are a) gate crashing and b) those times when you warp to a station outside docking radius. If you're trying to do (A) with this, then you already screwd up royal and you'll die regardless of the 25% boost, and (B) can be taken care of with proper bookmarks, or is such a small percentage of transit time not to be worth considering. I was under the impression that acceleration was constant unless there was a prop mod to boost thrust, if that's not the case, then that's fine, I stand corrected even though I'd still like to see agility as a skill bonus because sub-warp travel is usually not very far for me. :) o/ Celly 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.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:06:39 - [362] - Quote Looking at this idea of your going to be ganked by a handfull of battle ships... is well unrealistic.... there are alot of mulitboxers face it... this TUG will be the number one target of the 40+ multi boxing players.... and they will just use battle cruisers or t1 battle ships ..... they do it now for normal frieghters and orcas.... if your going to give this TUG a remote chance of survival.. it will have to be able to with stand a multi boxer attack... not a few individual players with a few battle ships.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5555	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:07:58 - [363] - Quote Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls. ALSO ENSURE YOU DON'T AUTOPILOT THROUGH UEDAMA, NIARJA, DELTOLE or other 0.5 choke points. Perhaps consider running alongside the hauler with logistics cruisers to ensure that would-be gankers have to focus on alpha damage rather than 30s worth of shooting. And let's see where it stands after a couple of months, perhaps when CCP sees nobody using it they will try buffing it to the point that people feel safe carrying three Nightmare hulls in one hauler. Day 0 Advice for New Players
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 983	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:07:59 - [364] - Quote Celly S wrote: no it is not part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability. if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise. I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier. o/ Celly Smunt No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. Also, I never suggested that the Bowhead have a jump drive. I think a T2 version of the Bowhead should. After all, you're not calling for the restriction of the Jump Freighter, which does the exact same thing with packaged ships. All a jump-capable Bowhead would allow over a Jump Freighter is a minor reduction in cost and a minor increase in Quality of Life involved in packaging ships (destroying their rigs in the process.) Hell, a jump freighter can carry three times as many battleships in packaged form compared to a theoretical T2 Bowhead, and that's not even considering paralleling the trend with freighters and JFs whereupon the T2 version trades a significant portion of its hauling ability for the jump drive. Too many people in this thread are making the fundamental mistake that rigging a ship is some manner of ironclad rubicon, upon which none may cross in the opposite direction. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 2029	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:13:26 - [365] - Quote Querns wrote: That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. Well said! Whatever that actually means. Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:15:51 - [366] - Quote I gotta say, that name is really bad. Are you sure you didn't mean Bowsprit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowsprit
Mharius Skjem Opacity Circles 124	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:16:11 - [367] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. Very good idea, don't cave into null sec though as they'll soon start asking for fatigue reduction bonuses on combat ships. A recovering btter vet, with a fresh toon and a determination to like everything that CCP does to Eve...
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:18:45 - [368] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: I gotta say, that name is really bad. Are you sure you didn't mean Bowsprit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowsprit That isn't a type of whale. Quote: The bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) is a species of the right whale family Balaenidae, in suborder Mysticeti and genus Balaena. A stocky dark-colored whale without a dorsal fin, it can grow to 20 m (66 ft) in length. This thick-bodied species can weigh 75 tonnes (74 long tons; 83 short tons) to 100 tonnes (98 long tons; 110 short tons).[3] It lives entirely in fertile Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, unlike other whales that migrate to feed or reproduce to low latitude waters. It was also known as Greenland right whale or Arctic whale. American whalemen called it the steeple-top, polar whale,[4] or Russia or Russian whale. The bowhead has the largest mouth of any animal. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:19:49 - [369] - Quote Mharius Skjem wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. Very good idea, don't cave into null sec though as they'll soon start asking for fatigue reduction bonuses on combat ships. Are you kidding? We LOVE that combat ships have little to no fatigue bonuses. Hell, I'd be for removing the fatigue bonus on blackops BS and covert bridging, too. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3909	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:27:10 - [370] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: I gotta say, that name is really bad. As opposed to sayGÇª "Humpback", "Minke" or "Sperm"? Yeah, Bowhead is just fine. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Ronen Osden Ronen's NEW And Improved Mining Services 15	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:41:15 - [371] - Quote Why can't we all just get along? All this ganking talk is rather depressing. Non Est Mortale Quad Opto - What-áI-áDesire Is Not Mortal
Darryn Lowe Western Madman Dictatorship 27	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:55:08 - [372] - Quote Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god. This is the ship I've been waiting forever for. Do you know how brilliant for moving around this ship is going to be? Can we get a free one for being good boys and girls please. :-)
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 36	Posted - 2014.11.11 00:55:34 - [373] - Quote Time to add my two cents... I find it absolutely hilarious how many people are going on and on about the drop mechanic of SMA's / SMB's and about making this an unappetizing target for gankers and what not. Here's what you really need to be paying attention to - kill mails and how much ISK was destroyed. The second the Bowhead starts flying, be it in high sec, low sec or null sec, the hunt will be on. People were blapping the Barghest just for the hell of it due to how damn expensive the hull was when it came out and the Bowhead will be no different. In fact, the Bowhead will be an even bigger target because who knows what kind of treasure it might hold for the killboards to gawk at. As for the whole Titan Bridge blah blah blah, considering the insane amount of espionage that occurs in this game, BLOPS fleets will be out in force hunting for these the second the intel channels say one is on the move. In case y'all were not paying attention, RvB Ganked just did a HIGH SEC GANK roam. Just for the freakin' hell of it. There are public BLOPS fleets looking for nice juicy targets running every day. The Bowhead will quite literally be the great white whale and every PVP'er that cares more about how much ISK they destroy than what loot they gather will be going the full Ahab. That being said, CCP, if you want people to actually fly these things, make them align faster with more bump resistance. No one cares about top speed for survivability, it's all about how quickly they can get into warp. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Doritos God Legend Perkone Caldari State 6	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:01:30 - [374] - Quote I don't understand why this ship wasn't placed as a Transport IV-V ship. Instead you are adding an entirely new skill just for one ship.
Kristian Hackett Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time Solyaris Chtonium 36	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:03:17 - [375] - Quote Doritos God Legend wrote: I don't understand why this ship wasn't placed as a Transport IV-V ship. Instead you are adding an entirely new skill just for one ship. Not really. This thing is right in the skillchain my Noctis/Orca/Freighter alt is training. Aircraft Maintenance - Using a high school diploma to fix what a college degree just f**ed up. "Life is too short to drink cheap beer."*
Marsan 249	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:04:56 - [376] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Up until this point I was thinking the EHP wasn't that bad, but now it make no sense for your intended user base. The average incursion runners ship is at it's lowest 500M, but more often 2-3x that. Once a freighter gets over the magic profit to loss ratio around 1B it's a major gank target. The only thing that was keeping this from happening was that there was no loot to be had. Now I'm sure someone could strip fittings and web the tug, but then you might as well fly the ships over yourself. In my experience most incursion runners have at least one shield and one armor BS or a pair of logis and a BS their ship value is going to be to high. On the other hand I still love this ship personally. I'm not an incursion runner and I every time I relocate I have to move a bunch of ships around. (PVE, Hauling, PVP, Exploration, Mining...) Given I don't tend to bling my ships I'm not worth ganking. Not PVP in that I'm going to blow up your ship sense, but more in the running away or making you run away sense. Fitting a point is for people who care about their killboard. ** For meetings where I'm dialed in from home. Also it's easier to sell modules than looted blueprint copies and minerals. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:06:32 - [377] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: I gotta say, that name is really bad. As opposed to sayGÇª "Humpback", "Minke" or "Sperm"? Yeah, Bowhead is just fine. Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale. Bowhead sounds like someone saying Towelface. It's like two words who never should have been together had a "thing" at EVE Vegas and now have to live with the consequences.
Marsan 249	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:10:04 - [378] - Quote 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. Honestly I put time to warp and time to align before either. Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.
Ele Rebellion Underground Coalition 31	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:24:15 - [379] - Quote Roughly 1.6M m3 at level 5 skills. Packaged Thanatos 1.3M m3. Has this been taken into consideration?
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 189	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:27:34 - [380] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: Roughly 1.6M m3 at level 5 skills. Packaged Thanatos 1.3M m3. Has this been taken into consideration? Yes, because you can't put packaged ships into a ship maintenance bay...

Masao Kurata Z List 132	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:30:18 - [381] - Quote People keep saying 1b ISK as the magic threshold for freighters like a mantra as if a) this ship has freighter EHP (it doesn't, it has a lot more) and b) as if freighter EHP hasn't ever changed (it got increased a lot in Kronos) c) this ship has freighter mobility (it has mobility more like an orca with one mwd cycle to get into warp). Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3909	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:31:35 - [382] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale. (insert) Humpback joke here. With that name, it could potentially even rival the Nestor for notorietyGÇª As much as I like Narwhal, being predatory in nature it doesn't really fit with the intent for this particular ship. Now an ORE AMC (armed merchant cruiser) called the Narwhal - totally down for that. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Paranoid Loyd 2566	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:37:36 - [383] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear. Been looking for a new sig, thank you sir. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5556	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:47:12 - [384] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: I gotta say, that name is really bad. As opposed to sayGÇª "Humpback", "Minke" or "Sperm"? Yeah, Bowhead is just fine. Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale. Bowhead sounds like someone saying Towelface. It's like two words who never should have been together had a "thing" at EVE Vegas and now have to live with the consequences. The bow of a ship is the front. Thus a whale with a head that looks like the front of a ship certainly deserves the name "bowhead", especially when that head is used to break through layers of ice up to 60cm thick. So not "bow" the stringed arrow-launcher, but bow the front of a ship (or bow, the action performed in formal greetings or acceptance of applause) Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 519	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:52:23 - [385] - Quote These kinds of ships, incl. freighters and JFs, should be gankable by a BS or BC gang, but not by a mob of cheap dessies or cruisers (which has become too common these days). Any chance that the generally-useless TSB module can be "fixed" to have some value in this role, particularly on this new ship?
Enya Sparhawk Black Tea and Talons 23	Posted - 2014.11.11 01:54:00 - [386] - Quote What I want to know is... How can I turn this into a carrier? Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne Déan gáire...Tiocfaidh ár lá
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:06:04 - [387] - Quote Querns wrote: No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. I can assure you that I'm doing no such thing, just the same as I can assure you that carriers were not nerfed because of their combat ability (or as you stated previously their tank...) I am more than willing to consider your statement if it were at all factual or relevant. all combat ships travel distance was nerfed, not just carriers, Jump freighters were not nerfed as hard because CCP stated that while the JFs were not where they wanted them to be, they were where they needed to be in relation to the current industry in null/low sec. Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them. you can start here 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 S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:10:17 - [388] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Querns wrote: That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. Well said! Whatever that actually means. rofl... my thought exactly 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.
Gogela Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance 3259	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:15:09 - [389] - Quote I like it. Pretty useful ship imho... sure does make it a lot easier to go on away missions if you typically operate from a central hub. I'd gripe for more hanger space, but I think for the individual pod this is a pretty handy ship. ...sort of a mobile mini base. Wouldn't it be cool if it could fit a clone bay?
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1259	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:15:46 - [390] - Quote Celly S wrote: Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them. Do you understand that jump freighters, which already are in the game, can move more ships then a bowhead? Adding a T2 version of the bowhead would not drastically change the game, it just gives low/null players the option to move ships with freighters without being forced to repackage them. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:20:43 - [391] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: No matter how loudly you yell with your fingers plugging your ears, you can't drown out the fact that carriers have significant combat ability, and it is that ability that lead to its restricted state. That you are unwilling to consider this fact is completely immaterial to reality. I can assure you that I'm doing no such thing, just the same as I can assure you that carriers were not nerfed because of their combat ability (or as you stated previously their tank...) I am more than willing to consider your statement if it were at all factual or relevant. all combat ships travel distance was nerfed, not just carriers, Jump freighters were not nerfed as hard because CCP stated that while the JFs were not where they wanted them to be, they were where they needed to be in relation to the current industry in null/low sec. Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them. you can start here o/ Celly Smunt. Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Rautha Harkonnen Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:29:01 - [392] - Quote Totally unnecessary addition to the game. May as well just save up for a freighter. Sigh, Another ganked to hell ship for marmite to drool over. Its ORE. Evrything ORE should be mining related entirely. Bring an 8 strip mining mega barge to the game. Make miners feel like industry gods. Lol Anyway if a bowhead is gunna be in game wheres arrowhead for pvp players looool
Spc One The Chodak Void Alliance 228	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:31:29 - [393] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 I think this is low EHP, even with modules, it will be very easy to gank. So if someone puts 2 t-1 battleships in there and both drop, gankers can make some pretty nice isk.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:32:15 - [394] - Quote dexington wrote: Celly S wrote: Please try to get some real information about the points you wish to make before attempting to make them. Do you understand that jump freighters, which already are in the game, can move more ships then a bowhead? Adding a T2 version of the bowhead would not drastically change the game, it just gives low/null players the option to move ships with freighters without being forced to repackage them. I u8nderstand that.. what I'm saying is that there's already a ship in low and null to move assembled ships, and CCP has stated this new ship is to primarily be a high sec ship, so no jump drive needed. 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 S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:34:20 - [395] - Quote Querns wrote: Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim. you're right, I evidently need to link you to the threadnaught that preceded that thread that has CCP's own statements about force projection... give me a bit and I will 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 75	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:55:05 - [396] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: also the cargo should be closer to 10k not 5k.... or give it another bay for ammo that way mods and parts in the cargo bay... and ammo in the ammo bay Ammo can be stored inside assembled ship in the ship hangar.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 02:55:19 - [397] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: Nowhere in your link was provided any evidence to support your claim. you're right, I evidently need to link you to the threadnaught that preceded that thread that has CCP's own statements about force projection... give me a bit and I will https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=376666 here you go... also, I really <3 this one https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5182521#post5182521 LMAo have fun o/ Celly Smunt Once again, you've failed to provide any evidence that the carrier's inclusion into the default fatigue ship set was due to its SMA. Or, really, for any factor at all. I enjoy onanism as much as the next Eve player, but do try to keep it on topic. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:16:27 - [398] - Quote Querns wrote: Once again, you've failed to provide any evidence that the carrier's inclusion into the default fatigue ship set was due to its SMA. Or, really, for any factor at all. I enjoy onanism as much as the next Eve player, but do try to keep it on topic. I never said it was nerfed because of its SMA, please don't put words in my mouth. you stated it was nerfed because of it's tank, then you said it was due to it's combat abilities, neither one of which were true, but neither one of which had even one iota of relevance to my statement that there were already jump capable ships in low and null that could move assembled ships. my comment was based in fact and your statements as to the reason carriers were nerfed are not, I SAID that force projection is the reason for the nerfs CCP implemented recently (that IS in the links i provided, and that does in fact back up what I said in reply to your erroneous assertions, not what you're now claiming I said), now, If a player wishes to continue to use their ships in the manner they did previously, there is a jump timer and fatigue consequence they have to pay... again, if you are going to make a point.... so, I will state again that asking for one of these new ships to have a jump drive is basically asking for an un nerfed carrier since there's no reason to have that aside from circumvention of the recently changed mechanics... I hope that's clearer for you 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.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:20:32 - [399] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: I gotta say, that name is really bad. As opposed to sayGÇª "Humpback", "Minke" or "Sperm"? Yeah, Bowhead is just fine. Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale. Bowhead sounds like someone saying Towelface. It's like two words who never should have been together had a "thing" at EVE Vegas and now have to live with the consequences. The bow of a ship is the front. Thus a whale with a head that looks like the front of a ship certainly deserves the name "bowhead", especially when that head is used to break through layers of ice up to 60cm thick. So not "bow" the stringed arrow-launcher, but bow the front of a ship (or bow, the action performed in formal greetings or acceptance of applause) That is correct, the front of the ship is called the Bow. It still sounds silly. May as well call it Flipperside. Or Tailend. Or Bellybottom. Actually, bellybottom sounds kinda cool.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:21:30 - [400] - Quote Dear CCP Rise: Here's a few thoughts I've had on this fantastic ship. Now that we have a ship dedicated to moving ships around, Do you think it's time to address the plastic wrapped ship exploit? There is a TON of debate going on around the jump fatigue bonus on this ship, I'm of the belief that it warrants a reasonable amount of internal and possible external discussion if for nothing more than to demonstrate your commitment to improving the status quo in terms of force projection. Convince us that you care and that you took the time to make a good decision on the matter. Being this ships role is to move ships from point A to point B, perhaps giving it a "Deployed" state (which uses fuel and provides bonuses to defense) if you wish to interact with any of the ships in the hangar. This would force players using this asset to deploy ships to a fight to commit this ship in the same way Marauders, Dreadnaughts, Rorquals, etc get committed to their advantages. This would also give the Bowhead a means of hunkering down to endure a gank attempt. Get more bang for your developmental buck by giving us an ore (Ice, Ore, etc..) hauling variant. It's makes complete sense lore wise, It gives more value to training the skill that's only used for this one ship. You've already made the model, make a small variation and twice the mileage for the money invested in the development of the asset. A more advanced concepts would be to give the bowhead an interchangeable core, One for larger ship hangar, One for Defense (Think deployable state from above) and one for hauling ore. Just some food for thought. I fully expect some people to praise and others to rage and flame over these ideas, I don't care as long as people are discussing them :)

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:23:16 - [401] - Quote Celly S wrote: I never said it was nerfed because of its SMA, please don't put words in my mouth. you stated it was nerfed because of it's tank, then you said it was due to it's combat abilities, neither one of which were true, but neither one of which had even one iota of relevance to my statement that there were already jump capable ships in low and null that could move assembled ships. my comment was based in fact and your statements as to the reason carriers were nerfed are not, I SAID that force projection is the reason for the nerfs CCP implemented recently (that IS in the links i provided, and that does in fact back up what I said in reply to your erroneous assertions, not what you're now claiming I said), now, If a player wishes to continue to use their ships in the manner they did previously, there is a jump timer and fatigue consequence they have to pay... again, if you are going to make a point.... so, I will state again that asking for one of these new ships to have a jump drive is basically asking for an un nerfed carrier since there's no reason to have that aside from circumvention of the recently changed mechanics... I hope that's clearer for you o/ Celly Smunt Uhhh Celly S wrote: Gully Alex Foyle wrote: A jump drive would be nice. No, we already have ship haulers with jump drives, they're called carriers... (not trying to be an ass, but seriously, we have that already and CCP just nerfed them cause they were too easy) and BTW, not just no, but Hell NO!!!!! wink o7 Celly Smunt Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: That is a gross misrepresentation of the restriction carriers received. They were restricted due to their superlative tank and damage application to subcaps, not their SMA. no it is not part of the reason carriers (like all other combat capitals) were nerfed was due to the ability to travel across long distances in a matter of minutes and carriers can haul combat ships as well, if your statement was correct, CCP would have nerfed their tank and NOT their travel ability. if you're asking for this new ship to have a jump drive and the 90% reduction in fatigue, then you're asking for an un-nerfed carrier, no matter how you try to make it seem otherwise. I appreciate the reply, but stand by my original comment, if you want something to haul ships in that has a jump drive, you already have one, it' is called a carrier. o/ Celly Smunt How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 392	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:24:48 - [402] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? Going faster... You get that each time Aura says "Skill training completed". Duh. In all seriousness, I would rather this be an HP bonus, considering where the HP totals are to begin with.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:26:01 - [403] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: There is a TON of debate going on around the jump fatigue bonus on this ship, Not really. It's one or two posters having a conniption over a thing they don't understand, and one lone, strapping forums hero disassembling their fits with surgical precision. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 328	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:33:56 - [404] - Quote Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection (whether they carried smaller combat ships or not to the destination) a ship with a jump drive that can haul assembled ships exists already, it is called a carrier.. I have stayed true to my point throughout this discussion . 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.
Arielle Silverwing River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance 4	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:39:54 - [405] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection (whether they carried smaller combat ships or not to the destination) a ship with a jump drive that can haul assembled ships exists already, it is called a carrier.. I have stayed true to my point throughout this discussion . o/ Celly Smunt he is clearly trolling you girl.. just ignore him A.S.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 03:59:14 - [406] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection So anything that is easy to travel to travel (:allears:) is now force projection? Why, then, are you not calling for the nerfing of the Interceptor? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Mina Sebiestar Mactabilis Simplex Cursus 754	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:06:49 - [407] - Quote Looking nice. As battleship carrier i hope it will be bigish,can it launch ships or just transport?
Jaro Essa Dahkur Forge 13	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:07:05 - [408] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Get more bang for your developmental buck by giving us an ore (Ice, Ore, etc..) hauling variant. Miasmos, Orca, Rorqual. Or compress and put it in any hauler. Plenty of choice already. Let the Bowhead do as it was designed to do, fill a niche that 's not already occupied.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:11:00 - [409] - Quote Jaro Essa wrote: Miasmos, Orca, Rorqual. Or compress and put it in any hauler. Plenty of choice already. Let the Bowhead do as it was designed to do, fill a niche that 's not already occupied. There is a niche for a large scale ore hauler as evidenced by all the freighters seen in high sec Ice belts. As someone who's regularly ran 8+ accounts at once all mining into an Orca, and then passing into a freighter, I would welcome a freighter that felt less out of place in a belt occupied by ORE ships! ORE master race.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 329	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:16:29 - [410] - Quote Querns wrote: Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection So anything that is easy to travel to travel (:allears:) is now force projection? Why, then, are you not calling for the nerfing of the Interceptor? my bad, I didn't realize that an interceptor had a jump drive and could haul assembled ships o/ Celly Smunt PS. when you decide to stop trolling and want to have a serious discussion as to whether my statement that "there are already ships with jump drives and the ability to haul assembled ships in low and null" is correct or not, I'll be happy to continue this discussion and even show you the ship's pictures and stats, but as long as you're going to act as though you have no ability to read and understand, then I won't allow you to waste any more of my time. Thanks for the replies though, they have been good for a round (or two) of laughs on comms... 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 S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 329	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:18:15 - [411] - Quote Arielle Silverwing wrote: Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection (whether they carried smaller combat ships or not to the destination) a ship with a jump drive that can haul assembled ships exists already, it is called a carrier.. I have stayed true to my point throughout this discussion . o/ Celly Smunt he is clearly trolling you girl.. just ignore him A.S. I was hoping you were mistaken, but I guess you're right. hugz 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:22:20 - [412] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: How many more petards can you hoist yourself upon? i've hoisted myself upon none; easy = easy to travel to travel = force projection So anything that is easy to travel to travel (:allears:) is now force projection? Why, then, are you not calling for the nerfing of the Interceptor? my bad, I didn't realize that an interceptor had a jump drive and could haul assembled ships It needs neither, as it's faster than anything with a jump drive and jump freighters exist to move things far faster than a carrier can. You're so fixated on the carrier's SMA that you are blind to its other, more powerful attributes. The carrier SMA just isn't that good. Get over it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:45:11 - [413] - Quote Also, if I truly was a troll, I'd report your name for obscenity. In fact, I might just do that anyways. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Masao Kurata Z List 132	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:47:16 - [414] - Quote Spc One wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 I think this is low EHP, even with modules, it will be very easy to gank. Over 400k. Do people not realise how ridiculously well hull tanking scales with slots? A damage control multiplies hull EHP by 2.5 and every module and rig after that multiplies it by 1.25 with no stacking penalty. The growth is exponential with slots which is why one extra low compared to the orca is so significant on this ship, and unlike the orca there is no tradeoff to be made between cargo and tank. The only remotely reasonable thing to fit instead of hull tank is warp speed, which is just as greedy a choice.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1988	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:52:51 - [415] - Quote yay! \o/ p.s. huuuuge tank is huuuuge. does not need buff. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13838	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:55:26 - [416] - Quote I assume this can use titan bridges? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Unezka Turigahl Det Som Engang Var 426	Posted - 2014.11.11 04:57:25 - [417] - Quote More EHP would be nice. But even more so if it was shield tanked rather than hull. Give it high and even innate shield resists so that logistics are more effective at repping it. If squads of logistics have a high chance at keeping it alive under gank attack then maybe incursion runners will use it.
Ele Rebellion Underground Coalition 31	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:01:34 - [418] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: Humpback is way better than Bowhead. Then there's also Narwhal. That's a whale. (insert) Humpback joke here. With that name, it could potentially even rival the Nestor for notorietyGÇª As much as I like Narwhal, being predatory in nature it doesn't really fit with the intent for this particular ship. Now an ORE AMC (armed merchant cruiser) called the Narwhal - totally down for that. I would assume that CCP is actually naming this ship after a whale since they 'want' it to get slaughtered. Particularly a whale that was considered 'ideal' or whaling in the early 17th century due to its similarities to the Right whale: slow-moving and float after death. CCP is an Icelandic based company and Icelanders apparently don't like whales. They are one of only three countries that commercially whale despite the 1983 IWC ban on commercial whaling. (Though I will note that the Faroe Islands aren't considered one of the three countries that still commercially whale, since they brutally slaughter hundreds of whales a year for sport..) Though surprised that they didn't name it after the endangered Fin whales or Minke whales that Iceland is known for killing now days (maybe because they aren't as slow and easy a target as the Bowhead).
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 259	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:11:06 - [419] - Quote Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. Also need an agility buff to avoid the bumpers, otherwise can be pinned indefinitely and hit by waves of gankers. Unless this ship is reasonably safe, incursion runners won't use it.
Masao Kurata Z List 132	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:15:01 - [420] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. Also need an agility buff to avoid the bumpers, otherwise can be pinned indefinitely and hit by waves of gankers. Unless this ship is reasonably safe, incursion runners won't use it. You got over 80% of that EHP already, better agility than freighters and single mwd cycle warping, now shut up.

Arthur Aihaken X A X 3910	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:27:56 - [421] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: I would assume that CCP is actually naming this ship after a whale since they 'want' it to get slaughtered. Hehe, yeah - there could certainly be a hidden inference hereGÇª I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 984	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:44:02 - [422] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. Also need an agility buff to avoid the bumpers, otherwise can be pinned indefinitely and hit by waves of gankers. Unless this ship is reasonably safe, incursion runners won't use it. Sounds like you need to use escort fleets. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1988	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:51:10 - [423] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. I missed the memo where JF's were supposed to be immortal... EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 259	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:51:28 - [424] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. Also need an agility buff to avoid the bumpers, otherwise can be pinned indefinitely and hit by waves of gankers. Unless this ship is reasonably safe, incursion runners won't use it. Sounds like you need to use escort fleets. 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.
Syri Taneka NOVA-CAINE 111	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:51:50 - [425] - Quote Querns wrote: Jadeheart wrote: Guys, I'm just another dumbass redneck indy pilot that knows ****. Can someone explain why we need a ore hauler? It's a ship created by Outer Ring Excavations (ORE), not a hauler of raw asteroid material (ore.) Or, in case I read that wrong, it's because sometimes it is nice to be able to move more than one fitted ship at once. Carrier havers have been able to do this for years; tugs bring the ability to do it without the lengthy carrier skill investment, as well as the ability to do it in highsec. More to the point, because CCP likes to release ships under Faction banners when they are not getting different variants for each race (in which case they would be part of the races' ship navies).
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13838	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:53:50 - [426] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Idea is great, but the tank is far too small, 500k ehp minimum to account for the gankers these days. Even JFs are getting blown up. Also need an agility buff to avoid the bumpers, otherwise can be pinned indefinitely and hit by waves of gankers. Unless this ship is reasonably safe, incursion runners won't use it. Sounds like you need to use escort fleets. 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. Use a fleet to counter the actions of a fleet. I'll be making very heavy use of this ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 259	Posted - 2014.11.11 05:58:32 - [427] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Use a fleet to counter the actions of a fleet. I'll be making very heavy use of this ship. 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.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:04:21 - [428] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Use a fleet to counter the actions of a fleet. I'll be making very heavy use of this ship. Doesn't make any sense. You're missing the joke.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13838	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:11:57 - [429] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Use a fleet to counter the actions of a fleet. I'll be making very heavy use of this ship. 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. Ill be sticking multi billion isk ships in this thing through null space. Grow a spine and get a few buddies in logi ships to protect this tactical asset. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Pen Ris Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:14:18 - [430] - 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. Thanks Rise; three t2 BS seems reasonable and an agility bonus will make the skills more valuable than the speed.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13838	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:21:28 - [431] - Quote Pen Ris wrote: 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. Thanks Rise; three t2 BS seems reasonable and an agility bonus will make the skills more valuable than the speed. Speed would help when it comes to burning out of bubbles and agility makes it less vulnerable on a gate. Either is nice to have. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7137	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:23:43 - [432] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Bertucio wrote: Dave Stark wrote: [quote] isk is not a balancing factor. and nor will it ever be, because that's ********. You're not making a lick of sense now, other than an irrational insistence you have to be right. Of course ISK makes a difference and determines the risk. i didn't say it didn't. try reading my post. try making sense other than pulling whatever you can out of your butt let me make it simple for you. isk, money, the thing you use to purchase things. will NEVER be used as a factor when it comes to balancing. you know, the relative power of one ship compared to another.
Xindi Kraid Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 805	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:27:21 - [433] - Quote Maddaxe Illat wrote: I love it but a ORE Freighter for ship not ore? 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?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:31:01 - [434] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: What's the deal with the name? Bowhead sounds odd, why not something like Bowsprit instead? Because Whale Names Orca = Whale Bowhead = Whale Rorqual = Class of whale I predict Leviathan will be the ORE titan :D oh wait... lol
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1536	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:31:54 - [435] - Quote I like the name. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13838	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:33:29 - [436] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Maddaxe Illat wrote: I love it but a ORE Freighter for ship not ore? 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? Its a whale. If it lands in bubbles it becomes a beached whale. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Xindi Kraid Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 805	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:34:47 - [437] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: What's the deal with the name? Bowhead sounds odd, why not something like Bowsprit instead? Because Whale Names Orca = Whale Bowhead = Whale Rorqual = Class of whale I predict Leviathan will be the ORE titan :D oh wait... lol Didn't realize that was a type of whale. My second suggestion for name was actually Narwhal, though I don't believe that's actually a whale. Maybe Humpback?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:37:16 - [438] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Didn't realize that was a type of whale. My second suggestion for name was actually Narwhal, though I don't believe that's actually a whale. Maybe Humpback? It is a whale, But I think that name is better reserved for if ORE ever makes a combat vessel. Bowhead while not as awesome of a name as Narwhal, It's far more appropriate and fitting for the Bowhead's purpose and scale.
Crazy Renegade Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:39:14 - [439] - Quote The layout looks good, but I hope you add 1 or 2 high slots . I like cloaks on my freighters. Any ship that can not defend its self with weapons should at least be able to use passive defenses or the ability to hide. A side from defender missiles, freighters shouldn't be well armed. They aren't meant for combat. FLAME ON!!!!
Crazy Renegade Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:42:39 - [440] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? It means it will be able to out run a orca. CCP doesn't want us to think they created a new "slow".

Xindi Kraid Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 805	Posted - 2014.11.11 06:48:10 - [441] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: But I think that name is better reserved for if ORE ever makes a combat vessel. Bear in mind that Orcas hunt for their food, and are more commonly known as Killer Whales and the name is attached to a general purpose mobile high sec mining base. I'm just thinking the current name sounds uninspired. Orca is neat and even if I don't know what a Rorqual is, it sounds cool enough. Bowhead is just blegh, but whatever. Crazy Renegade wrote: The layout looks good, but I hope you add 1 or 2 high slots . I like cloaks on my freighters. Any ship that can not defend its self with weapons should at least be able to use passive defenses or the ability to hide. A side from defender missiles, freighters shouldn't be well armed. They aren't meant for combat. FLAME ON!!!! How can you like cloaks on your freighters if freighters don't have cloaks? Offensive slots on most industrials is something of a joke. Sure there is the case of the battle badger, but for the most part it's a token defense that doesn't do anything. I don't think being able to cloak would really help the situation much anyways, though I admit being able to hide a ship maintainence array in a hostile system for reshipping could be interesting gameplay. I should not it does have slots for passive defense.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 412	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:03:29 - [442] - Quote Zappity wrote: I think it needs more tank. Freighter loads top out at about 1b max for gank efficiency so this would be no different. I don't think 1b is high enough for this ship considering the cargo. You want the cutoff to be blingy mission fits, not a couple of standard fits. I typically carry around just over a bil in an Orca but wouldn't go higher. Why would I use this instead apart from the battleship size? 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. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13839	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:15:37 - [443] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Zappity wrote: I think it needs more tank. Freighter loads top out at about 1b max for gank efficiency so this would be no different. I don't think 1b is high enough for this ship considering the cargo. You want the cutoff to be blingy mission fits, not a couple of standard fits. I typically carry around just over a bil in an Orca but wouldn't go higher. Why would I use this instead apart from the battleship size? 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. Dont forget that vast donations pot. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3466	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:16:32 - [444] - Quote Removed some off topic posts. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Alfred Nobel Jr The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:26:43 - [445] - Quote 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13839	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:29:04 - [446] - Quote Alfred Nobel Jr wrote: 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 No. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front 565	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:29:37 - [447] - Quote I have a really important question...... How is Bowhead pronounced? Is it "Bo-head" as in a "bow and arrow"? Or is it Bow-head" as in "a ships bow"?
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5557	Posted - 2014.11.11 07:41:53 - [448] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: I have a really important question...... How is Bowhead pronounced? Is it "Bo-head" as in a "bow and arrow"? Or is it Bow-head" as in "a ships bow"? I thought I knew the answer, but part of the description is that it has a very bowed lower jaw. Thus bo-head. So I'm now confused, with no pronunciation guide on Wikipedia to help me! The dictionary on my computer says "bowhead \|-êb+ì-îhed\|" (bo-head). Day 0 Advice for New Players
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 488	Posted - 2014.11.11 08:32:15 - [449] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls Does insurance pay out for a hull lost in the hold of another ship? As I understand it, mods can't been seen on ships in these bays, so that is a bit moot. _________________ I'm telling you, the way you "fix" these is make them unscannable and leave the EHP alone. Want to gank it? Fine, pay your money and take your chances.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3911	Posted - 2014.11.11 08:38:33 - [450] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: Orca is neat and even if I don't know what a Rorqual is, it sounds cool enough. 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. Mara Rinn wrote: The dictionary on my computer says "bowhead \|-êb+ì-îhed\|" (bo-head). Pretty sure it's "bo-head", as in "bone-headed" (a testament to CCP Rise). Ah, here we go. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13841	Posted - 2014.11.11 08:44:23 - [451] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: Orca is neat and even if I don't know what a Rorqual is, it sounds cool enough. 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. Mara Rinn wrote: The dictionary on my computer says "bowhead \|-êb+ì-îhed\|" (bo-head). Pretty sure it's "bo-head", as in "bone-headed" (a testament to CCP Rise). Ah, here we go. ECM. They gave it several mids so you can run away when found Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3911	Posted - 2014.11.11 09:00:52 - [452] - Quote baltec1 wrote: ECM. They gave it several mids so you can run away when found What about letting it run a Target Breaker module? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arcos Vandymion White Beast Inc. 81	Posted - 2014.11.11 09:31:52 - [453] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: Orca is neat and even if I don't know what a Rorqual is, it sounds cool enough. 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. Mara Rinn wrote: The dictionary on my computer says "bowhead \|-êb+ì-îhed\|" (bo-head). Pretty sure it's "bo-head", as in "bone-head" (a testament to CCP Rise). Ah, here we go. Humpback?
Tycho VI Nanashi no Geemu FOX.HOUND 4	Posted - 2014.11.11 09:33:46 - [454] - Quote It would be cool if you did this but just made 4 racial variants....They would keep the same model as the carrier but with new skin (example: Thanatos Interzone Shipping skin)...skins that made it look like it is a refurbished ship for commerce. Please make them very hard to gank
Ragnarok Knight ROGUE - DRONES 33	Posted - 2014.11.11 09:51:25 - [455] - Quote Need 1 high slot for cloak / probes. Needs agility instead of max speed bonus.
GaiusIuliusCaesar Das zweite Konglomerat The Initiative. 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:00:49 - [456] - Quote Hmm, maybe I missed something. This Ship can jump, right? So what about the max. jump range. More than 5LY, like JF? If restricted to 5LY it basically is useless for HS to 0.0 haulage which would be very handy imho. In the past bringing rigged ships to 0.0 could be done with a carrier but that's basically not possible anymore, at least for regions like Curse where 5LY is not enough to get from low sec to an 0.0 entry system.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:08:07 - [457] - Quote GaiusIuliusCaesar wrote: Hmm, maybe I missed something. You missed the part where this ship has no jump drive.
Shivaja CHON THE R0NIN 15	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:16:05 - [458] - Quote Primary role of this ship : Give sucide gankers in Hi sec more targets to shoot at and chance to inflict more isk damage.
Kenhi sama Project Stealth Squad The Initiative. 7	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:20:30 - [459] - Quote mhh I really looked foward to this when I heard about it but the cargo is really not what I expected ... you allready can put two battleships in a normal freighter via contract ... and now only one more with decent skills, this does not sound reasonable to me at all. And I dont like the Idea of needing a new skill for every single Item you add to the game. Needing one skill only for one single items only adds some fake-complexety ... maybe you are in a urgend need of adding money sinks to the game ;-)
Unezka Turigahl Det Som Engang Var 426	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:22:52 - [460] - Quote I hope ORE makes a really derpy looking ship named Beluga one day.

Steppa Musana Republic University Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 10:47:33 - [461] - Quote The max velocity bonus is a bit silly but the rest looks great +1
aky chikuma valkyrie's 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:23:00 - [462] - Quote looks better than i thought it would, will fit 3 battle ships in the hold, maybe a cruiser too with good skills, and if my estimate is right, ull get around 200k ehp on the hull with 2 bulkheads a dcu and 2 hull hp rigs t2, even more if u get a 3rd in there, it even has the powergrid to fit a 100nm MWD in there so u can use the MWD trick to get into warp, that's not even counting how skills will affect it. also im 60% sure the fitted ships are scan-able when in the maintenance array so just move the hulls not the mods, 2 battleships should be safe to move once ganker stop ganking the "new thing" . so +1 to the new ship ^^ (>'.')> @ COOKIE!!! .......-á(>'@'<)-á-á OM NOM NOM NOM!!!
Arden Elenduil Unlimited Ripoff Works 193	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:25:48 - [463] - Quote You seriously don't need more ehp on this ship tbh. If you're that worried, have an alt or a friend web you into warp. It makes you near unscannable and ungankable (and gankers always go for the easier pickings, of which there are plenty). That said, at the moment ship fitting cannot be scanned, so they'll have to base themselves on the value of the ships only. Stop trying to whine to CCP in order to make them give you things and instead use your bloody heads and think for a change.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1119	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:31:24 - [464] - 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. When balancing EHP on this ship, please keep in mind that the cargohold reduction from bulkheads does not affect this in any meaningful way. Unlike freighters and orcas, there is no reason this ship should eve have expanded cargoholds, so any base ehp increase will be multiplied by 3x adaptive invul fields and DCU2 + 2 bulkheads + 3 t2 bulkhead rigs in almost every case. I could understand arguments for higher than 300K ehp, but if you are breaking 400K, other drawbacks should be considered, either in a SMB reduction on bulkheads, or a price for this ship putting it in a similar range to jump freighters. 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
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 488	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:33:03 - [465] - Quote Arden Elenduil wrote: You seriously don't need more ehp on this ship tbh. If you're that worried, have an alt or a friend web you into warp. It makes you near unscannable and ungankable (and gankers always go for the easier pickings, of which there are plenty). That said, at the moment ship fitting cannot be scanned, so they'll have to base themselves on the value of the ships only. Stop trying to whine to CCP in order to make them give you things and instead use your bloody heads and think for a change. I'm usually all for helping/alts/escorts but no-one has yet come up with a reason when you have those pilots on hand - to not simply fly your own ships about. Why stuff it into a vulnerable slow warping ship at all? If you have the numbers, you're faster flying the stuff you're transporting - unless it is small stuff - in which case the cargo value plummets anyway so it's irrelevant, mostly.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1119	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:43:18 - [466] - Quote Vulfen wrote: I'm a little disappointed in the size of the bay. This ship has a bay that is just too small to fit 3 of the largest battleships (Machariel) CCP please can you consider giving it that level of space in the bay. This ship has interesting implementations and i am impressed with everything else on it i just think that maybe that value needs to be looked at a little. Thanks Vulfen I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. 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
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24675	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:51:28 - [467] - Quote BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. How about a max hold of 1,985,000m-¦ GÇö that way you get the three Machs and your choice of blockade runner so you can quickly go back and pick up the expensive modules in a separate trip? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1119	Posted - 2014.11.11 11:52:58 - [468] - Quote Tippia wrote: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. How about a max hold of 1,985,000m-¦ GÇö that way you get the three Machs and your choice of blockade runner so you can quickly go back and pick up the expensive modules in a separate trip? meh, doesn't affect me, just means bigger killmails! 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
Odithia Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 70	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:07:17 - [469] - Quote Tippia wrote: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. How about a max hold of 1,985,000m-¦ GÇö that way you get the three Machs and your choice of blockade runner so you can quickly go back and pick up the expensive modules in a separate trip? 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.
Dave Stark 7138	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:15:28 - [470] - Quote Odithia wrote: Tippia wrote: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. How about a max hold of 1,985,000m-¦ GÇö that way you get the three Machs and your choice of blockade runner so you can quickly go back and pick up the expensive modules in a separate trip? 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. TIL: 400k ehp is paper thin.

Ridgerunner21 Seeds Of Entropy 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:33:18 - [471] - Quote I really can't say anything more than Quote: I WANT IT And now; back to our regularly scheduled program.
Jedediah Arndtz Warner Bros. 31	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:37:01 - [472] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: yeah except this ship already has ~400k ehp, it's already equalling the orca's ehp. there's literally no justification for more ehp than "i want to mindlessly overload my cargo with no negative repercussions for my stupidity". CCP Rise wrote: I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP Not to mention the orca can only realistically fit cruisers or a bc and 1-2 cruisers, not battleships.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1120	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:38:10 - [473] - Quote Odithia wrote: Tippia wrote: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: I happen to agree with this. Three machariels come out to 1,785,000, so it would be nice if this ship could hit 1.8m m3 with maxed skills. Its really hard to justify using this instead of making two trips. Perhaps a base cargo of 1,200,000m3 with a 10% capacity per level bonus on the skill would be better. How about a max hold of 1,985,000m-¦ GÇö that way you get the three Machs and your choice of blockade runner so you can quickly go back and pick up the expensive modules in a separate trip? 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. The point isn't that its a good idea, the point is that the option should be there. Also, at 350K ehp with 100mn MWD, this is far safer than any t1 freighter. 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
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 329	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:39:13 - [474] - Quote Querns wrote: Also, if I truly was a troll, I'd report your name for obscenity. In fact, I might just do that anyways. please do oh wait, someone else who couldn't come up with a valid counter to one of my statements already did that. LOL 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.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1120	Posted - 2014.11.11 12:55:28 - [475] - Quote Jedediah Arndtz wrote: Dave Stark wrote: yeah except this ship already has ~400k ehp, it's already equalling the orca's ehp. there's literally no justification for more ehp than "i want to mindlessly overload my cargo with no negative repercussions for my stupidity". CCP Rise wrote: I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP Not to mention the orca can only realistically fit cruisers or a bc and 1-2 cruisers, not battleships. Rise was using t1 rigs for his ehp check. 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
Dave Stark 7140	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:02:36 - [476] - Quote BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: Jedediah Arndtz wrote: Dave Stark wrote: yeah except this ship already has ~400k ehp, it's already equalling the orca's ehp. there's literally no justification for more ehp than "i want to mindlessly overload my cargo with no negative repercussions for my stupidity". CCP Rise wrote: I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP Not to mention the orca can only realistically fit cruisers or a bc and 1-2 cruisers, not battleships. Rise was using t1 rigs for his ehp check. which gives us fun fact of the day! i'm lazy and cheap, and my orca has t1 rigs, and 365k ehp. so it basically does equal the orca's ehp, and should hit near 400k with t2 rigs. (and above with implants, links, and other nice things.)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13846	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:06:54 - [477] - Quote Odithia wrote: 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. It has more ehp than the three battleships it will be carrying for me. Im also one of those people who will likely be stuffing faction battleships in it. Its also a tool any logibee would give their sixth leg for. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 989	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:09:19 - [478] - Quote Celly S wrote: please do oh wait, someone else who couldn't come up with a valid counter to one of my statements already did that. Apparently constantly being called out on lack of evidence, moving goalposts, and a systemic lack of understanding of game mechanics counts as having a position with no "valid counter." This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:35:13 - [479] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: RonUSMC wrote: Given: The default configuration does not need to be considered. Since you might be hauling 20B in ships, you will want to officer mod it, so any existing modules can be used. Just web it into warp, people do this all the time with freighters full of goodies and don't get caught because it is actually very very hard to catch them and you never get to scan them in the first place. That doesn't work on regional gates. You can pop the web alt and then bump the freighter. Even a bonused ship like hyena won't always be in range of the freighter. And if it's using 2 navy webs to reach further and you pop it, hell that's a lot of isk killed by a 2mil dessy :)
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:39:39 - [480] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Dave Stark wrote: this, so much. it shouldn't be designed to be unprofitable to gank with 3 marauders/pirate battleships inside it. unprofitable to gank with 3 unfit megathrons? sure, but not 3 unfit vindicators. Sure, it should have enough tank to be unprofitable to gank while carrying unfit megathrons in Niarja. It's role necessitates traveling from one side of hisec to the other. Going through 0.5 systems (like Niarja) is a necessary part of that role, ergo it should have sufficient tank to do the job of carrying the unfit megathrons throughout hisec. It already does, properly fitted this has over 400k EHP while at the same time getting 10s warps with a MWD. I would be very comfortable moving three T2 fitted battleships without an escort with those stats and if you aren't, that sounds like a problem for a psychiatrist. Who cares about time to enter warp with a mwd? If it can't cloak, those 8 secods are enough to be bumped out of alignment until the gank fleet travels from niarja to udeama or the other way around. If you want that MWD to be useful, the ship needs a high slot for a cloak.

Dave Stark 7140	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:41:45 - [481] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Dave Stark wrote: this, so much. it shouldn't be designed to be unprofitable to gank with 3 marauders/pirate battleships inside it. unprofitable to gank with 3 unfit megathrons? sure, but not 3 unfit vindicators. Sure, it should have enough tank to be unprofitable to gank while carrying unfit megathrons in Niarja. It's role necessitates traveling from one side of hisec to the other. Going through 0.5 systems (like Niarja) is a necessary part of that role, ergo it should have sufficient tank to do the job of carrying the unfit megathrons throughout hisec. It already does, properly fitted this has over 400k EHP while at the same time getting 10s warps with a MWD. I would be very comfortable moving three T2 fitted battleships without an escort with those stats and if you aren't, that sounds like a problem for a psychiatrist. Who cares about time to enter warp with a mwd? If it can't cloak, those 8 secods are enough to be bumped out of alignment until the gank fleet travels from niarja to udeama or the other way around. If you want that MWD to be useful, the ship needs a high slot for a cloak. reducing the align time of an orca/freighter to 10 seconds is always useful, even if you can't cloak.
Malou Hashur Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:42:53 - [482] - 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? You've heard of Polarized weapons, yes ? CCP Philosophy -->> If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it and break something else.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:43:52 - [483] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank ... If by "less" you mean "more". The extra low lets you fit an extra bulkhead, giving you almost the same amount of hull while having more shield and armor HP. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:49:49 - [484] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank ... If by "less" you mean "more". The extra low lets you fit an extra bulkhead, giving you almost the same amount of hull while having more shield and armor HP. 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. 3 t2 fitted battleships cost around a billion. A tank of 350k ehp is more than enoughto cover this cargo. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:51:14 - [485] - Quote Malou Hashur wrote: 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? You've heard of Polarized weapons, yes ? You have seen their cost yes? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24676	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:51:25 - [486] - Quote Odithia wrote: Be realistic, considering how paper thin it is, nobody in their right mind will ever use this ship to transport 3 faction BS. Ok, let's be realistic. It is only paper thin if you in every way, utterly and completely ** up the fit by being a ***. If you avoid that, it is among the sturdiest ships you will ever come across in highsec. It will trivially* keep 3 faction BS safe from any kind of profitable ganking, especially if you have the wherewithal to carry the actually valuable parts separately. It is also faster, meaning you are far less exposed to ganks to begin with, should you somehow miraculously fail at not ***** up and not being a ****. Thus: not more HP, but more cargo space is the solution to increasing your transportation safety. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 839	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:53:05 - [487] - Quote Here's an idea. Would it make sense to prevent cargo scanners from scanning this ship (same as the blockade runners). It would be pretty much hit or miss whether you get anything from killing it. Of course te counter argument is that every one of these ships will be gank on site. Yaay!!!!
Dave Stark 7140	Posted - 2014.11.11 13:55:03 - [488] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Here's an idea. Would it make sense to prevent cargo scanners from scanning this ship (same as the blockade runners). It would be pretty much hit or miss whether you get anything from killing it. Of course te counter argument is that every one of these ships will be gank on site. you already have some of this functionality; modules fitted to the ships in the ship bay will not show up on a scan. you could be carrying trillions in officer modules in it, but nobody would know since all they'd see on a scan is a bunch of rifters, merlins and kestrels.
Sentenced 1989 Quantum Anomaly Corporation 118	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:00:59 - [489] - Quote This would work perfectly if fitted ships inside could hold stuff in cargo hold. Bugs the hell out of me when you have ship with example with few modules to refit (like web/sebo/painter) which you keep in cargo hold and then you have to move it out every time you put it ship maintenance and then later search in cargo hold which modules you had for each ship to move them back to ship cargo hold. Same goes for cyno fuel... Any change of it actually being fleet hangar (which has no restrictions) or just making regular ship maintenance arrays behave like fleet hangars? The Incursion Guild QA Combat Analyze Incursion Layout Builder
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:04:34 - [490] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: Warr Akini wrote: 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. Because you've done nothing but nerf Miniluv and highsec ganking for the last year and a half or so. We need more nerfs to ganking in high. Hasn't been nerved nearly enough. Let's be honest here. High sec tanking is extremely profitable. Your group brags constantly about it. Moving the EHP up where suicide ganking this ship with T2 fit battleships inside unprofitable is a good move. I'm sure your group will turn that frown upside down and dry away the tears. yeah except this ship already has ~400k ehp, it's already equalling the orca's ehp. there's literally no justification for more ehp than "i want to mindlessly overload my cargo with no negative repercussions for my stupidity". It carries about 4 times more than Oraca so, it needs 4 times more EHP to keep EHP/cargo ratio

Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 839	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:05:44 - [491] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: Here's an idea. Would it make sense to prevent cargo scanners from scanning this ship (same as the blockade runners). It would be pretty much hit or miss whether you get anything from killing it. Of course te counter argument is that every one of these ships will be gank on site. you already have some of this functionality; modules fitted to the ships in the ship bay will not show up on a scan. you could be carrying trillions in officer modules in it, but nobody would know since all they'd see on a scan is a bunch of rifters, merlins and kestrels. But the ships themselves still do. And anything that says "Faction Battleship" is pretty much DOA. Yaay!!!!
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:10:25 - [492] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls. ALSO ENSURE YOU DON'T AUTOPILOT THROUGH UEDAMA, NIARJA, DELTOLE or other 0.5 choke points. Perhaps consider running alongside the hauler with logistics cruisers to ensure that would-be gankers have to focus on alpha damage rather than 30s worth of shooting. And let's see where it stands after a couple of months, perhaps when CCP sees nobody using it they will try buffing it to the point that people feel safe carrying three Nightmare hulls in one hauler. 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.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 534	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:20:18 - [493] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Malou Hashur wrote: 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? You've heard of Polarized weapons, yes ? You have seen their cost yes? take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really.
Dave Stark 7140	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:23:18 - [494] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: It carries about 4 times more than Oraca so, it needs 4 times more EHP to keep EHP/cargo ratio no it doesn't. people need to be less dumb. just because you have x cargo doesn't mean you need to fill all the space. ehp/cargo ratio is about as useful and relevant as the slugs/snowflakes ratio of my garden.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:28:44 - [495] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls. ALSO ENSURE YOU DON'T AUTOPILOT THROUGH UEDAMA, NIARJA, DELTOLE or other 0.5 choke points. Perhaps consider running alongside the hauler with logistics cruisers to ensure that would-be gankers have to focus on alpha damage rather than 30s worth of shooting. And let's see where it stands after a couple of months, perhaps when CCP sees nobody using it they will try buffing it to the point that people feel safe carrying three Nightmare hulls in one hauler. 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. If you feel this way then bring a fleet of your own for protection. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:29:55 - [496] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really. 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.
Dave Stark 7140	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:30:56 - [497] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really. 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. i doubt it takes 90 ships to protect it though, so it's still useful for moving harpies....
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:41:52 - [498] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really. 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. I dont have 3 pilots to move my battleships but I do have an escort fleet when we deploy. This ship ticks all the right boxes for me. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
O'drwex Dythoni ABS Ratting Northern Associates. 9	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:46:41 - [499] - Quote am i reading this right ? barely 3 battleships in hold and you're full?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:46:54 - [500] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. I guess they don't have jump freighters where you live. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 14:55:32 - [501] - Quote O'drwex Dythoni wrote: am i reading this right ? barely 3 battleships in hold and you're full? Or an entire harpy fleet. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:01:10 - [502] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: It carries about 4 times more than Oraca so, it needs 4 times more EHP to keep EHP/cargo ratio no it doesn't. people need to be less dumb. just because you have x cargo doesn't mean you need to fill all the space. ehp/cargo ratio is about as useful and relevant as the slugs/snowflakes ratio of my garden. That was sarcasm :P Most people flying freighters have a web alt (which can fail on regional gates) so, i don't see the point of using this ship if you are an incursion runner flying your logi/DPS ships to a new spawn or your DPS/Sniper ships. You can get much more buffer from your individual ships with travel fit and allows you to use mwd+cloak and you can use ASB+AAR. If you have to move more than 2 ships, this new freighter it's pretty much useless as you will still have to do 2 runs because of how expensive your cargo is: 2 pirate hulls + 2 logi ships will go way over 2bil mark (without fittings) hence, 2 trips. I might be wrong but i don't see any case where this ships is better for anyone with 2 characters. And if you have only one character only, the amount you will move at one time to be somehow gank safe will make it useless and you are better using an orca.
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:02:40 - [503] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: It carries about 4 times more than Oraca so, it needs 4 times more EHP to keep EHP/cargo ratio no it doesn't. people need to be less dumb. just because you have x cargo doesn't mean you need to fill all the space. ehp/cargo ratio is about as useful and relevant as the slugs/snowflakes ratio of my garden. That was sarcasm :P Most people flying freighters have a web alt (which can fail on regional gates) so, i don't see the point of using this ship if you are an incursion runner flying your logi/DPS ships to a new spawn or your DPS/Sniper ships. You can get much more buffer from your individual ships with travel fit and allows you to use mwd+cloak and you can use ASB+AAR. If you have to move more than 2 ships, this new freighter it's pretty much useless as you will still have to do 2 runs because of how expensive your cargo is: 2 pirate hulls + 2 logi ships will go way over 2bil mark (without fittings) hence, 2 trips. I might be wrong but i don't see any case where this ships is better for anyone with 2 characters. And if you have only one character only, the amount you will move at one time to be somehow gank safe will make it useless and you are better using an orca. shrug so you might have to make a few choices. seems fine to me.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:03:18 - [504] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really. 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. i doubt it takes 90 ships to protect it though, so it's still useful for moving harpies.... And what is the purpose of moving 90 harpies trough HS? :) This ship is intended for HS use as per CCP description
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:05:01 - [505] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: take it these people have not seen how some 0.0 moves moon goo on bridged ops either. For the home audience.....you support this with logistics. Good crews I have seen at least on the first empire interface have the freighters land into a group of logistics. The moon goo and other item freighters are targetted and reps blasted on them even if shots not even fired. One way to avoid a fight is to make it clear the fight not even worth starting A charon you know has basic support in abundance one example of how to implement this. They then get escorted to sale point to the same or lesser extent. Moral of this story....if the cargo is worth that much to you, protect it. Now will come the well I don't wan't/have logi's on call for this. Well then travel fit your stuff and move it one at a time. CCP gave people what they wanted. But not all of it. A mobile monster fortress was not going to be in the cards. Take what you get and run with it really. 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. i doubt it takes 90 ships to protect it though, so it's still useful for moving harpies.... And what is the purpose of moving 90 harpies trough HS? :) This ship is intended for HS use as per CCP description We all know its the null powerblocks that will be making heavy use of these ships, not the bears of highsec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:05:06 - [506] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls. ALSO ENSURE YOU DON'T AUTOPILOT THROUGH UEDAMA, NIARJA, DELTOLE or other 0.5 choke points. Perhaps consider running alongside the hauler with logistics cruisers to ensure that would-be gankers have to focus on alpha damage rather than 30s worth of shooting. And let's see where it stands after a couple of months, perhaps when CCP sees nobody using it they will try buffing it to the point that people feel safe carrying three Nightmare hulls in one hauler. 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. If you feel this way then bring a fleet of your own for protection. 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?
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:07:15 - [507] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls. ALSO ENSURE YOU DON'T AUTOPILOT THROUGH UEDAMA, NIARJA, DELTOLE or other 0.5 choke points. Perhaps consider running alongside the hauler with logistics cruisers to ensure that would-be gankers have to focus on alpha damage rather than 30s worth of shooting. And let's see where it stands after a couple of months, perhaps when CCP sees nobody using it they will try buffing it to the point that people feel safe carrying three Nightmare hulls in one hauler. 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. If you feel this way then bring a fleet of your own for protection. 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? ever thought it's designed for low value high volumes of ships rather than low volume high value? hint hint; people shouldn't stuff these full of shiny things people want to gank you for, like every other freighter!
Malou Hashur Ministry of War Amarr Empire 47	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:12:16 - [508] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont 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. Given the current highsec meta of "GANK ALL THE THINGS", I think many people, myself inluded, see a raw speed bonus as a waste. With Bumper Cars Online, a speed bonus is less than useless - it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. Please consider an agility or (!) hull resistance bonus modifier per level. Another example of the Devs not having a clue how the game is actually played. CCP Philosophy -->> If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it and break something else.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:12:29 - [509] - Quote Quote: 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? Because when we deploy we only bring one fleet worth of ships I can now bring three megathrons on deployments in one trip. Or an entire replacement harpy/bomber fleet in just one ship. No more scrapping of rigs when we redeploy and no more begging for carrier space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:12:35 - [510] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: It carries about 4 times more than Oraca so, it needs 4 times more EHP to keep EHP/cargo ratio no it doesn't. people need to be less dumb. just because you have x cargo doesn't mean you need to fill all the space. ehp/cargo ratio is about as useful and relevant as the slugs/snowflakes ratio of my garden. That was sarcasm :P Most people flying freighters have a web alt (which can fail on regional gates) so, i don't see the point of using this ship if you are an incursion runner flying your logi/DPS ships to a new spawn or your DPS/Sniper ships. You can get much more buffer from your individual ships with travel fit and allows you to use mwd+cloak and you can use ASB+AAR. If you have to move more than 2 ships, this new freighter it's pretty much useless as you will still have to do 2 runs because of how expensive your cargo is: 2 pirate hulls + 2 logi ships will go way over 2bil mark (without fittings) hence, 2 trips. I might be wrong but i don't see any case where this ships is better for anyone with 2 characters. And if you have only one character only, the amount you will move at one time to be somehow gank safe will make it useless and you are better using an orca. shrug so you might have to make a few choices. seems fine to me. There is no choice seriously. If you use one char, an Orca it's better if the cost of the stuff you move it's less than 1bil. Much more tank for the isk you move. If you use 2 chars you are better if you fly the ships separately instead of flying the bowhead because you get better tank + cloak/mwd. It seems to have no point of flying this in HS. Yes, the example of moving 90 harpies, escorted trough low or 0.0 it's cool but, it's not the role CCP wants for this ship :)

S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:14:25 - [511] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Use a blockade runner to move your fittings, use the Bowhead to move the rigged & insured hulls. ALSO ENSURE YOU DON'T AUTOPILOT THROUGH UEDAMA, NIARJA, DELTOLE or other 0.5 choke points. Perhaps consider running alongside the hauler with logistics cruisers to ensure that would-be gankers have to focus on alpha damage rather than 30s worth of shooting. And let's see where it stands after a couple of months, perhaps when CCP sees nobody using it they will try buffing it to the point that people feel safe carrying three Nightmare hulls in one hauler. 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. If you feel this way then bring a fleet of your own for protection. 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? ever thought it's designed for low value high volumes of ships rather than low volume high value? hint hint; people shouldn't stuff these full of shiny things people want to gank you for, like every other freighter! Indeed so, multiple trips, which again, defeats the purpose. You are better moving each of the ship individually in the same number of trips for much more safety.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:14:33 - [512] - Quote Malou Hashur wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont 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. Given the current highsec meta of "GANK ALL THE THINGS", I think many people, myself inluded, see a raw speed bonus as a waste. With Bumper Cars Online, a speed bonus is less than useless - it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. Please consider an agility or (!) hull resistance bonus modifier per level. Another example of the Devs not having a clue how the game is actually played. Ever piloted a capital or orca out of bubbles? Suddenly you love that speed bonus. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:16:32 - [513] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Quote: 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? Because when we deploy we only bring one fleet worth of ships I can now bring three megathrons on deployments in one trip. Or an entire replacement harpy/bomber fleet in just one ship. No more scrapping of rigs when we redeploy and no more begging for carrier space. 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
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:19:33 - [514] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: It carries about 4 times more than Oraca so, it needs 4 times more EHP to keep EHP/cargo ratio no it doesn't. people need to be less dumb. just because you have x cargo doesn't mean you need to fill all the space. ehp/cargo ratio is about as useful and relevant as the slugs/snowflakes ratio of my garden. That was sarcasm :P Most people flying freighters have a web alt (which can fail on regional gates) so, i don't see the point of using this ship if you are an incursion runner flying your logi/DPS ships to a new spawn or your DPS/Sniper ships. You can get much more buffer from your individual ships with travel fit and allows you to use mwd+cloak and you can use ASB+AAR. If you have to move more than 2 ships, this new freighter it's pretty much useless as you will still have to do 2 runs because of how expensive your cargo is: 2 pirate hulls + 2 logi ships will go way over 2bil mark (without fittings) hence, 2 trips. I might be wrong but i don't see any case where this ships is better for anyone with 2 characters. And if you have only one character only, the amount you will move at one time to be somehow gank safe will make it useless and you are better using an orca. shrug so you might have to make a few choices. seems fine to me. There is no choice seriously. If you use one char, an Orca it's better if the cost of the stuff you move it's less than 1bil. Much more tank for the isk you move. If you use 2 chars you are better if you fly the ships separately instead of flying the bowhead because you get better tank + cloak/mwd. It seems to have no point of flying this in HS. Yes, the example of moving 90 harpies, escorted trough low or 0.0 it's cool but, it's not the role CCP wants for this ship :) or you can choose to put it all in the 1 bowhead, and take the relevant precautions to only have to make the trip once.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:20:38 - [515] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: Quote: 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? Because when we deploy we only bring one fleet worth of ships I can now bring three megathrons on deployments in one trip. Or an entire replacement harpy/bomber fleet in just one ship. No more scrapping of rigs when we redeploy and no more begging for carrier space. 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 You are debating it wrong then. It doesnt matter if CCP said its for high sec, fact is that it will see the bulk of its use in null by the organised powers. You dont see a use for it, fine, let the people who do have a use for it have this much wanted ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:30:59 - [516] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: There is no choice seriously. If you use one char, an Orca it's better if the cost of the stuff you move it's less than 1bil. Much more tank for the isk you move. If you use 2 chars you are better if you fly the ships separately instead of flying the bowhead because you get better tank + cloak/mwd. It seems to have no point of flying this in HS. Yes, the example of moving 90 harpies, escorted trough low or 0.0 it's cool but, it's not the role CCP wants for this ship :) or you can choose to put it all in the 1 bowhead, and take the relevant precautions to only have to make the trip once. Ha, define relevant precautions while you use only one character to move 2 fitted incursion BSs with a Bowhead in one trip.
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:31:44 - [517] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: There is no choice seriously. If you use one char, an Orca it's better if the cost of the stuff you move it's less than 1bil. Much more tank for the isk you move. If you use 2 chars you are better if you fly the ships separately instead of flying the bowhead because you get better tank + cloak/mwd. It seems to have no point of flying this in HS. Yes, the example of moving 90 harpies, escorted trough low or 0.0 it's cool but, it's not the role CCP wants for this ship :) or you can choose to put it all in the 1 bowhead, and take the relevant precautions to only have to make the trip once. Ha, define relevant precautions while you use only one character to move 2 fitted incursion BSs with a Bowhead in one trip. you could just read the thread? anyway, as i pointed out earlier, blue frog have no issue moving 5bn isk of junk back and forth so i'm sure you can manage it.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:32:12 - [518] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: Quote: 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? Because when we deploy we only bring one fleet worth of ships I can now bring three megathrons on deployments in one trip. Or an entire replacement harpy/bomber fleet in just one ship. No more scrapping of rigs when we redeploy and no more begging for carrier space. 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 You are debating it wrong then. It doesnt matter if CCP said its for high sec, fact is that it will see the bulk of its use in null by the organised powers. You dont see a use for it, fine, let the people who do have a use for it have this much wanted ship. 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 :)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13847	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:35:10 - [519] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: Quote: 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? Because when we deploy we only bring one fleet worth of ships I can now bring three megathrons on deployments in one trip. Or an entire replacement harpy/bomber fleet in just one ship. No more scrapping of rigs when we redeploy and no more begging for carrier space. 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 You are debating it wrong then. It doesnt matter if CCP said its for high sec, fact is that it will see the bulk of its use in null by the organised powers. You dont see a use for it, fine, let the people who do have a use for it have this much wanted ship. 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 :) Just ignore that comment on highsec, its most likely there to confuse the high sec bears just long enough to get it in game before they realise its an industrial ship aimed at combat pilots. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:35:33 - [520] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: There is no choice seriously. If you use one char, an Orca it's better if the cost of the stuff you move it's less than 1bil. Much more tank for the isk you move. If you use 2 chars you are better if you fly the ships separately instead of flying the bowhead because you get better tank + cloak/mwd. It seems to have no point of flying this in HS. Yes, the example of moving 90 harpies, escorted trough low or 0.0 it's cool but, it's not the role CCP wants for this ship :) or you can choose to put it all in the 1 bowhead, and take the relevant precautions to only have to make the trip once. Ha, define relevant precautions while you use only one character to move 2 fitted incursion BSs with a Bowhead in one trip. you could just read the thread? I did. Web alt won't work if you have one character. Max tank with DC2 + bulkheads + rigs and resists + mwd in mids will not save you from anything really. The mwd it's useless without a cloak as you can be bumped until downtime and the tank it's barely superior to an Orca where at this point you are better doing multiple trips in anything else but the bowhead.

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 259	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:36:12 - [521] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You are debating it wrong then. It doesnt matter if CCP said its for high sec, fact is that it will see the bulk of its use in null by the organised powers. You dont see a use for it, fine, let the people who do have a use for it have this much wanted ship. That would mean that CCP is designing it improperly. There is no need to make logistics easier for the big nullsec powerblocs...in fact the current meta is to make logistics more difficult for them. What there is a need for is something in highsec to help incursion runners avoid the boredom of moving their ships around one by one, which they can currently do with 100% safety by using cloak + mwd + travel fit. To replace this with a slow freighter with mediocre tank that can easily be bumped into helplessness for gankers to kill it is, as you rightly point out, something that won't see much use in highsec. The solution to that isn't to give up and accept that it wont see use in highsec, rather it's to design it so that it has more tank and enough agility to avoid bumping, so that incursion runners will be comfortable sticking 3 pirate faction battleships inside. The point isn't to make it impervious to ganking, rather it's to ensure that gankers need to bring enough dps to kill it on the first go, not be able to bump it and come with 3 different waves of gankers at 15 minute intervals.
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front 565	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:38:03 - [522] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: 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 So this ship is the "work around" for jump fatigue? Step (1) Put your pilots into travel fit interceptors and burn like ** to the target location Step (2) Pray there is no pipe bombing. Step (3) Bridge a Bowhead into the system with a metricfucktonne of pre fitted HACs in the hold. Step (4) ?? Step (5) Switch inty's for HACs at the Bowhead and safe/log off the Bowhead Step (6) Win the battle Step (7) Profit Only issue is having a stranded Bowhead if it all goes pete tong

CCP Rise C C P 4557	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:39:16 - [523] - Quote 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. @ccp_rise

Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:41:28 - [524] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. i'd still rather have had a warp speed bonus... also GJ caving to whiners.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5479	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:42:16 - [525] - Quote If your webbing alt is getting popped and/or missing the target on regional gates, perhaps you're using the wrong ship to web with. A Hyena is just a low cost option with longer range... its not the only option, nor the best. If you realize that a webbing ship is critical to your success, wouldn't it also be wise to use a ship with some EHP for this task too? I swear, some people have to have all their thinking done for them... I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:43:36 - [526] - Quote War Kitten wrote: I swear, some people have to have all their thinking done for them... not when rise gives in to their whining, they don't.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13849	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:44:59 - [527] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5479	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:52:57 - [528] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. What? No drones? No increased capacity? I am disappointed. I still think you should've gone with a more even split of shield, armor and structure and made tanking it any of 3 ways viable. Doubling shield AND more structure is overkill I think. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

CCP Rise C C P 4557	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:53:59 - [529] - Quote baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? @ccp_rise

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13850	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:55:25 - [530] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? More than enough. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:56:42 - [531] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? inb4 "still not enough ehp".
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3911	Posted - 2014.11.11 15:57:29 - [532] - Quote baltec1 wrote: It doesnt matter if CCP said its for high sec, fact is that it will see the bulk of its use in null by the organised powers. You dont see a use for it, fine, let the people who do have a use for it have this much wanted ship. So what you're saying is... Extremely useful in null-sec - gank magnet in high-sec? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Valterra Craven 317	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:00:02 - [533] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. The more I look at the skills outlay for how you guys set up Capital ships the more I think you guys haven't actually planned on these and just do them on a whim. Take a look at the prereqs for the skill "Capital Ships" (hint: there are two!) Now take a look at the prereqs for the skill Capital Industrial Ships (hint: there are over 10!) Please for the love of all that is rational remove the skills reqs that don't make since from the Capital Industrial Ships skill and move them to the roq and then use the Capital Industrial Ship Skill as the skill going forward for ships like the bowhead and the roq!
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13850	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:01:33 - [534] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: baltec1 wrote: It doesnt matter if CCP said its for high sec, fact is that it will see the bulk of its use in null by the organised powers. You dont see a use for it, fine, let the people who do have a use for it have this much wanted ship. So what you're saying is... Extremely useful in null-sec - gank magnet in high-sec? I honestly dont see many of the usual gankbait players using this ship. Supplies of ships out of jita will still be more efficiently trasported in packaged form. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:03:44 - [535] - Quote War Kitten wrote: If your webbing alt is getting popped and/or missing the target on regional gates, perhaps you're using the wrong ship to web with. A Hyena is just a low cost option with longer range... its not the only option, nor the best. If you realize that a webbing ship is critical to your success, wouldn't it also be wise to use a ship with some EHP for this task too? I swear, some people have to have all their thinking done for them... If you have to move 2 incursions ships, why using a web + bowhead instead of moving the ships by themselves with much more tank and cloak+mwd? DPS ship + Orca with your choice of logi ships inside it's much much more safer :)
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:14:10 - [536] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: War Kitten wrote: If your webbing alt is getting popped and/or missing the target on regional gates, perhaps you're using the wrong ship to web with. A Hyena is just a low cost option with longer range... its not the only option, nor the best. If you realize that a webbing ship is critical to your success, wouldn't it also be wise to use a ship with some EHP for this task too? I swear, some people have to have all their thinking done for them... If you have to move 2 incursions ships, why using a web + bowhead instead of moving the ships by themselves with much more tank and cloak+mwd? DPS ship + Orca with your choice of logi ships inside it's much much more safer :) great so you made a choice, now stop going on about it.
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra 1252	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:22:21 - [537] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? Nice to see the chunk of shields added. Being as exclusive as it was before to hulltanks only excluded the possibility of using Logi to help keep the ship alive if running any sort of logi along with it. This opens up some better possibilities. I think it is funny how actively goons are pushing to NOT have the hp increased, specifically so that the ship will be only effective as gankbait. It's as if Baltec and Dave Stark don't even want these to be used.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5479	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:24:10 - [538] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: War Kitten wrote: If your webbing alt is getting popped and/or missing the target on regional gates, perhaps you're using the wrong ship to web with. A Hyena is just a low cost option with longer range... its not the only option, nor the best. If you realize that a webbing ship is critical to your success, wouldn't it also be wise to use a ship with some EHP for this task too? I swear, some people have to have all their thinking done for them... If you have to move 2 incursions ships, why using a web + bowhead instead of moving the ships by themselves with much more tank and cloak+mwd? DPS ship + Orca with your choice of logi ships inside it's much much more safer :) If you have to move 2 ships, you don't have a problem that this ship solves. Move along. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3911	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:24:13 - [539] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I honestly dont see many of the usual gankbait players using this ship. Supplies of ships out of jita will still be more efficiently trasported in packaged form. From everything I've read in this thread (and in particular, your perspective), it certainly sounds like this ship was designed first and foremost with null-sec players in-mind as opposed to say transport for high-sec incursion runners. Which is fine, I just wish new ships like these wouldn't come with misleading statements. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:26:05 - [540] - Quote Arronicus wrote: It's as if Baltec and Dave Stark don't even want these to be used. i feel i must first point out that i'm really not a goon. also, i'd rather people used their brain rather than ccp just giving it a high number of ehp because apparently thinking is hard?

King Fu Hostile Imperial Collective Unsettled. 224	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:31:21 - [541] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. Nice, now add 1 highslot and reduce mass to 300mil kg, and you have a ship that's useful for other things than Incursions.
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 164	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:32:48 - [542] - Quote 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable.
Zafrena Tyrleon Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:37:35 - [543] - Quote The ship itself sounds nice enough. It doesn't need to be an ideal solution, it's already in a fairly nice place. Just a couple of thoughts though: Since you already acknowledged that agility is a more appropriate bonus than max velocity, how about changing existing racial freighters to match? Also, is there really a need for a new skill just for this? The ORE line-up is pretty thin in terms of skills to ships. Is there a good reason this can't just go under ORE Industrial? Or possibly redo the Industrial Command Ship skill a bit - move the Mining Director around to be a primary req for the Orca, rename the skill, and put this ship under it as well. Industrial Command Ship as a skill is so clearly meant for the Orca, when a more elegant solution would just be to move skill reqs around slightly and keep the tree sane. It's just a bad trend to have 4 skills for 4 ships. Another T1 ORE Industrial would certainly be appreciated as well.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:39:16 - [544] - Quote War Kitten wrote: S'No Flake wrote: War Kitten wrote: If your webbing alt is getting popped and/or missing the target on regional gates, perhaps you're using the wrong ship to web with. A Hyena is just a low cost option with longer range... its not the only option, nor the best. If you realize that a webbing ship is critical to your success, wouldn't it also be wise to use a ship with some EHP for this task too? I swear, some people have to have all their thinking done for them... If you have to move 2 incursions ships, why using a web + bowhead instead of moving the ships by themselves with much more tank and cloak+mwd? DPS ship + Orca with your choice of logi ships inside it's much much more safer :) If you have to move 2 ships, you don't have a problem that this ship solves. Move along. Well, you usually have more than 2: DPS, basi, scimi + ammo/drones bu you can fit all but the DPS in an orca. I see the bowhead as a replacement of Orca in case you want to bring a 2nd DPS ship. Which is not going to work even with 2 chars so we are back to the square one as no improvement was made
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:46:33 - [545] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :)
Dave Stark 7141	Posted - 2014.11.11 16:48:23 - [546] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) could surprise them even more by webbing it so they get less of a chance to bump you, too.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:04:44 - [547] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) could surprise them even more by webbing it so they get less of a chance to bump you, too. Well, i said Loki because of: Loki Defensive - Warfare Processor Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers Links will help the shield (which with the last change to the numbers it's a boost), it will help the web speed to go in warp and, with a lot of tank and you can put the pith-a and the shini stuff in the loki.
Masao Kurata Z List 133	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:09:38 - [548] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. I am deeply disappointed, you just increased EHP to 519k. No amount of EHP will stop the whining and people would very happily have used the ship as it is. The initial response is that 420k EHP is plenty, showing that nobody had a clue how much EHP the original stats gave when properly fitted (more than 420).
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 948	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:17:21 - [549] - Quote Harvey James wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Your asking for people to pay for more than an orca and get less tank ... If by "less" you mean "more". The extra low lets you fit an extra bulkhead, giving you almost the same amount of hull while having more shield and armor HP. I was refering to base rates: Quote: Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 10000 / 11000 / 36500 Orca: 10750 / 6900 / 46000 - So to give you credit, yes. Rorqual: 90000/30000/250000 - Just for ***** and giggles. since this one ACTUALLY is a capital ship (Quit calling ships what there not? I need the skill Capital Ships to fly a real capital ship. ) One benifiet of the orca is being able to overheat an active shield tank while you pray. Yes you get more hull, and yeah DCII helps with hull but you can't overheat DCII so paying attention while this ship is getting ganked adds no benefit to the owner. Last I checked ORE had a shield icon, not a hull icon, Cost to risk ratio does not make this viable at the moment, I will wait for updated figures indeed all ORE ships are meant too be shield tank .. how about ...Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 45000 / 8000 / 26500 .. reduce the lowslots to 1 DCU. so Rise any response too this??? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Masao Kurata Z List 133	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:24:18 - [550] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Harvey James wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: Last I checked ORE had a shield icon, not a hull icon, Cost to risk ratio does not make this viable at the moment, I will wait for updated figures indeed all ORE ships are meant too be shield tank .. how about ...Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 45000 / 8000 / 26500 .. reduce the lowslots to 1 DCU. so Rise any response too this??? The thing about that is introducing the hull rigs buffed hull tanking to a ridiculous degree for the orca. CCP were warned that they needed to rebalance the orca's base HP at the time but ignored the feedback.

Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5620	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:34:05 - [551] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? I think that's fine. Noob Question: Is it possible to see the fit on the ships stored inside the Bowhead with a scanner? The Paradox
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 142	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:41:28 - [552] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) How many people do you see doing that? Oh, that's right - virtually none. Organized ganking is played up because it does a lot of damage - but as of right now, only two organizations have even remotely enough resources and talent to do it on a semi-regular basis. Mine is one of them. And I sure as hell for sure won't bother with a 420k Bowhead (which would take me I think 55 Catalysts in a 0.5? Far more in higher secs, of course. I don't have that kind of manpower), especially when -the ship and cargo scanners don't reveal the fitting of ships in SMAs-. Why would I gank something when I have no idea of its value? Aside from for strategic purposes / removing assets from someone I deem hostile. But that's a big time/money commitment. Suicide ganking is in my opinion one of the few fun things left in EVE, and it has been nothing but nerfed into the ground. I'm not talking about people 'adapting' (we've seen that), I'm talking about straight-from-CCP nerfs.
Bed Bugg Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:44:51 - [553] - Quote I cannot wait to see the wrecks of these balloon animals littering HS space lanes. The gank mails on the ones packed with incursion ships should be epic!
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 336	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:47:05 - [554] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? I still haven't seen any reply to my point that this is not worth ganking with what you proposed (three t2 fit battleships) at its old EHP. What is the mathmatical or game design basis for this additional EHP? These are not cost-effective to gank and were not before - and that's not taking into account that you're hitting one blind.
Viktor Fel Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 75	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:50:29 - [555] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. Did it ever occur to you that these are not supposed to be combat ships? Who is Viktor Fel? Killboard
Slap Chop GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 56	Posted - 2014.11.11 17:52:22 - [556] - Quote Holy ****, they upped these things to a ridiculous 420k ehp and you can't even scan the fits of the ships they're carrying? It's unfortunate that the CCP of 2014 thinks adding something like this to EVE is a good idea.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:00:50 - [557] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) How many people do you see doing that? Oh, that's right - virtually none. Organized ganking is played up because it does a lot of damage - but as of right now, only two organizations have even remotely enough resources and talent to do it on a semi-regular basis. Mine is one of them. And I sure as hell for sure won't bother with a 420k Bowhead (which would take me I think 55 Catalysts in a 0.5? Far more in higher secs, of course. I don't have that kind of manpower), especially when -the ship and cargo scanners don't reveal the fitting of ships in SMAs-. Why would I gank something when I have no idea of its value? Aside from for strategic purposes / removing assets from someone I deem hostile. But that's a big time/money commitment. The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... Suicide ganking is in my opinion one of the few fun things left in EVE, and it has been nothing but nerfed into the ground. I'm not talking about people 'adapting' (we've seen that), I'm talking about straight-from-CCP nerfs. (Don't forget that cargo scanners also can't scan past two layers of container - working as intended, CCP?) The fix for SMB will come in Rhea or next patch, didn't Rise say that at the beginning of the thread? And you don't need all 55 cata at the same time, just eject them from an orca or another Bowhead and your pilots will just reship. I've seen more than a few freighters killed by 2 waves while i was doing hauling. And the scanning double wrapped packages .. you don't even need to see it. Who does that, for sure they have something to hide :) I don't mind Marauders, BSs, blinged T3s being gnanked. Big transport ships on the other hand, are pretty much defenseless. Well, not Orca but all the other ships are defenseless. At least on Bowhead you can fit some resits mods.
Lickem Lolly Achura Solutions 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:02:39 - [558] - Quote Suicide ganking in highsec is ruining Eve. This is why so many of our new players quit in the first few weeks. CCP, please do more things like this to make ships un-gankable. If you have any doubts, complete this sentence to yourself - " I like non-consensual ---." Think of anything you like there? Non-consensual PVP is ruining Eve. Make the jerks go to lowsec or nullsec for PVP. Cheers
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 148	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:04:32 - [559] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: The fix for SMB will come in Rhea or next patch, didn't Rise say that at the beginning of the thread? And you don't need all 55 cata at the same time, just eject them from an orca or another Bowhead and your pilots will just reship. I've seen more than a few freighters killed by 2 waves while i was doing hauling. And the scanning double wrapped packages .. you don't even need to see it. Who does that, for sure they have something to hide :) I don't mind Marauders, BSs, blinged T3s being gnanked. Big transport ships on the other hand, are pretty much defenseless. Well, not Orca but all the other ships are defenseless. At least on Bowhead you can fit some resits mods. He said that the bay contents will drop - I am saying that scanners at current do not pick up what the ships are fitted with - so that basically masks whatever you're carrying much better than any EHP number. This is already true for Orcas, by the way. Also, no - that's actually an interesting griefing tactic we've seen, people carrying worthless double-wraps. Additionally, industrials may be 'defenseless', but they certainly are not paperweights when used properly. And you have maybe seen one or two double-waved kills. I sure as hell don't do it unless there's something REALLY REALLY nice in there, because that burns a lot of time for me and adds a lot of risk of interference from third parties. Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset.
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5620	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:05:30 - [560] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) How many people do you see doing that? Oh, that's right - virtually none. Organized ganking is played up because it does a lot of damage - but as of right now, only two organizations have even remotely enough resources and talent to do it on a semi-regular basis. Mine is one of them. And I sure as hell for sure won't bother with a 420k Bowhead (which would take me I think 55 Catalysts in a 0.5? Far more in higher secs, of course. I don't have that kind of manpower), especially when -the ship and cargo scanners don't reveal the fitting of ships in SMAs-. Why would I gank something when I have no idea of its value? Aside from for strategic purposes / removing assets from someone I deem hostile. But that's a big time/money commitment. The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... Suicide ganking is in my opinion one of the few fun things left in EVE, and it has been nothing but nerfed into the ground. I'm not talking about people 'adapting' (we've seen that), I'm talking about straight-from-CCP nerfs. (Don't forget that cargo scanners also can't scan past two layers of container - working as intended, CCP?) Tell us why it is fun. Serious question. The Paradox

Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 148	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:06:08 - [561] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: Suicide ganking in highsec is ruining Eve. This is why so many of our new players quit in the first few weeks. CCP, please do more things like this to make ships un-gankable. If you have any doubts, complete this sentence to yourself - " I like non-consensual ---." Think of anything you like there? Non-consensual PVP is ruining Eve. Make the jerks go to lowsec or nullsec for PVP. Cheers Do you know what Burn Jita was? One of CCP's biggest promotional events. And 'the first few weeks' means they're not in freighters/orcas/bowheads, therefore not entirely relevant to this conversation.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 149	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:08:27 - [562] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Tell us why it is fun. Serious question. Risk. Unbelievable risk. Suicide ganking carries with it a colossal risk of failure and loss of lots of dollars with no guarantee of any gain. It is a tool for damaging enemy logistics and achieving strategic goals without having to sit on a Titan for four hours. It can lead to extraordinary gain if your target is extraordinarily stupid. I've heard tell there are people who engage in it for the sheer griefing of it. I'm a murderer, not a sadist.
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:12:27 - [563] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) How many people do you see doing that? Oh, that's right - virtually none. Organized ganking is played up because it does a lot of damage - but as of right now, only two organizations have even remotely enough resources and talent to do it on a semi-regular basis. Mine is one of them. And I sure as hell for sure won't bother with a 420k Bowhead (which would take me I think 55 Catalysts in a 0.5? Far more in higher secs, of course. I don't have that kind of manpower), especially when -the ship and cargo scanners don't reveal the fitting of ships in SMAs-. Why would I gank something when I have no idea of its value? Aside from for strategic purposes / removing assets from someone I deem hostile. But that's a big time/money commitment. The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... Suicide ganking is in my opinion one of the few fun things left in EVE, and it has been nothing but nerfed into the ground. I'm not talking about people 'adapting' (we've seen that), I'm talking about straight-from-CCP nerfs. (Don't forget that cargo scanners also can't scan past two layers of container - working as intended, CCP?) three things. A) yes the ehp bump is completely necessary. We're talking about a ship capable of holding 3 battleships. the main niche that will use this more than anything is incursions runners which they will be faction ships most likely. If you do a cargo scan and see 2 vindi's and a mach. you don't need to see their fitting to know there is a lot of value. Not to mention it's a shield ehp boost so at least you can bring support ships as a security convoy AS THE GAME WAS INTENDED. B) Are people going to gank it not knowing the value? Hell yes. That's the most ridiculous argument i have ever seen considering how many freighters are suicide ganked already with NOTHING in the cargo hold simply for "the tears". C) If the ONLY thing you find fun in this game is suicide ganking please go play another game. Your subs won't be missed.
Carmen Electra The Scope Gallente Federation 12761	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:15:48 - [564] - Quote Speaking as someone who's done a pretty even split of carebearing, solo and "elite group" PvP, and high-sec suicide ganking, I'm surprised to see this amount of rage over a perceived difficulty in wrecking someone else's day. I don't lose any sleep knowing that highseccers are hauling shinys around an you shouldn't either. Bacon makes us stronger
Valterra Craven 319	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:16:22 - [565] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset. I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 158	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:18:41 - [566] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Seriously? effectively ungankable? You can bump this ship out of alignment until downtime and bringing a few waves of cheap fit destroyers to kill it. It's pretty damn easy to draw concord away between waves. I like it more with the shield increase because now you can bring your 2nd char in a loki with links and maybe surprise the gankers :) "Effectively" does not mean perfectly ungankable. It means that you have 400k ehp and the kind of heroic measures someone has to go through to gank you is not just a big up-front expense, it's the type of time and manpower commitment that happens only once a year, during Burn Jita. As it is this thing can be fit for max EHP with no loss to capacity, versus freighters that are rarely all-bulkhead fit. So take the number of taloses you see on the average freighter killmail and add at least 50% more. 18-20 taloses to be sure of killing this thing means unless you have some damn good reason to believe that there are officer-fit ships in there it's unlikely to pay off. (Assuming that CCP is even able to get the fix for looting SMAs done by the time this gets into the game. Until that happens, go nuts with nanofiber and hyperspace rigs, nobody is going to bother.)
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 149	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:19:21 - [567] - Quote Sullen Decimus wrote: three things. A) yes the ehp bump is completely necessary. We're talking about a ship capable of holding 3 battleships. the main niche that will use this more than anything is incursions runners which they will be faction ships most likely. If you do a cargo scan and see 2 vindi's and a mach. you don't need to see their fitting to know there is a lot of value. Not to mention it's a shield ehp boost so at least you can bring support ships as a security convoy AS THE GAME WAS INTENDED. B) Are people going to gank it not knowing the value? Hell yes. That's the most ridiculous argument i have ever seen considering how many freighters are suicide ganked already with NOTHING in the cargo hold simply for "the tears". C) If the ONLY thing you find fun in this game is suicide ganking please go play another game. Your subs won't be missed. Thanks for making your argument horribly flawed by adding the ad hominem attack at the end. Looks great, I tell you. As for B), how many bulkheaded freighters do you see ganked with nothing in the hold just for 'the tears'? And for that matter, how many do you see ganked at all versus -the number that are flying around-? And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 158	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:23:11 - [568] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. Nah. Get yourself billions of dollars and you can get away with murder, even mass murder, in the real world.
Valterra Craven 319	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:25:00 - [569] - Quote Klyith wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. Nah. Get yourself billions of dollars and you can get away with murder, even mass murder, in the real world. Even in that example, it would seem that the amount of people able to achieve that level of get out of jail is very low, compared to anyone being able to do that in Eve.
TerminalSamurai Sunji Bureau of Explosions 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:26:37 - [570] - Quote Thank you for the much needed update in base stats. The one thing I would ask for is a slight bump in warp speed, to lets say 1.5AU/s the reason I say this is because the orca has a 2.0 warp speed and the rorqual has a 1.5 au warp speed. Considering this ship is about half of the mass of a rorqual and still less than that of a freighter so I would only assume should have a base warp speed on par with the other ships in comparison. Comparison ShipWarpSpeedMass Bowhead1.37640,000,000.00 Orca2.00250,000,000.00 Rorqual1.501,180,000,000.00 Charon1.37960,000,000.00 Rhea1.50960,000,000.00 Not saying the two stats have to be directly related, but perhaps we could get a bit of love in this regard.

Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:26:56 - [571] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago. In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow.
Slap Chop GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 56	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:27:01 - [572] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Klyith wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. Nah. Get yourself billions of dollars and you can get away with murder, even mass murder, in the real world. Even in that example, it would seem that the amount of people able to achieve that level of get out of jail is very low, compared to anyone being able to do that in Eve. Similar to how the amount of people able to effectively gank freighters in EVE is very low.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 149	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:29:04 - [573] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago. In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow. I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:29:31 - [574] - Quote Slap Chop wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Klyith wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. Nah. Get yourself billions of dollars and you can get away with murder, even mass murder, in the real world. Even in that example, it would seem that the amount of people able to achieve that level of get out of jail is very low, compared to anyone being able to do that in Eve. Similar to how the amount of people able to effectively gank freighters in EVE is very low. You will note I did not limit my point to just freighters. I'm talking about ALL hi sec ganking, which comparatively every tom **** and harry can accomplish.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:30:18 - [575] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago. In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow. I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise. You are not permanently vulnerable in the same way that blinky is.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 158	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:34:25 - [576] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Klyith wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. Nah. Get yourself billions of dollars and you can get away with murder, even mass murder, in the real world. Even in that example, it would seem that the amount of people able to achieve that level of get out of jail is very low, compared to anyone being able to do that in Eve. Capsuleers are the rarest of the rare and the richest of the rich. Every eve player who can pay off tags for sec is throwing away several Warren Buffets of money to get Concord to "forget" their crimes. Anyways it's a dumb train of thought because alts. It eventually leads to saying that CCP has to ban anyone that starts a new account while a previous account has a criminal character. Or that CCP do something like identify real players and spread their criminal status across all characters. People would quit the game. I'd quit and I don't even gank but once in a blue moon.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 149	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:35:22 - [577] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago. In my opinion it wasn't enough. If you are going to play a permanent criminal you should have to have the consequences of a permanent criminal for more than just 30 days, and that means blinky red or yellow. I understand you, but let me explain something you may not be considering - when you have 100 kill rights from ganking 100 guys, you are basically vulnerable at all times. And those kill rights keep getting generated -all the time-. That means if you are a permanent criminal, you are permanently vulnerable. I promise. You are not permanently vulnerable in the same way that blinky is. Takes three clicks, hardly a difference.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 336	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:38:56 - [578] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset. I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career. the instant EVE physics stop treating spaceships like submarines you can start talking about what "reality" says about what should happen
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:39:10 - [579] - Quote Klyith wrote: Anyways it's a dumb train of thought because alts. It eventually leads to saying that CCP has to ban anyone that starts a new account while a previous account has a criminal character. Or that CCP do something like identify real players and spread their criminal status across all characters. People would quit the game. I'd quit and I don't even gank but once in a blue moon. The difference is that alts cost money to train and its burden. I'm not saying it should be taken that far that CCP should ban people for the activity, nor am I saying that restrictions should follow the account. I'm merely saying that the mechanic in its current form needs work because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. Things always catch up to you IRL and they should in game as well.
Terraniel Aurelius High Flyers The Kadeshi 9	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:40:15 - [580] - Quote I just wanted to point out that you had said in previous discussions that you would like to revisit the idea of letting capitals into high sec. Ostensibly the Bowhead is a replacement for moving fitted ships around that were previously moved by carrier. What would be the benefit to using this instead of a carrier or supercarrier should capitals be allowed in high sec? A super can hold almost 1 million m3 more than this bowhead, with considerably higher defensive capabilities. A carrier also has massively higher defensive capabilities, while being able to carry at least 5/8ths of what the Bowhead can manage. What would be the actual advantages of this ship? Will it be like the primae and be a niche ship that won't see widespread use when there are better options available? Second - and this is more to do with current mechanics - it's fantastic that this ship can carry fitted ships, but an obelisk can carry 22 unfitted battleships, plus associated fittings. With much better ehp, it should be noted. In view of this, I would suggest an increase in the maintenance bay to accommodate a greater number of ships to increase the risk/reward ratio that this ship carries. I think with the current ehp, an increase to 2million base maintenance bay would be reasonable, allowing for 2.5million with maximum skills. That would allow for 5 fitted battleships maximum. At the very least, this would make using the ship somewhat more attractive. In it's current state I know I would rather move the battleships individually than put them on this death barge.

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 336	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:40:28 - [581] - Quote in my spaceship game where planets are stationary, gravity doesn't exist, spaceships have a maximum velocity that is nowhere near the speed of light, there is sound in space, and faster than light travel exists, what really gets my goat is how unrealistic the space politics of crime are
Slap Chop GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 56	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:44:13 - [582] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Things always catch up to you IRL Oh come on, that's just naive.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:47:12 - [583] - Quote Slap Chop wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Things always catch up to you IRL Oh come on, that's just naive. No, its statistics.
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:47:34 - [584] - Quote Alt forum activated.... Ganking level is way over the top (for whatever reasons). It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally). Go play other game you say... ok... thats the shortsighted view. I would very much prefer that those play Eve (spending money in Eve) than go play other games... At this rate Eve dies not because of poor CCP decisons in design/gameplay but because they allow this to happen. On topic... if this ship is fairly easy gankable no one is going to use it specially for its supposed task.
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 4	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:47:49 - [585] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: Thanks for making your argument horribly flawed by adding the ad hominem attack at the end. Looks great, I tell you. As for B), how many bulkheaded freighters do you see ganked with nothing in the hold just for 'the tears'? And for that matter, how many do you see ganked at all versus -the number that are flying around-? And Valterra, I follow your meaning. You may want to consider looking at the Kill Right mechanic and the nerfs to security status ticks made several months ago. If you can tie in something that would make the number of freighters flying around vs the number getting ganked relevant please bring it to the table. Honestly i don't know what your argument there is. Valterra's comment has to do with the fact currently a ganker can sit in highsec kill ships/ pods, and all they have to do is turn in some damn tokens they either collected with an alt or bought with an alt and traded to the gank toon. If EVE only allowed one client to run at a time (which for the record i am not promoting!!) things would be different. But given that eve encourages having alts and hs gankers are completely supported by alts in other parts of space the entire criminal system is broken. Finally, i hope other people can see the irony in a person complaining that there isn't enough "risk vs reward" when 60 gank fit catalyst cost a whopping 390mil total are capable of taking out a ship that the hull alone willl cost over a bill. BEFORE even including what's inside. Don't have the manpower? Use a bigger ship.... You might have to....... (gasp) RISK ships to kill the thing.... o my.....
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 4	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:50:49 - [586] - Quote I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24676	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:52:32 - [587] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: Alt forum activated.... Ganking level is way over the top (for whatever reasons). It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally). No, and no, in that order. Ganking levels are pathetically low since ganking has recevied nohting but nerf after nerf after nerf. It could stand to see a significant increase so it became possible to do without the silly amounts of organisation and effort that the two ganking groups operating in the game put into it. New players are not affected in any way by ganking, other than if they believe the ignorant claims of those who scare them away. No new player flies the ships that are being targeted by ganks, nor do they have anything worth stealing. Quote: On topic... if this ship is fairly easy gankable no one is going to use it specially for its supposed task. It is, by far, the least gankable ship in its class and among the most difficult to gank in all of highsec. So that is one hell of a silly claim to make. In fact, if these new calculations are correct, the Bowhead now needs a significant HP nerf to become reasonable again. Sullen Decimus wrote: I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait You understand that the mechanisms behind the result you're asking for is the exact opposite to what you want them to be, right? You have trouble finding expensive gank losses exactly because the risks have been ratcheted up to such unreasonable levels that no-one sane will ever attempt one without being almost assured that he'll end up in the black. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
captain foivos State War Academy Caldari State 259	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:52:47 - [588] - Quote I went ahead and saved CCP the trouble of writing a themesong for Rhea
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5620	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:56:04 - [589] - Quote @Warr Akini From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not. Am I wrong? The Paradox
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24677	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:57:30 - [590] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: @Warr Akini From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not. Am I wrong? Yes. You are effectively saying that just because you can mitigate a risk, it is zero. This is not the case. Everything put into the calculation is a risk. Just because you choose not to act on it does not mean the risk is removed GÇö quite the opposite. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.

Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1661	Posted - 2014.11.11 18:58:09 - [591] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. Why?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24677	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:00:47 - [592] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. That is probably the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen on these forums. Not only should it be a possible permanent career GÇö it must be a possible permanent career, or the game is broken on a fundamental level and in dire need of a redesign to make the destruction/production/trade cycle work again. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Lickem Lolly Achura Solutions 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:02:33 - [593] - Quote MMOs die for a number of reasons. The main reason is lack of new players. Highsec ganking, in general, is killing Eve; whether it is killing newbs or killing slightly more experienced carebears in freighters. Some people play online games to relax and have fun, without getting abused. Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP. It should be restricted to lowsec and nullsec, where people who are there have chosen to accept the risk. Making ships ungankable and cargo unscannable helps a little, but it doesn't solve the problem. CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players.
Sullen Decimus Polaris Rising The Bastion 4	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:02:45 - [594] - Quote Tippia wrote: Sullen Decimus wrote: I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait You understand that the mechanisms behind the result you're asking for is the exact opposite to what you want them to be, right? You have trouble finding expensive gank losses exactly because the risks have been ratcheted up to such unreasonable levels that no-one sane will ever attempt one without being almost assured that he'll end up in the black. Or the fact that risking anything for a gank is completely unnecessary so why bother in anything than a destroyer that outputs more dps than most cruisers?
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5479	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:03:03 - [595] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Slap Chop wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Things always catch up to you IRL Oh come on, that's just naive. No, its statistics. No, its naive... here's some statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 150	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:04:47 - [596] - Quote Tippia wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: @Warr Akini From what I understand, suicide ganking boils down to a no or yes if you do it. The numbers are ran, very rapidly due to 3rd party programs, and you do it (profit) or you do nothing and nothing is risked. There doesn't seem like much grey area. I mean sure there is the whole 50/50 loot drop that can screw you over, but that is factored in because it can obviously go the other way as well. Again, all calculated into the formula to pull the trigger or not. Am I wrong? Yes. You are effectively saying that just because you can mitigate a risk, it is zero. This is not the case. Everything put into the calculation is a risk. Just because you choose not to act on it does not mean the risk is removed GÇö quite the opposite. That's about right. And CCP has repeatedly increased the risk of failure/loss: Kill rights accessible to all (risk to gankers of dying en route) Looting a can you don't own makes you suspect (major risk to looters) Security status tick nerf (increased time it takes to get back, and no one I know pays for tags) Movement of HP in freighters to armor/shield, making logistics more effective vs. us Low slots (see: 690k EHP Anshars) And more, naturally... Please also note that these arguments apply to ganking for profit. We do also gank for strategic purposes.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5479	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:06:06 - [597] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP. It should be restricted to lowsec and nullsec, where people who are there have chosen to accept the risk. You've accepted the risk of pvp by undocking in any security status. You're in the wrong thread if you think otherwise... wrong game in fact. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:06:08 - [598] - Quote Tippia wrote: Master Apollyon wrote: Alt forum activated.... Ganking level is way over the top (for whatever reasons). It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally). No, and no, in that order. Ganking levels are pathetically low since ganking has recevied nohting but nerf after nerf after nerf. It could stand to see a significant increase so it became possible to do without the silly amounts of organisation and effort that the two ganking groups operating in the game put into it. New players are not affected in any way by ganking, other than if they believe the ignorant claims of those who scare them away. No new player flies the ships that are being targeted by ganks, nor do they have anything worth stealing. Quote: On topic... if this ship is fairly easy gankable no one is going to use it specially for its supposed task. It is, by far, the least gankable ship in its class and among the most difficult to gank in all of highsec. So that is one hell of a silly claim to make. In fact, if these new calculations are correct, the Bowhead now needs a significant HP nerf to become reasonable again. Sullen Decimus wrote: I would like to iterate that I am not in favor of a 100% safe highsec. however, please bring the the last loss mail from a ganker where they failed a gank and the ship they lost was of any sort of serious risk whatsoever.... go ahead I'll wait You understand that the mechanisms behind the result you're asking for is the exact opposite to what you want them to be, right? You have trouble finding expensive gank losses exactly because the risks have been ratcheted up to such unreasonable levels that no-one sane will ever attempt one without being almost assured that he'll end up in the black. Dont put words in my text. I never wrote that it was happening. I wrote that "It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally)". You shouldnt be so fast criticizing others opinion. Ill make it a bit more clear to you... They knowing that this is possible is enough to think twice about playing Eve... and thats a fact. I dont care what level of organization is needed (not much judging by some killmails where its easy to see ISboxer at work). About my comment to the Bowhead again youre too fast criticizing my phrase. I was just pointing the obvious... for those who think its EHP is too much.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:06:15 - [599] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: MMOs die for a number of reasons. The main reason is lack of new players. Highsec ganking, in general, is killing Eve; whether it is killing newbs or killing slightly more experienced carebears in freighters. How is it in any way killing EVE? Quote: Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP. This is 100% incorrect. Highsec, like all space (and, indeed, a lot of in-station activities as well), is entirely designed for non-consensual PvP. Quote: CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players. You don't attract new players by offering them a watered down version of what they've read about that only feebly replicates an experience they can have in a bajillion other games. Sullen Decimus wrote: Or the fact that risking anything for a gank is completely unnecessary so why bother in anything than a destroyer that outputs more dps than most cruisers? Neither of these assertions have any connection to reality. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Jesterspet POS Consultants Group LLC 4	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:06:18 - [600] - Quote FINALLY! Something I have been asking for for a decade now!

Luigi Thirty GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 40	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:07:54 - [601] - Quote I think CCP should add a PvP flag. A literal flag on your ship. Think of it, we can all have little flags stuck to our ships at all times and CCP can sell like $100 monocle flags. The bonus is it would be a big flag so it would make your ship easier to see against the blackness of space. This might be a nerf to recon ships (how are you going to cloak a flag???) but I don't really care because who is suicide ganking with a recon ship anyway?
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:08:45 - [602] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players. So much this! No doubt about that.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2015	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:10:16 - [603] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? You expecting these ships to be "stoned" TO DEATH? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:10:35 - [604] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: Dont put words in my text. Good thing that I didn't then. Quote: I never wrote that it was happening. I wrote that "It stops new players from getting into the game. Its a fact (know several personally)". So is it happening or isn't it? Quote: They knowing that this is possible is enough to think twice about playing Eve... and thats a fact. They only GÇ£knowGÇ£ this because people who should know better keep perpetuating this very nonsensical myth, rather than teach them the hilariously and trivially easy methods that can be employed by anyone to make themselves 100% safe from ganks. Quote: About my comment to the Bowhead again youre too fast criticizing my phrase. I was just pointing the obvious. No, you made up a completely nonsensical claim that goes directly against the facts and history of the game, not to mention the explicit mention of those who are already planning to use it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:12:32 - [605] - Quote Tippia wrote: Quote: CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players. You don't attract new players by offering them a watered down version of what they've read about that only feebly replicates an experience they can have in a bajillion other games. You obviously dont know/play other MMO-¦s
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:15:46 - [606] - Quote Tippia wrote: Stuff Ahahahah. Right... wahtever makes you happy. What you like more... trolling or ganking?
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:16:05 - [607] - Quote Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. Why? Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way?
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:18:01 - [608] - Quote Tippia wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. That is probably the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen on these forums. Not only should it be a possible permanent career GÇö it must be a possible permanent career, or the game is broken on a fundamental level and in dire need of a redesign to make the destruction/production/trade cycle work again. Your flare for exaggeration aside, what is your supporting evidence/argument to make that work? I'm pretty sure that if you compared the destruction amounts from hi sec ganking to low sec and null sec destruction that the numbers would be laughably far apart. If you are going to make that claim then by all means prove it.
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:19:27 - [609] - Quote Dont feed the troll Valterra
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:19:55 - [610] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Slap Chop wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Things always catch up to you IRL Oh come on, that's just naive. No, its statistics. No, its naive... here's some statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances Now come back to me when you've run the numbers for people that are not caught after repeatedly doing the same activity for decades or more. Keep in mind that those numbers are for all crimes, which a lot of them could be once or a few times.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:22:08 - [611] - Quote I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell GÇö I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:24:44 - [612] - Quote Querns wrote: I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell GÇö I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited. Well to be fair, it depends on how far you want to take the argument high sec is a requirement. Its not like you start the game in null sec with all the tutorials there...
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1662	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:28:10 - [613] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. Why? Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way? I'm sorry, no. I don't have to explain why someones preferred career is enjoyable. Thats a major aspect as to why to keep it around. Good try flipping the question on me. So back to you. I'll elaborate as well. For what reasons, should a criminal career option be removed from Eve? Why should an RPG remove the 'R'? How can you justify entirely removing a major part of Eve, and in fact an aspect along the lines I remember signing up for? Granted, I found something else along the way. So, I ask for the second time. Why?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:28:57 - [614] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: You obviously dont know/play other MMO-¦s You mean those other games that consistently fail almost instantly because they offer nothing new and only ape whatever is already on the market? No, I don't play those and neither do most new players for the very reason I listed. Trying to join that crowd is not a particularly intelligent way to goGÇª EVE did the impossible and survived for a over a decade by deliberately and specifically not doing that. There is absolutely no reason why it should start now, especially given the ample evidence that it will kill the game in a heartbeat. Valterra Craven wrote: Your flare for exaggeration aside, what is your supporting evidence/argument to make that work? I'm pretty sure that if you compared the destruction amounts from hi sec ganking to low sec and null sec destruction that the numbers would be laughably far apart. If you are going to make that claim then by all means prove it. It has nothing to do with what is destroyed where (and incidentally, highsec systems sit at the top of the list of destroyed capital, see the FF2012 economy presentation) GÇö it has to do with how you cannot allow one part of the game that level of safety without breaking the industrial-economical balance or the core design principle of letting players dictate how they play and where. We have only very recently made strides towards letting players actually make that choice, free of moronic and damaging restrictions that have long proven to suffocate the game. What you are suggesting is that they not only return, but are made worse than ever. Quote: Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way? No. Answer his question: why? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5481	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:29:35 - [615] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Slap Chop wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Things always catch up to you IRL Oh come on, that's just naive. No, its statistics. No, its naive... here's some statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances Now come back to me when you've run the numbers for people that are not caught after repeatedly doing the same activity for decades or more. Keep in mind that those numbers are for all crimes, which a lot of them could be once or a few times. Keep in mind that as capsuleers, we're like superheros (or super-villains) to the average citizen in the Eve universe. We're Bill Gates-rich - even the poorest newbie that started the game last week has more money and more earning capability than the top 1% of standard citizens. We have the means to nearly any end. Concord can only hope to punish, not prevent. Death does not stop us - we have clones. So yeah, throw me in jail... give me the death penalty... I'll be back... EDIT: Oh, and there probably aren't many statistics to run for people that repeat the same crime successfully for decades.... because they're successful at it by definition. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1662	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:29:48 - [616] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Slap Chop wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Things always catch up to you IRL Oh come on, that's just naive. No, its statistics. No, its naive... here's some statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances Now come back to me when you've run the numbers for people that are not caught after repeatedly doing the same activity for decades or more. Keep in mind that those numbers are for all crimes, which a lot of them could be once or a few times. Maybe you could supply those numbers then? Or do you not have them?
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:34:37 - [617] - Quote Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. Why? Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way? I'm sorry, no. I don't have to explain why someones preferred career is enjoyable. Thats a major aspect as to why to keep it around. Good try flipping the question on me. Sorry, but that's not how debates work. I've offered an argument with supporting evidence as to why something shouldn't be a certain way. If you want to make a point other than just to say you are wrong, then go ahead, but otherwise I'm not interested in anything else.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13854	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:37:04 - [618] - Quote CCP could give the damn thing the same tank as the veldnought and they would still bleat that its not enough. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:38:21 - [619] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Sorry, but that's not how debates work. I've offered an argument with supporting evidence as to why something shouldn't be a certain way. No, you didn't. That's why he asked you why it should be the way you're suggesting. But you're quite right: what you attempted is now how debates work. When someone asks you GÇ¥whyGÇ¥, returning with a GÇ£why notGÇ¥ means you lost the debate. You have no argument. If you want the debate to end in a different way, you answer the question with an explanation of why the massive and fundamental change you're suggesting is a good one. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
GeeBee Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 59	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:38:29 - [620] - Quote 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?

Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:40:55 - [621] - Quote Rowells wrote: Maybe you could supply those numbers then? Or do you not have them? Well that might be hard for modern crimes, but if you look at things historically for example at lets say pirates: "Most pirates didnGÇÖt last very long. It was a tough line of work: many were killed or injured in battle or in fights amongst themselves, and medical facilities were usually non-existent. Even the most famous pirates, such as Blackbeard or Bartholomew Roberts, only were active in piracy for a couple of years. Roberts, who had a very long and successful career for a pirate, was only active for about three years from 1719 to 1722" Or we could look at something like mob crime that used to be a big problem back in the day, but the laws changed and today things are different (for the record I've had a lot of experience with "conspiracy" laws and just how easy it is to prosecute someone under them, but if on the other hand you've also gotten to visit your friends in prison, then please don't let me step on your toes) (As an aside The Daily show just did a skit on this recently about how ineffective the FBI is at actually tracking things http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/10/08/daily-show-searches-one-police-shooting-statistic-doesnt-exist/)
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 260	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:41:35 - [622] - Quote baltec1 wrote: CCP could give the damn thing the same tank as the veldnought and they would still bleat that its not enough. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13854	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:41:41 - [623] - Quote GeeBee wrote: 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? Cant let one ship literally transport entire fitted fleets around null. This is as big as it is going to get. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13854	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:43:22 - [624] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP could give the damn thing the same tank as the veldnought and they would still bleat that its not enough. 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. And yet, a 450k ehp tank is not enough for some. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:44:59 - [625] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5483	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:49:09 - [626] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: Maybe you could supply those numbers then? Or do you not have them? Well that might be hard for modern crimes, but if you look at things historically for example at lets say pirates: "Most pirates didnGÇÖt last very long. It was a tough line of work: many were killed or injured in battle or in fights amongst themselves, and medical facilities were usually non-existent. Even the most famous pirates, such as Blackbeard or Bartholomew Roberts, only were active in piracy for a couple of years. Roberts, who had a very long and successful career for a pirate, was only active for about three years from 1719 to 1722" Or we could look at something like mob crime that used to be a big problem back in the day, but the laws changed and today things are different (for the record I've had a lot of experience with "conspiracy" laws and just how easy it is to prosecute someone under them, but if on the other hand you've also gotten to visit your friends in prison, then please don't let me step on your toes) (As an aside The Daily show just did a skit on this recently about how ineffective the FBI is at actually tracking things http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/10/08/daily-show-searches-one-police-shooting-statistic-doesnt-exist/) That's not data, those are anecdotes. Also, medical technology has seen a few improvements in the Eve world of piracy compared to the 18th century. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:49:50 - [627] - Quote Tippia wrote: It has nothing to do with what is destroyed where (and incidentally, highsec systems sit at the top of the list of destroyed capital, see the FF2012 economy presentation) GÇö it has to do with how you cannot allow one part of the game that level of safety without breaking the industrial-economical balance or the core design principle of letting players dictate how they play and where. We have only very recently made strides towards letting players actually make that choice, free of moronic and damaging restrictions that have long proven to suffocate the game. What you are suggesting is that they not only return, but are made worse than ever. So my argument was that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. Your counter was that if it wasn't that it would destroy the game because it would imbalance the cycle needed for things to work out properly, aka things created need to be destroyed. But the problem is that this argument is nonsensical because the items destroyed in hi sec ganking do not equal, nor do they account for more than a few percentage points of the total output that hi sec produces. Further to the point, if what you say IS true, then all of the recent nerfs to ganking would have started a death spiral in the economy, when that has clearly not happened.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:51:04 - [628] - Quote again.... the ehp is not highe enough..... again at present... an ORCA fitt right can have over 450k ehp.... the BOWHEAD will be hauling far more valuble cargo... so it should be around 550k ehp at a minimum.....
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:54:03 - [629] - Quote War Kitten wrote: That's not data, those are anecdotes. Also, medical technology has seen a few improvements in the Eve world of piracy compared to the 18th century. Not to mention that EVE is not real life, nor would it be improved by being like real life. Presumably, we should remove space ships and stations as wellGÇª Valterra Craven wrote: So my argument was that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. Your counter was that if it wasn't that it would destroy the game because it would imbalance the cycle needed for things to work out properly, aka things created need to be destroyed. But the problem is that this argument is nonsensical because GÇªyou have decided to not look up the facts of the matter and are just guessing and hoping for the best. More than that, you also skipped over a significant portion of my actual argument GÇö the one concerning the need for everything to be destructible everywhere, or the game breaks from the imbalance. Oh, and you still didn't answer the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 19:56:42 - [630] - Quote Tippia wrote: GÇªyou have decided to not look up the facts of the matter and are just guessing and hoping for the best. More than that, you also skipped over a significant portion of my actual argument GÇö the one concerning the need for everything to be destructible everywhere, or the game breaks from the imbalance. Oh, and you still didn't answer the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥ Facts of what matter? That nerfs to hi sec ganking haven't destroyed the economy? Also I never addressed that part of the argument because A. I never said they shouldn't and B. I agree with you. Oh and I did answer the question. Look at my original post. Its stated pretty clearly there for anyone taking the time to read it.

Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:02:00 - [631] - Quote the Bowhead is a great idea... one that has been in the kicking around for months if not year or so.... but its a waiste of developement time to put a ship in the game that is not going to stand up against the kind of punishment "real" gankers are going to through at it.. A large group of gankers do not care about how much isk they spend vs how much they could get from kiling one of these Bowhead... they only care about getting the kill mail... Most of the multi boxing gankers gank big pricey ships not for the reward of isk... but for the sheer pleasure they get from cause the victim pilot grief.... in short give this boat a chance to survive the GREIFERs attack.... PVP is all good, pirate play is fun.... but most of the time PVP in eve is a one sided deal... your either getting alphaed off the feild in seconds ... or your getting bumped around till the gankers can finish you off before concord shows up in highsec.. in low/null again most fights are one sided rearstompings.... there is not much real PVP... it Grief vs other players...
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:02:25 - [632] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Keep in mind that as capsuleers, we're like superheros (or super-villains) to the average citizen in the Eve universe. We're Bill Gates-rich - even the poorest newbie that started the game last week has more money and more earning capability than the top 1% of standard citizens. We have the means to nearly any end. Concord can only hope to punish, not prevent. Death does not stop us - we have clones. So yeah, throw me in jail... give me the death penalty... I'll be back... EDIT: Oh, and there probably aren't many statistics to run for people that repeat the same crime successfully for decades.... because they're successful at it by definition. Keep in mind that as capsuleers we aren't in actuality goods. Clones can be destroyed. The process can fail. The lore is there that this can happen, its just not exploited. As to your comment, actually there can be. There's a reason serial killers are found, their patterns are studied and people realize the crime is connected to the same person. Yes things can be copied. But my point is this, given enough time and enough activity you will be caught. Put another way, if you are familiar with the pirate bay story, they recently just caught another founder after he skipped his country. He pissed off the wrong people and they were willing to track him down. In any case my point remains. Things do catch up to you as a matter of statistics and no matter of hand waving discounts this.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1662	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:03:16 - [633] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: because criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career. Why? Then on the flip, why shouldn't it be that way? I'm sorry, no. I don't have to explain why someones preferred career is enjoyable. Thats a major aspect as to why to keep it around. Good try flipping the question on me. Sorry, but that's not how debates work. I've offered an argument with supporting evidence as to why something shouldn't be a certain way. If you want to make a point other than just to say you are wrong, then go ahead, but otherwise I'm not interested in anything else. No. YOU offered argument so YOU have to support it. I am in no way obligated to make conjectures off of a very simple statement. So apparently YOU don't know how debates work. Maybe you should read up on how to form arguments. And no you have not supported your argument as to why "criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career". The arguments previous were about ganking and the risks and reward etc etc etc. It is still your prerogative to explain yourself. You don't have to, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously afterwords. Here's a quick breakdown of the child games you just tried to pull: A makes a statement B asks him to explain it A says B should explain why not B says I asked you first A withdraws from argument with a parting statement of "i dont have to" B swigs more whiskey to abate the growing headache, even though it is only 1 in the afternoon
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24681	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:04:45 - [634] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Facts of what matter? The one we're discussing. Keep up, or stop trying to dance around the creeping realisation you're having that your assertions are thoroughly uninformed. Quote: Oh and I did answer the question. No, you didn't, nor did you provide any evidence for your (non-existing) argument. You made an irrelevant comparison with a completely unrelated topic GÇö you have yet to answer why the game should be massively changed in that way. You are still just trying to dance around the fact that you have nothing even remotely resembling a coherent argument. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:11:39 - [635] - Quote Rowells wrote: No. YOU offered argument so YOU have to support it. I am in no way obligated to make conjectures off of a very simple statement. So apparently YOU don't know how debates work. Maybe you should read up on how to form arguments. And no you have not supported your argument as to why "criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career". The arguments previous were about ganking and the risks and reward etc etc etc. It is still your prerogative to explain yourself. You don't have to, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously afterwords. Here's a quick breakdown of the child games you just tried to pull: A makes a statement B asks him to explain it A says B should explain why not B says I asked you first A withdraws from argument with a parting statement of "i dont have to" B swigs more whiskey to abate the growing headache, even though it is only 1 in the afternoon My arguement is that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. My supporting evidence is that in today's world criminals are not given limitless chances to change their ways. Eventually courts say enough is enough. There's a reason that the the 3 strikes policy for criminals exists. That's what I said in my original post and thats what I've been arguing since. So I've made a modified version of what actually took place. A. Made a statement B. Gave supporting arguments C. People argued that this was naive and would break the game. D. I offered more examples as to why this wasn't naive and wouldn't break the game. You've done nothing of the sort. so good day.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:13:16 - [636] - Quote Tippia wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Facts of what matter? The one we're discussing. Keep up, or stop trying to dance around the creeping realisation you're having that your assertions are thoroughly uninformed. I'm discussing the fact that high sec ganking needs to be further nerfed. You are just arguing about things that don't actually exist. Quote: Oh and I did answer the question. No, you didn't, nor did you provide any evidence for your (non-existing) argument. All you've offered that comes even close is a thoroughly irrelevant comparison with a completely unrelated topic GÇö you have yet to answer why the game should be massively changed in that way. You are still just trying to dance around the fact that you have nothing even remotely resembling a coherent argument. SoGÇª why? Explain why. Properly, this time. See above. Not my problem you can't follow my simple post.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:13:50 - [637] - Quote the hull on the Bowhead should be about half.. or at lease 1/3 that of the Rorqual.... as this ship is about half the size of the Rorq.... the sheils should be about 30,000 and the armor should be about where it is now.... also please look at increasing the cargo hold a little... closer to 10k or add in an ammo bay that can hold around 5k
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5620	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:14:31 - [638] - Quote Querns wrote: I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell GÇö I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited. Buying friends is not exactly optimal logic when you start to play a video game. The Paradox
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:18:41 - [639] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Querns wrote: I love this constant assertion that being in highsec is somehow a requirement for new players. My organization is one of the most effective in the game at recruiting brand new players (to the exclusion of all over forms of recruitment, even!) and our policy is to tell newbies to abandon highsec entirely, the second they land in our corporation, and never look back. Hell GÇö I, myself, having only played the game for four years, did exactly this when I was recruited. Buying friends is not exactly optimal logic when you start to play a video game. At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:18:48 - [640] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: See above. Not my problem you can't follow my simple post. There is no answer to the question GÇ£whyGÇ¥ above. I take it to mean that this lack is supposed to be your answer, then. So to conclude: you can't think of a single solid reason why the game should change at a very fundamental level, effectively wiping out entire play styles. You could have just said so rather than do this whole silly song and dance number. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: PVP is all good, pirate play is fun.... but most of the time PVP in eve is a one sided deal... your either getting alphaed off the feild in seconds ... or your getting bumped around till the gankers can finish you off before concord shows up in highsec. It's only one-sided if you believe that the PvP happens when someone decides to press F1. In actuality, it starts looooong before that. The actual fight is a pretty minute part of the equation. If it's one-sided, it's because you made it so. If you took the same time to plan and execute as the gankers did, you'd quickly realise that, if anything, the whole thing is heavily weighted in favour of the supposed victim. Quote: the hull on the Bowhead should be about half.. or at lease 1/3 that of the Rorqual.... as this ship is about half the size of the Rorq.... the sheils should be about 30,000 and the armor should be about where it is now.... Why on earth should it have something even remotely like that amount of HP? Why do you even think that size is remotely relevant to a question of balance between safety and ease of destruction? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 990	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:20:05 - [641] - Quote Brotherhood Of The Tenbux Uber Alles This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:21:30 - [642] - Quote The whole idea of this boat is the give players a way to move their fleets around "mostly" in highsec. Not to give gankers a new easy target. This ship also has alot of promising useful talents that will be used in wormwholes, lowsec, and nullsec. But if please not try to figure out what it needs by basic numbers or stats... look at the real time play and attitudes of players.... Its not about how much it will cost... or how much i have to spend to kill one ... its about how usefull is this ship going to be.. Think of the nestor.... even with the well frankly last pathetic change to it with the almost useless fleet hanger that can not even carry an astero..... its still a very under used not in any way shape or form usefull ship for the masses.... Looking logically... this ship is about half the size of the Roqual right.... so give it 1/3 of the structure armor and sheils fo the roqual.... add in an ammo bay of 5k or increase the cargo bay up to 10k with skills or somthing
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:23:58 - [643] - Quote Tippia wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: See above. Not my problem you can't follow my simple post. There is no answer to the question GÇ£whyGÇ¥ above. I take it to mean that this lack is supposed to be your answer, then. So to conclude: you can't think of a single solid reason why the game should change at a very fundamental level, effectively wiping out entire play styles. You could have just said so rather than do this whole silly song and dance number. So its my fault you lack reading comprehension when the why has been so clearly stated numerous times? I'm glad you don't have to take any of the current standardized testing in the US... geeze. Here, maybe if I quote my original post and put tags around it so you can easily see the why we can clear this misunderstanding up? Valterra Craven wrote: I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. {THE WHY}Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense?{/THE WHY} What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1664	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:26:27 - [644] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: No. YOU offered argument so YOU have to support it. I am in no way obligated to make conjectures off of a very simple statement. So apparently YOU don't know how debates work. Maybe you should read up on how to form arguments. And no you have not supported your argument as to why "criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career". The arguments previous were about ganking and the risks and reward etc etc etc. It is still your prerogative to explain yourself. You don't have to, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously afterwords. Here's a quick breakdown of the child games you just tried to pull: A makes a statement B asks him to explain it A says B should explain why not B says I asked you first A withdraws from argument with a parting statement of "i dont have to" B swigs more whiskey to abate the growing headache, even though it is only 1 in the afternoon My arguement is that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. My supporting evidence is that in today's world criminals are not given limitless chances to change their ways. Eventually courts say enough is enough. There's a reason that the the 3 strikes policy for criminals exists. That's what I said in my original post and thats what I've been arguing since. So I've made a modified version of what actually took place. A. Made a statement B. Gave supporting arguments C. People argued that this was naive and would break the game. D. I offered more examples as to why this wasn't naive and wouldn't break the game. You've done nothing of the sort. so good day. The conversation regarding why criminal gameplay should be removed is quoted 2 posts above you. And I read your previous arguments (at least for the 3 pages previous) and the argument had nothing to do with a total removal of criminal gameplay. The closest thing I found to an answer,"That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid." And then your following story of how it doesnt work that way anywhere else (not exactly a 'why') and how it should be changed. Why should ganking be punished harder? why should criminal gameplay become a PITA? Why should highsec become safer, by way of reducing the criminals ability?
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:27:09 - [645] - Quote Querns wrote: At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. $10? I don't think even a year long sub is that cheap, nor is the plex value anywhere near that...? Please tell me how you play for 10 dollars a month....
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:27:37 - [646] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: So its my fault you lack reading comprehension when the why has been so clearly stated numerous times? No, it's your fault for trying to pass of an irrelevant tangent as an answer to the question of why the game should change so dramatically. Quote: {THE WHY} Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense?{/THE WHY} None of this explains why the game should change. It only poses further question (viz. how does it make sense, to which the answer always is GÇ£it's a gameGÇ¥). SoGÇª why should the game change? Quote: My arguement is that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. My supporting evidence is that in today's world criminals are not given limitless chances to change their ways. The first part is not an argument GÇö it's a baseless and unargued assertion. The second is not evidence GÇö it's an irrelevant sidetrack, and it does not support your assertion even if it was relevant. Quote: So I've made a modified version of what actually took place. A. Made a statement B. Gave supporting arguments C. People argued that this was naive and would break the game. D. I offered more examples as to why this wasn't naive and wouldn't break the game. This is not what happened. A made a statement that something should happen, without supporting argumentation or evidence. B asked why it should happen. A answered by saying why not. B, C, D, and E are now trying to get A to understand that he has yet to provide any kind of relevant support for his initial assertion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:27:56 - [647] - Quote Rowells wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: No. YOU offered argument so YOU have to support it. I am in no way obligated to make conjectures off of a very simple statement. So apparently YOU don't know how debates work. Maybe you should read up on how to form arguments. And no you have not supported your argument as to why "criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career". The arguments previous were about ganking and the risks and reward etc etc etc. It is still your prerogative to explain yourself. You don't have to, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously afterwords. Here's a quick breakdown of the child games you just tried to pull: A makes a statement B asks him to explain it A says B should explain why not B says I asked you first A withdraws from argument with a parting statement of "i dont have to" B swigs more whiskey to abate the growing headache, even though it is only 1 in the afternoon My arguement is that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. My supporting evidence is that in today's world criminals are not given limitless chances to change their ways. Eventually courts say enough is enough. There's a reason that the the 3 strikes policy for criminals exists. That's what I said in my original post and thats what I've been arguing since. So I've made a modified version of what actually took place. A. Made a statement B. Gave supporting arguments C. People argued that this was naive and would break the game. D. I offered more examples as to why this wasn't naive and wouldn't break the game. You've done nothing of the sort. so good day. The conversation regarding why criminal gameplay should be removed is quoted 2 posts above you. And I read your previous arguments (at least for the 3 pages previous) and the argument had nothing to do with a total removal of criminal gameplay. The closest thing I found to an answer,"That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid." And then your following story of how it doesnt work that way anywhere else (not exactly a 'why') and how it should be changed. Why should ganking be punished harder? why should criminal gameplay become a PITA? Why should highsec become safer, by way of reducing the criminals ability? Good thing I never argued for the total removal of criminal game play then!
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6672	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:28:05 - [648] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Rowells wrote: No. YOU offered argument so YOU have to support it. I am in no way obligated to make conjectures off of a very simple statement. So apparently YOU don't know how debates work. Maybe you should read up on how to form arguments. And no you have not supported your argument as to why "criminal activity should in no way be possible to be a permanent career". The arguments previous were about ganking and the risks and reward etc etc etc. It is still your prerogative to explain yourself. You don't have to, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously afterwords. Here's a quick breakdown of the child games you just tried to pull: A makes a statement B asks him to explain it A says B should explain why not B says I asked you first A withdraws from argument with a parting statement of "i dont have to" B swigs more whiskey to abate the growing headache, even though it is only 1 in the afternoon My arguement is that hi sec ganking should not be a permanent career. My supporting evidence is that in today's world criminals are not given limitless chances to change their ways. Eventually courts say enough is enough. There's a reason that the the 3 strikes policy for criminals exists. That's what I said in my original post and thats what I've been arguing since. So I've made a modified version of what actually took place. A. Made a statement B. Gave supporting arguments C. People argued that this was naive and would break the game. D. I offered more examples as to why this wasn't naive and wouldn't break the game. You've done nothing of the sort. so good day. The three strikes system is an abhorent abuse of baisic morality it has absolutely nothing to do with internet space ships bringing it up in that context makes you look a complete fool as aposed to plain wrong "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:28:11 - [649] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. $10? I don't think even a year long sub is that cheap, nor is the plex value anywhere near that...? Please tell me how you play for 10 dollars a month.... he's talking about the cost of a forums dot somethingawful dot com, premiere internet posting station and friend vending machine, account also ahahahahahaha look at you idiots trying to draw parallels between real life society and eve
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:29:01 - [650] - Quote like seriously are you serious is this a thing that is actually happening

Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:30:56 - [651] - Quote the pros and cons of PVP in highec... more honestly is pure ganking out side of Wardec..... is not the point of this thread... this is about the BOWHEAD... not game philosophy or how to stop ganking... The matter is this bowhead should be a very tough to gank ship.... it should be a safer then current means of moving incruision ships around.... otherwise why should any of the many many incursioners use this ship instead of the current way they move thier stuff around ...
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:31:34 - [652] - Quote Tippia wrote: No, it's your fault for trying to pass of an irrelevant tangent as an answer to the question of why the game should change so dramatically. Well its your opinion that my argument as to why something to change is an irrelevant tangent. You haven't shown any evidence that a. its irrelevant, and b. that its a tangent. Tippia wrote: None of this explains why the game should change. It only poses further question (viz. how does it make sense, to which the answer always is GÇ£it's a gameGÇ¥). SoGÇª why should the game change? Again, it doesn't explain why the game should change in your opinion. If you have further questions, please lets hear them. I'll answer them. So... why shouldn't the game change to follow more sensical patterns of thought?
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 223	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:32:19 - [653] - Quote I'm going to suggest that this ship be barred from taking gates into Null or Lowsec, or Jumping. Make this ship hisec only so it doesn't promote further imbalance to nullsec power projection.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:33:40 - [654] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Well its your opinion that my argument as to why something to change is an irrelevant tangent. GÇªand the reason is because you have yet to make any kind of connection between your irrelevant tangent and you initial assertion. You have yet to explain why the game should change. Quote: Again, it doesn't explain why the game should change Correct. So again, why should the game change? Quote: So... why shouldn't the game change to follow more sensical patterns of thought? GÇ£Why not?GÇ¥ as your only response to the question of why means you can't actually think of a single reason why the game should change, and that is all you're saying here. You are desperately stalling for time so it can appear as if you have an opinion that you're defending, when you have long since made clear that you have no idea on how to support your initial assertion. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 193	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:34:18 - [655] - Quote Querns wrote: At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. Damn, my lunches are like $14 a day :(
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:34:38 - [656] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: The three strikes system is an abhorent abuse of baisic morality it has absolutely nothing to do with internet space ships bringing it up in that context makes you look a complete fool as aposed to plain wrong Oh, so we should just let criminals break the law into infinity? How is that not also an abuse of basic morality. To be fair almost nothing has to do with internet space ships. Drawing parallels to the real world is a starting point. Humans play the game, humans built the game. So why shouldn't the game be compared to ideas of human justice?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:35:10 - [657] - Quote SFM Hobb3s wrote: I'm going to suggest that this ship be barred from taking gates into Null or Lowsec, or Jumping. Make this ship hisec only so it doesn't promote further imbalance to nullsec power projection. you're not very good at this fyi i can just make the damn things in a pos or an outpost try again, also interceptors are still faster
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:36:25 - [658] - Quote and again i point out the fact... that current game machinics allow an ORCA to acheive a little over 450 ehp and still remain a very usefull and talented ship for many aspects not just mining command.. This Bowhead should be at least 20% TO 40% tougher then the Orca...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:37:38 - [659] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Oh, so we should just let criminals break the law into infinity? How is that not also an abuse of basic morality. Because it relates to internet spaceships, where we should indeed just let criminals break the law into infinity until you can provide a good reason for why this should change. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: and again i point out the fact... that current game machinics allow an ORCA to acheive a little over 450 ehp and still remain a very usefull and talented ship for many aspects not just mining command.. The Orca can also carry far more valuables than the Bowhead can ever hope to. Quote: This Bowhead should be at least 20% TO 40% tougher then the Orca... It already is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:38:08 - [660] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: and again i point out the fact... that current game machinics allow an ORCA to acheive a little over 450 ehp and still remain a very usefull and talented ship for many aspects not just mining command.. This Bowhead should be at least 20% TO 40% tougher then the Orca... the orca's current ehp is not intentional, it was due to the addition of hull rigs and the orca has a lot of hull using it as a comparison to the bowhead is p dumb and you should feel dumb

Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 6672	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:40:39 - [661] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: The three strikes system is an abhorent abuse of baisic morality it has absolutely nothing to do with internet space ships bringing it up in that context makes you look a complete fool as aposed to plain wrong Oh, so we should just let criminals break the law into infinity? How is that not also an abuse of basic morality. To be fair almost nothing has to do with internet space ships. Drawing parallels to the real world is a starting point. Humans play the game, humans built the game. So why shouldn't the game be compared to ideas of human justice? Not arguing the irl point further. And we do have a system, standing, crime wach and CONCORD are all part of that, if you don't feel that's enough then get out and do something about it. "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Suicide Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:41:19 - [662] - Quote I've got it! A Solution to make everyone unhappy. Cut the EHP of the ship.. AND remove all 0.5 bottleneck systems in Highsec. Either by adding some additional gates to go around them, or changing them to say 0.7 systems.. There, now you get the easier kill, and we get to not be required to go through the most vulnerable systems in Highsec to move about. And now you actually have to hunt your prey, rather than just sit in a system where you know they have to go through just to move from A to B.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:41:44 - [663] - Quote Tippia wrote: GÇªand the reason is because you have yet to make any kind of connection between your irrelevant tangent and you initial assertion. You have yet to explain why the game should change.[quote=Tippia] The game should change because the risk reward balance is still skewed too favorably toward the attacker. (big note here since everyone is talking about freighters, that again, I'm talking about ALL high sec ganking, not just limited to freighters). [quote=Tippia]Why notGÇ¥ means you can't actually think of a single reason why the game should change, and that is all you're saying here. No, it just means you haven't made an actual argument for me to disprove beyond what I've already done. I've already done away with your argument that nerfing ganking further would not in anyway mess up the balance in creation and production, and because you've run out of arguments to attack my original one you are asking me to make further arguments.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:42:09 - [664] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Fruckton Haulalot wrote: and again i point out the fact... that current game machinics allow an ORCA to acheive a little over 450 ehp and still remain a very usefull and talented ship for many aspects not just mining command.. This Bowhead should be at least 20% TO 40% tougher then the Orca... the orca's current ehp is not intentional, it was due to the addition of hull rigs and the orca has a lot of hull using it as a comparison to the bowhead is p dumb and you should feel dumb the BOWhead is in line with the ORCA and the Rorqual... so use them as comparisons is a logical and justifiable means of figured where the Bowhead stats should be.. calling folks names only shows that your just trolling or you have no real helpfull suggestions for the Bowhead in either case your views are not relivent in this thread and keep disctracting from the topic. The Bowhead from its first concept through the many many debates can and will be a great new ship with many new aspects and uses to the game.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:43:10 - [665] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: And we do have a system, standing, crime wach and CONCORD are all part of that, if you don't feel that's enough then get out and do something about it. And how do you think a lot of those systems came to being? I'm doing exactly what I need to do to effect a change in game mechanics. Writing about it on the forums and giving feedback to the devs.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5483	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:43:21 - [666] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: Keep in mind that as capsuleers, we're like superheros (or super-villains) to the average citizen in the Eve universe. We're Bill Gates-rich - even the poorest newbie that started the game last week has more money and more earning capability than the top 1% of standard citizens. We have the means to nearly any end. Concord can only hope to punish, not prevent. Death does not stop us - we have clones. So yeah, throw me in jail... give me the death penalty... I'll be back... EDIT: Oh, and there probably aren't many statistics to run for people that repeat the same crime successfully for decades.... because they're successful at it by definition. Keep in mind that as capsuleers we aren't in actuality goods. Clones can be destroyed. The process can fail. The lore is there that this can happen, its just not exploited. So you would be in favor of a game mechanic that would let someone hunt down and permanently destroy a clone, or prevent reanimation? Or are you saying this game based on player interaction should just have a magic threshold where it says "Poof, you lose because of too much killing"? Quote: As to your comment, actually there can be. There's a reason serial killers are found, their patterns are studied and people realize the crime is connected to the same person. Yes things can be copied. But my point is this, given enough time and enough activity you will be caught. Put another way, if you are familiar with the pirate bay story, they recently just caught another founder after he skipped his country. He pissed off the wrong people and they were willing to track him down. In any case my point remains. Things do catch up to you as a matter of statistics and no matter of hand waving discounts this. Again, 1 or 2 examples of people getting caught is not data on the number of unsolved crimes. You're the one hand waving with anecdotes instead of numbers. Regardless, that line of reasoning isn't relevant to ganking. We know who committed those acts - there's proof on the killboards. The issue goes back to the punishment, or lack thereof. As much as possible, the Eve world is about player interaction - players building, players destroying, players conquering, players policing. I'd be all for more mechanics that let players hunt other players for the atrocities they commit - real or imagined. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:45:17 - [667] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: the BOWhead is in line with the ORCA and the Rorqual... so use them as comparisons is a logical and justifiable means of figured where the Bowhead stats should be.. this is not how ship balance works
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:45:47 - [668] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: No, it just means you haven't made an actual argument for me to disprove beyond what I've already done. There is nothing for you to disprove. There is only the question you have yet to answer properly: why should the game change on such a fundamental level? Quote: The game should change because the risk reward balance is still skewed too favorably toward the attacker. Do you have anything to support this assertion? Quote: I've already done away with your argument that nerfing ganking further would not in anyway mess up the balance in creation and production No, you have just dismissed it by a neat combination of argument from ignorance and strawman argumentation. You have yet to actually adress the facts of the matter or the substance of my argument. Feel free to do that as well once you're done answering the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 489	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:46:06 - [669] - Quote Suicide Smith wrote: I've got it! A Solution to make everyone unhappy. Cut the EHP of the ship.. AND remove all 0.5 bottleneck systems in Highsec. Either by adding some additional gates to go around them, or changing them to say 0.7 systems.. There, now you get the easier kill, and we get to not be required to go through the most vulnerable systems in Highsec to move about. And now you actually have to hunt your prey, rather than just sit in a system where you know they have to go through just to move from A to B. These routes already exist http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Amarr:Jita:-Niarja http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Dodixie:Jita:-Uedama
Mina Sebiestar Mactabilis Simplex Cursus 754	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:47:41 - [670] - Quote Can No you trolls stop polluting this thread no one cares who is right and you are just non needed noise thank you. If i have to choose on tank or space i would say more tank.

Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5620	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:47:58 - [671] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. $10? I don't think even a year long sub is that cheap, nor is the plex value anywhere near that...? Please tell me how you play for 10 dollars a month.... he's talking about the cost of a forums dot somethingawful dot com, premiere internet posting station and friend vending machine, account also ahahahahahaha look at you idiots trying to draw parallels between real life society and eve Let me nail down my point: A new player should have all the tools and requirements to play a game, within said game. Having to already have an established relationship from a completely separate entity, such as forum, in order to have a chance to not just survive but thrive is terrible. Just because someone entered the game with loads of friends already established who promptly escorted them away from a specific part of the game (high sec) does not mean high sec is fine. People say high sec should be more dangerous, others say it is too dangerous with suicide ganking. See the fact most suicide tankers can not be stopped before the gank happens due to Concord protecting them or other mechanics are mitigated away such as insta outs and expired kill rights. High sec can't become more dangerous if the tutorials and missions shove players to be unprepared for actual combat with other players. Sorry but forcing a new player to lose a ship in the tutorial hardly does anything to teach them PvP. People say concord is consequences, not protection. Fine, but what is being done to show new players how to get into PvP to actually do something against those would be bad guys? It sure as hell is not happening from being fought to do high sec missions with fits that don't stand a chance in PvP. [b]You can not expect new players to enter a game with a group already established in the game as the bar to not just survive but enjoy and grow.[b] The Paradox
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1676	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:48:26 - [672] - Quote 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.
Syss7 SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 19	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:50:14 - [673] - Quote I'm really excited for this new ship! Thank you CCP Rise.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:50:53 - [674] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: At $10, how could you not? Shoot, I spent $10 for lunch today. Them's some cheap-ass friends. $10? I don't think even a year long sub is that cheap, nor is the plex value anywhere near that...? Please tell me how you play for 10 dollars a month.... he's talking about the cost of a forums dot somethingawful dot com, premiere internet posting station and friend vending machine, account also ahahahahahaha look at you idiots trying to draw parallels between real life society and eve Let me nail down my point: A new player should have all the tools and requirements to play a game, within said game. Having to already have an established relationship from a completely separate entity, such as forum, in order to have a chance to not just survive but thrive is terrible. Just because someone entered the game with loads of friends already established who promptly escorted them away from a specific part of the game (high sec) does not mean high sec is fine. People say high sec should be more dangerous, others say it is too dangerous with suicide ganking. See the fact most suicide tankers can not be stopped before the gank happens due to Concord protecting them or other mechanics are mitigated away such as insta outs and expired kill rights. High sec can't become more dangerous if the tutorials and missions shove players to be unprepared for actual combat with other players. Sorry but forcing a new player to lose a ship in the tutorial hardly does anything to teach them PvP. People say concord is consequences, not protection. Fine, but what is being done to show new players how to get into PvP to actually do something against those would be bad guys? It sure as hell is not happening from being fought to do high sec missions with fits that don't stand a chance in PvP. [b]You can not expect new players to enter a game with a group already established in the game as the bar to not just survive but enjoy and grow.[b] so how did you go from "highsec is not the end all and be all of the newbie experience, look at this anecdote to the contrary" to this wall of tism
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:52:03 - [675] - Quote War Kitten wrote: So you would be in favor of a game mechanic that would let someone hunt down and permanently destroy a clone, or prevent reanimation? Or are you saying this game based on player interaction should just have a magic threshold where it says "Poof, you lose because of too much killing"? Nope. But I would be in favor of people that continually engage in high sec ganking receiving some form of permanent handicap while in high sec. War Kitten wrote: Again, 1 or 2 examples of people getting caught is not data on the number of unsolved crimes. You're the one hand waving with anecdotes instead of numbers. Regardless, that line of reasoning isn't relevant to ganking. We know who committed those acts - there's proof on the killboards. The issue goes back to the punishment, or lack thereof. As much as possible, the Eve world is about player interaction - players building, players destroying, players conquering, players policing. I'd be all for more mechanics that let players hunt other players for the atrocities they commit - real or imagined. Again, I'm not talking about unsolved crimes. I'm talking about the statistical probability of your odds of getting caught and punished given that one repeatedly indulges in criminal behavior.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:53:00 - [676] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. do they not have zkillboard where you live https://zkillboard.com/kill/42334618/ about 115m trying to argue that the ship should be ungankable because your narrow imagination says the only use case for the ship is schlepping around your overpriced autism chariot is pretty funny
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:53:36 - [677] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: High sec can't become more dangerous if the tutorials and missions shove players to be unprepared for actual combat with other players Just one problem with this claim: highsec was far more dangerous, especially to newbies, when they had even less guidance and were tossed out into open space even less prepared. Saying that GÇ£it can't becomeGÇ¥ what it has already been is somewhat disingenuous. Quote: You can not expect new players to enter a game with a group already established in the game as the bar to not just survive but enjoy and grow. This is fair enough, but at the same time, it shows that all that is required for new players to enjoy, grow, and thrive is that they are properly educated GÇö not that they are coddled or protected. What's really needed is better ways for new players to make those crucial connections, rather than be the standard scapegoat for established players looking to make their own lives easier. Valterra Craven wrote: Nope. But I would be in favor of people that continually engage in high sec ganking receiving some form of permanent handicap while in high sec. This already exists in numerous incarnations. You are in favour of the game as it already works. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13857	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:56:12 - [678] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. CCP dont tank these things according to the highest possible isk value junk you can stuff in it. 450k ehp is more than enough tank for this whale, you people already transport more expensive cargo in ships with much less tank. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5483	Posted - 2014.11.11 20:59:21 - [679] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Go back and read / search for Warr Akini's posts. He's rather authoritative in Goonswarm's ganking for profit division. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:04:21 - [680] - Quote Tippia wrote: There is nothing for you to disprove. There is only the question you have yet to answer properly: why should the game change on such a fundamental level? Again your opinion. Tippia wrote: Quote: The game should change because the risk reward balance is still skewed too favorably toward the attacker. Do you have anything to support this assertion? More to the point, how does this in any way support or explain the assertion that you should not be allowed to be a permanent criminal? Because being a permanent criminal means that the risks are not high enough to deter the activity. That's generally how most systems work. People have to weigh how much a short term activity will profit them versus the long term potential affects of that behavior and how it could affect their choices in the future. In the current system the question is only how profitable is this for me to do? Given that tags are easily purchased that is neatly added into the cost equation but does not address the long term repercussions of the behavior. Tippia wrote: Quote: I've already done away with your argument that nerfing ganking further would not in anyway mess up the balance in creation and production No, you have just dismissed it by a neat combination of argument from ignorance and strawman argumentation. You have yet to actually adress the facts of the matter or the substance of my argument. Feel free to do that as well once you're done answering the question GÇ£why?GÇ¥ Oh, please point out to me where you proved that high sec ganking is a fundamental part of the game as a question of economy? Please also point out to me how asking you to do is is also a strawman.

Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 329	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:05:17 - [681] - Quote Querns wrote: Celly S wrote: please do oh wait, someone else who couldn't come up with a valid counter to one of my statements already did that. Apparently constantly being called out on lack of evidence, moving goalposts, and a systemic lack of understanding of game mechanics counts as having a position with no "valid counter." exactly, since from the get go you have ignored my original statement, tried to twist what i said, and even after being shown that your assertions were wrong, you've continued to troll me here, let me dumb it down for you so you'll understand my original comment there is a ship in low and null that has a jump drive and can haul fitted ships. because of the rorqual's limitation to industrial only ships, the only other ship with that capability is called a carrier. Everything else you've dreamed up has been on you, not me... so you my friend are a troll and in typical goon fashion, resort to threats when someone won't cow toe to your point of view... Now please move along and let the adults have their discussion... report my name if you want, i don't care, in fact, I'm certain CCP will get a kick out of you reporting "Celly S" as obscene. but please don't waste my time with any more of your drivel and twisting of what was a simple straightforward statement to begin with... 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.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:07:18 - [682] - Quote 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
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:09:08 - [683] - Quote Celly S wrote: Querns wrote: Celly S wrote: please do oh wait, someone else who couldn't come up with a valid counter to one of my statements already did that. Apparently constantly being called out on lack of evidence, moving goalposts, and a systemic lack of understanding of game mechanics counts as having a position with no "valid counter." exactly, since from the get go you have ignored my original statement, tried to twist what i said, and even after being shown that your assertions were wrong, you've continued to troll me here, let me dumb it down for you so you'll understand my original comment there is a ship in low and null that has a jump drive and can haul fitted ships. because of the rorqual's limitation to industrial only ships, the only other ship with that capability is called a carrier. Everything else you've dreamed up has been on you, not me... so you my friend are a troll and in typical goon fashion, resort to threats when someone won't cow toe to your point of view... Now please move along and let the adults have their discussion... report my name if you want, i don't care, in fact, I'm certain CCP will get a kick out of you reporting "Celly S" as obscene. but please don't waste my time with any more of your drivel and twisting of what was a simple straightforward statement to begin with... sure are postin a lot about it for not caring
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:09:10 - [684] - Quote Tippa wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Nope. But I would be in favor of people that continually engage in high sec ganking receiving some form of permanent handicap while in high sec. This already exists in numerous incarnations. You are in favour of the game as it already works. Please elaborate.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13858	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:09:16 - [685] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: 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 RIP Mengu Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1676	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:09:51 - [686] - Quote baltec1 wrote: CCP dont tank these things according to the highest possible isk value junk you can stuff in it. 450k ehp is more than enough tank for this whale, you people already transport more expensive cargo in ships with much less tank. 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.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:11:58 - [687] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Because being a permanent criminal means that the risks are not high enough to deter the activity. Why should it be deterred? Quote: Oh, please point out to me where you proved that high sec ganking is a fundamental part of the game as a question of economy? It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:15:49 - [688] - Quote but i have a right to fly as expensive an autism chariot as I wish because i am in highsec and highsec is supposed to be safe
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:16:17 - [689] - Quote Tippia wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Because being a permanent criminal means that the risks are not high enough to deter the activity. Why should it be deterred?[/quote Why shouldn't it? This is the main problem with your argument about not answering "why" questions in a debate. The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity. I've made a point. I've backed it. You disagree with it? Fine. Come up with substantive counter argument. Otherwise I'm not interested in childish games. Otherwise, please refer to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMB-0sE__cY Tippia wrote: [quote]Oh, please point out to me where you proved that high sec ganking is a fundamental part of the game as a question of economy? It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman. So the same post you did nothing?
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 329	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:16:51 - [690] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: sure are postin a lot about it for not caring about him reporting me?, I could care less.. about him twisting what was said in the first place into something else and trying to act as though he has a clue?, he twisted what I said originally, told me carriers were nerfed for their tank, then when told that wasn't it, he said their combat abilities, and again when told that wasn't it, resorted to trying to make it seem as though I said carriers were nerfed for their sma.. telling lies and putting words in my mouth I do care about. 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.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:17:38 - [691] - Quote Celly S wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: sure are postin a lot about it for not caring about him reporting me?, I could care less.. about him twisting what was said in the first place into something else and trying to act as though he has a clue?, he twisted what I said originally, told me carriers were nerfed for their tank, then when told that wasn't it, he said their combat abilities, and again when told that wasn't it, resorted to trying to make it seem as though I said carriers were nerfed for their sma.. telling lies and putting words in my mouth I do care about. here's another one
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13858	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:18:57 - [692] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP dont tank these things according to the highest possible isk value junk you can stuff in it. 450k ehp is more than enough tank for this whale, you people already transport more expensive cargo in ships with much less tank. 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. Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:19:19 - [693] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Why shouldn't it? No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? Quote: The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity That's what happens if you throw out baseless assertions like that. If you're not prepared to defend themGÇöif you feel that it's a problem that you keep being questionedGÇöstop throwing them out. Quote: So the same post you did nothing? No. It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:22:01 - [694] - Quote Tippia wrote: No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. Answer the question on why shouldn't it be deterred. Tippia wrote: [quote]The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity That's what happens if you throw out baseless assertions like that. If you're not prepared to defend themGÇöif you feel that it's a problem that you keep being questionedGÇöstop throwing them out./quote] No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13858	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:23:14 - [695] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Tippia wrote: No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. Answer the question on why shouldn't it be deterred. Just answer the question already. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:24:39 - [696] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Tippia wrote: No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so? Quote: No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea. GÇªand that is why those bad proposals will always be met with an incessant wall of GÇ£why?GÇ¥ until the originator demonstrates that they can't actually support the baseless and ill-conceived opinion they vomited out for no apparent reason. Much like what keeps happening to you. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:26:14 - [697] - Quote it turns out that individuals preying on other individuals is core to eve gameplay
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:27:14 - [698] - Quote Tippia wrote: So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so? Again, I can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't. It works both ways. Tippia wrote: Quote: No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea. GÇªand that is why those bad proposals will always be met with an incessant wall of GÇ£why?GÇ¥ until the originator demonstrates that they can't actually support the baseless and ill-conceived opinion they vomited out for no apparent reason. Much like what keeps happening to you. Look up the word baseless. It doesn't mean what you think it does.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:29:10 - [699] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Just answer the question already. Done and Done.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:33:50 - [700] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Again, I can safely conclude Nope. You see, there is a very simple reason why it shouldn't that remains true from the very start: because you fail to explain why. Your conclusion is based on a onus probandi fallacyGÇönot only is it not safe, it is fundamentally lacking in any kind of logical cohesion or validity. Quote: It works both ways. No, it doesn't. You made an assertion. Your assertion is incorrect until you provide some supporting argumentation or evidence to prove otherwise. As long as you adamantly refuse to answer the very very very very trivially simple question GÇ£whyGÇ¥, we have every reason ever needed to say that your suggestion should absolutely not happen. You provided the answer to your own question by your refusal to answer mine. I don't have to lift a finger. Quote: Look up the word baseless. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Yes it does, and it perfectly describes the unsupported assertions that you keep vomiting up and then adamantly refuse to support. Quote: Done and Done. Nope. Why should it be deterred? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:35:50 - [701] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13858	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:39:49 - [702] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Tippia wrote: So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so? Again, I can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't. It works both ways. No it doesn't. Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13858	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:45:31 - [703] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. A trio of nightmares is also below the profit margin. Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Go ahead and try to make a profit ganking blockade runners. The only thing you will manage to do by ganking blind is run out of isk. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dissention Prime Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:45:40 - [704] - Quote This is spectacular. I don't know why it has taken so long to happen, but I am pretty damn happy about it.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:46:56 - [705] - Quote Tippia wrote: Nope. You see, there is a very simple reason why it shouldn't that remains true from the very start: because you fail to explain why. Your conclusion is based on a onus probandi fallacyGÇönot only is it not safe, it is fundamentally lacking in any kind of logical cohesion or validity. What a shame that I've already explained why. Whereas your argument is just that? Why? "Why" is not an argument. Tippia wrote: No, it doesn't. You made an assertion. Your assertion is incorrect until you provide some supporting argumentation or evidence to prove otherwise. As long as you adamantly refuse to answer the very very very very trivially simple question GÇ£whyGÇ¥, we have every reason ever needed to say that your suggestion should absolutely not happen. No, I offered an opinion as proven by the phrase "my 2 cents" and then proceeded to detail why I held that opinion. What I did not do was make a statement of fact, or posit a theory which can be proven or disproven. Therefore what I said was not incorrect. The very reason that you are asking "why" is because you have no valid bases to attack the opinion that I hold. Otherwise you would do so. Tippia wrote: You provided the answer to your own question by your refusal to answer mine. I don't have to lift a finger. No, I provided neither the answer to my question nor a reason for you not to lift a finger to hold a stance.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:47:41 - [706] - Quote again you folks are way off topic.... this thread is not about your opinions on pvp... nor the validity of right or wrong pirate play... its about the bowhead.... while most of you are very good at typing very well thought out arguments and or logical arguments for both sides of the debate... lets talk more about Bowhead.... The Bowhead will bring some new aspect to the game that alot of folks will like... and some will hate... but lets realistically give reasonable thought to it instead of the worthless tangents yall are on now
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:48:38 - [707] - Quote baltec1 wrote: No it doesn't. Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space? Good thing I haven't advocated for removing piracy or risk from the game!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:48:54 - [708] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: baltec1 wrote: Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things. Unless they are bling fit in which case they won't fall under even a Talos gank margin. strip mods, haul via 700k EHP JF, blockade runner, or public courier it is like you are not thinking at all
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13858	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:51:18 - [709] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: No it doesn't. Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space? Good thing I haven't advocated for removing piracy or risk from the game! You are when you demand nerfs to ganking. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:52:25 - [710] - Quote baltec1 wrote: A trio of nightmares is also below the profit margin. I'll also point out your profit margin is assuming they are actually pretty near max tanking it rather than fitting it for agility & warp speed. Which you will get plenty of people who will do that instead I'm sure. At which point suddenly a lot of that stuff is profitable. So.... the current EHP levels seem reasonable given the purpose CCP have claimed they intended for it. If a gank is automatically profitable vs bare hulls only (with rigs) in the SMA that match that intended purpose and no cargo at all in the bowhead, then the ship is useless for it's claimed purpose. Obviously it will be great for null to jump bridge dozens of pre fitted HAC's or BS or whatever around as well, and equally obviously null doesn't really care about the EHP because if it ever sees combat something has gone critically wrong anyway. Promiscuous Female wrote: strip mods, haul via 700k EHP JF, blockade runner, or public courier it is like you are not thinking at all Almost like you can't haul several rigged BS & a few Logi in a JF at once, or even in a Freighter at once. Sure you can package them if you are continually destroying rigs, but.... yea nah.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 21:59:10 - [711] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: What a shame that I've already explained why. No, you really haven't. Why should it be deterred? Quote: Whereas your argument is just that? Why? "Why" is not an argument. Almost correct. My argument is that your refusal to answer a very simple question is all that is needed to show that what you're asking for should not happen. GÇ£WhyGÇ£ is indeed not an argument, and neither is GÇ£why not?GÇ¥, and yet that is all you have offered so far. Quote: No, I offered an opinion as proven by the phrase "my 2 cents" and then proceeded to detail why I held that opinion. GÇªexcept that you did neither of those. You offered an assertion, with nothing to support it. You said that the risks in being a permanent criminal are not enough to deter the activityGÇöthat is not an opinion, nor is there any two cents attached to it. It's a normative statement with no explanation why it should be deterred. Hence the question: why should it be deterred? Quote: No, I provided neither the answer to my question nor a reason for you not to lift a finger to hold a stance. Yes you did. By failing to answer the question of why, you provided an answer to GÇ£why not?GÇ¥ that is GÇ£because there's no reason to do itGÇ¥. Onus probandi is a nasty fellow GÇö you need to learn to not fall for it every time. The best way is to actually start answering that question you've come to loathe: the question of GÇ£why?GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 261	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:00:05 - [712] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things. Incursion runners don't really use rattles. Standard runner using this would have mach + vindi + nightmare....not very cheap hulls.
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:01:07 - [713] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You are when you demand nerfs to ganking. Except that nerf != wholesale removal.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 24684	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:02:54 - [714] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You are when you demand nerfs to ganking. Except that nerf != wholesale removal. Indeed, but what you're very explicitly asking for is a wholesale removal, for no reason that you can articulate. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1359	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:07:19 - [715] - Quote baltec1 wrote: A trio of nightmares is also below the profit margin. It's a bit over the mentioned 2bill line but in 3 items so you need 2 third to drop if you count a single gank...
ArmyOfMe PILGRIMS Advent of Fate 372	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:07:49 - [716] - Quote Give it 2m m3 of ship main bay and ill be perfectly happy with it after the hp buff. For those of you complaining about warp speed on it, dont forget there are implants to help fix that issue. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Alxephon Official Will Smith Fan Club Black Opiate 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:09:18 - [717] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: Suicide ganking in highsec is ruining Eve. This is why so many of our new players quit in the first few weeks. CCP, please do more things like this to make ships un-gankable. If you have any doubts, complete this sentence to yourself - " I like non-consensual ---." Think of anything you like there? Non-consensual PVP is ruining Eve. Make the jerks go to lowsec or nullsec for PVP. Cheers gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5620	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:09:54 - [718] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things. Incursion runners don't really use rattles. Standard runner using this would have mach + vindi + nightmare....not very cheap hulls. Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta. The Paradox
Martha Stewart Living The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:10:58 - [719] - Quote "Nevyn Auscent" wrote: If a gank is automatically profitable vs bare hulls only (with rigs) in the SMA that match that intended purpose and no cargo at all in the bowhead, then the ship is useless for it's claimed purpose. If I'm parsing your writing correctly, you're saying that if it's profitable to gank a bowhead with that has only stripped Pirate Battleships with rigs in it, with no fittings, that it's useless, as you might as well just fly the ships yourself. But the problem is that's the only point at which it becomes profitable. When you stuff it full with the most expensive ships in the game. It still has the intended purpose of moving assembled ships around, and I think it would still be pretty useful for moving cruisers, battlecruisers, destroyers, etc. It's just not profitable at those levels either.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:11:48 - [720] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: 420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable. this was a misleading post..... 420 ehp is still very gankable...... you can get 450 ehp on orcas now.... and they still get ganked. the Bowhead will be hauling far more vaulable cargo ... the bowhead is a much bigger ship..... and its has 0... let me say that again it has 0 combat ability, 0 command ability, 0 means to do anything other then haul fitted ships around.... so if its only purpose in eve is to haul other fitted ships around then its specity should be able to protect its cargo with more tank than an ORCA

Idgarad Yulai Guard Fleet Yards Yulai Federation 7	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:13:55 - [721] - Quote Remember with the teams in industry CCP is trying nudge people into moving around more to "chase the margin". This ship seems to be a tool to get people moving around a bit more, rebaseing more often. As an old DAOC player one innovation that Mythic did that no one else seems to have picked up was the concept of a "Camp Bonus". Spawn points started with a bonus and the more the spawn was farmed\camped the lower the bonus got until it vanished. (Remember farming Fens?) This encouraged people to move around to chase camps that had good camp bonuses. It encouraged people to explore and farm mobs that without the bonus might not have been as desirable or efficient. Now in industry we have a similar mechanic. Corps are nudged to move around a bit more to exploit better costs and margins. The problem is when I moved regions it too 31 freighter trips, a dozen orca runs, and 15 single ship moves to get out of Sinq Liason to Tash Murkon when we moved. A lot has changed since 3 years ago but it was interesting to go from Gallente space to Amarr. I think this set up is a small, tiny step in "churning the pot". Small measured approaches to getting a bit more chaos into the system. I would hope that roid belts get normalized and go the same was Ice did (I still think 4 hours is a tad long ice, I'd be okay with 2 hours for roids) to get people to populate more systems rather then clump up in high belt count systems. Just give every system 4 belts in hi-sec for example and put them under constant threat from rats to give a market for new players to defend belts building a better relationship between miners and PvE pilots. Anything to get people moving about more, regardless of which sec seems to be a good move and if my suspicions are correct, the Eve universe is about to get a bit bigger.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:17:17 - [722] - Quote Martha Stewart Living wrote: "Nevyn Auscent" wrote: If a gank is automatically profitable vs bare hulls only (with rigs) in the SMA that match that intended purpose and no cargo at all in the bowhead, then the ship is useless for it's claimed purpose. If I'm parsing your writing correctly, you're saying that if it's profitable to gank a bowhead with that has only stripped Pirate Battleships with rigs in it, with no fittings, that it's useless, as you might as well just fly the ships yourself. But the problem is that's the only point at which it becomes profitable. When you stuff it full with the most expensive ships in the game. It still has the intended purpose of moving assembled ships around, and I think it would still be pretty useful for moving cruisers, battlecruisers, destroyers, etc. It's just not profitable at those levels either. Gankers are not always out for profit... they are out for the kill mail or the "joy" of making other pilots lose a fortune... arguing the profit vs risk on what it takes to make a "profit" on killing a bowhead is not acurate... you have to take in the variable of the massive corps, groups, multiboxers who will kill these ships for pure spite.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3471	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:19:41 - [723] - Quote Removed an off topic post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:22:29 - [724] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: strip mods, haul via 700k EHP JF, blockade runner, or public courier it is like you are not thinking at all Almost like you can't haul several rigged BS & a few Logi in a JF at once, or even in a Freighter at once. Sure you can package them if you are continually destroying rigs, but.... yea nah. you don't strip the rigs, smart guy, you strip the modules only and ship them separately via higher-security methods or ones that allow you to diversify the risk via collateral then you move the hulls (which are completely unfit aside from the rigs!) to the next incursion or w/e and refit on site this works because mods are much smaller than ships
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:26:18 - [725] - Quote Tippia wrote: No, you really haven't. Why should it be deterred? Yes I have. I believe that the game is skewed too favorable towards one play style over another in a way that makes no logical sense for it to continue in the manner that it has. I've said this numerous times. Tippia wrote: Almost correct. My argument is that your refusal to answer a very simple question is all that is needed to show that what you're asking for should not happen. GÇ£WhyGÇ£ is indeed not an argument, and neither is GÇ£why not?GÇ¥, and yet that is all you have offered so far. And my arguments is that I have not only answered your simple question I have done so multiple times, making your argument baseless. Just because you disagree that the answers I have provided are not sufficient does not make that fact that I have provided them irrelevant. While I haven't sufficiently met your requirements of sanctification, I have offered far more than you have. Tippia wrote: except that you did neither of those. You offered an assertion, with nothing to support it. You said that the risks in being a permanent criminal are not enough to deter the activityGÇöthat is not an opinion, nor is there any two cents attached to it. It's a normative statement with no explanation why it should be deterred. Except that I did both of those. We all agree that high sec ganking can be and is a permanent career. My original argument is that this makes no sense from a human point of view since in almost all societies that are in existence today and in the past punishments for crimes that are committed by repeat offenders are harsher than they are for first time offenders. Since Eve does not have this, this lessons the total overall risk of the activity for the offender and makes it easier to justify given that the only real risks are monetary and monetary risk are not permanent. Tippia wrote: Yes you did. By failing to answer the question of why, you provided an answer to GÇ£why not?GÇ¥ that is GÇ£because there's no reason to do itGÇ¥. Onus probandi is a nasty fellow GÇö you need to learn to not fall for it every time. The best way is to actually start answering that question you've come to loathe: the question of GÇ£why?GÇ¥ The only problem with this line of thinking is that I did provide an answer to the why. What I did not do was provide an answer to your question nested 3 levels deeper into my responses. There's a difference.
First Ometic'lan Krupp Heavy Industries 0	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:33:24 - [726] - Quote Wake up Capsuleers, you just have been trolled by CCP. around 350k EHP sounds ok for someone not familiar with ganking mechanics. Now, let us assume that this ship will be used as intended, hauling fully fit BS hulls through New Eden. Who is permanently travelling with shiny ships around New Eden? Right, incursion pilots.... What do they fly? Right, shiny ships... So, let us put a Nightmare, a Vindicator and a Machariel into that hauler, maybe HQ fit. So the value will be around 4-5B Isk each, so let's say 12B Isk. If only one ships drops (remember 50% drop chance), that will be 4-5B ISK. A fully fitted Catalyst costs about 10M. How many Catalysts do you need to apply 250k HP damage? a T2 fitted Catalyst can apply roughly about 10k damage (0.5 sec), so we are talking about 35 catalysts... 4B ISK can buy you 400 catalysts... More than 10x the ships needed for one single successful gank..... If this ship gets out, I will get my alts in their tech2 catalysts and make more money shooting incursion pilots than shooting incursion sanshas... But, hey, that's CCP's understanding of game mechanics in a nutshell. The brign out a new ship to help organized gankers get rid of the surplus of battleships...
Valterra Craven 320	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:35:33 - [727] - Quote Tippia wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You are when you demand nerfs to ganking. Except that nerf != wholesale removal. Indeed, but what you're very explicitly asking for is a wholesale removal, for no reason that you can articulate. Except that what I proposed in no way achieves wholesale removal. Saying something should have permanent consequences is not the same thing as something something should not be possible. I see plenty of people in high sec moving around in ships that are blinky red and yellow all the time. Very rarely are they shot at because most people are conditioned not because of how silly the game mechanics are these days, i.e that shooting someone that's blinky in a gang opens you up to be shot by everyone in the gang is stupid.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:36:32 - [728] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't strip the rigs, smart guy, you strip the modules only and ship them separately via higher-security methods or ones that allow you to diversify the risk via collateral then you move the hulls (which are completely unfit aside from the rigs!) to the next incursion or w/e and refit on site this works because mods are much smaller than ships So please explain to me how a 468k m^3 Battleship fits into a max tanked Jump Freighter like you claimed. Or how it fits into a Deep Space transport. To move the hulls like you claimed requires packaging which requires destroying rigs. The maths I was doing on gank profitability were based entirely on bare hulls already and assuming modules had been stripped. And sure baltec. We are talking some of the more expensive hulls for the space they take. But that is the purpose CCP have said they want this ship to have. People who move around high sec chasing the isk who need to move fitted BS are mainly incursion runners with the odd mission runner who for some reason doesn't do SOE but migrates (Though there is the possibility that at some point in the future SOE could drop also in which case more mission runners will move but separate maths & argument). So the purpose they are being made for involves moving around said expensive hulls. Trying to pretend that there is a large demand in high sec for the ability to move pre fitted T1 BS hulls around..... yea, just not seeing the demand.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:48:18 - [729] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: you don't strip the rigs, smart guy, you strip the modules only and ship them separately via higher-security methods or ones that allow you to diversify the risk via collateral then you move the hulls (which are completely unfit aside from the rigs!) to the next incursion or w/e and refit on site this works because mods are much smaller than ships So please explain to me how a 468k m^3 Battleship fits into a max tanked Jump Freighter like you claimed. Or how it fits into a Deep Space transport. To move the hulls like you claimed requires packaging which requires destroying rigs. okay i guess we gotta back it up a bit, ol auntie promfem got it goin on faster than could be understood here is the setup acquire one (1) to many (~) irrationally expensive autism chariots, which are rigged strip out all the mods and ship them via a secure shipping method which is either resistant to ganks or collateralized put the now rigged, but unfit, assembled hulls in a bowhead and go nowhere in my vignette did I ever mention jump freighters except as a way to haul the mods which, fyi, would be by gate jump freighters make good armored car cargo carriers because they have superlative EHP when fit right, upwards of 700k the idea is that the thing that makes said autism chariots expensive is not necessarily the hull, but the gruesome, ill-advised collection of deadspace and officer mods thereupon attached the cool thing about modules is that they are not permanently glued to a ship the way rigs are GÇö you can detach them and shuffle em about separately you use this to your advantage in order to make the use of the bowhead safer against being ganked
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:53:24 - [730] - Quote Except nowhere was I talking about the mods ever in my arguments other than the one time I noted that if someone didn't unfit them then sure they would be profitable to gank. It's 2-3 Billion in pure hull + rigs. Meaning if the Bowhead EHP was set to such a level that you know it will only take 1 Bil to gank them in a sensible way, the Bowhead is an auto gank button pretty much and none of the people that CCP intended it for will use it. Obviously the current EHP you can gank under 1 Bil if you organise a crazy number of Catalysts. But ganking with ABC's requires similar cost to the value of the bare hull drops. Meaning anyone ganking with ABC's is gambling on you being lazy on removing fittings because they can't be scanned, or you didn't fit max tank on your Bowhead, or they just plain don't like you so aren't ganking for profit anyway. But since CCP have been clear in their reasoning behind the creation of it, the EHP does need to fit that reasoning.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:56:31 - [731] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Except nowhere was I talking about the mods ever in my arguments other than the one time I noted that if someone didn't unfit them then sure they would be profitable to gank. It's 2-3 Billion in pure hull + rigs. Meaning if the Bowhead EHP was set to such a level that you know it will only take 1 Bil to gank them in a sensible way, the Bowhead is an auto gank button pretty much and none of the people that CCP intended it for will use it. Obviously the current EHP you can gank under 1 Bil if you organise a crazy number of Catalysts. But ganking with ABC's requires similar cost to the value of the bare hull drops. Meaning anyone ganking with ABC's is gambling on you being lazy on removing fittings because they can't be scanned, or you didn't fit max tank on your Bowhead, or they just plain don't like you so aren't ganking for profit anyway. But since CCP have been clear in their reasoning behind the creation of it, the EHP does need to fit that reasoning. ccp has no obligation to ensure that you can move a very expensive hull safely have you tried using a cheaper hull
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:58:57 - [732] - Quote like this is some basic survival stuff right here, you don't use an expensive hull unless you're reasonably able to secure it against mayhem it is beyond adorable that y'all are demanding a safe way to shuffle your expensive stuff around
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 22:59:58 - [733] - Quote the whole point of this ship is so you can move your battleships in one peice.. 1 pilot 1 ship.... if you have to have more than just this ship then the point of the ship is lost.... again there is no reason to sink money into the bowhead if it requires a fleet to keep it alive in a gank... again there is no reason to sink money into the bowhead if you have to use another "TANK" tomove all the valiable mods... The Bowhead needs to be able to Tank against a 40 man catalyst gank fleet.... if the Bowhead can not survive a 40 man Catalyst gank fleet for at least 1 full minute then dont bother. and watch the Bowhead go the wayside of the Nestor another attempt to add a nice new ship that went horrible wrong
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:00:03 - [734] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: ccp has no obligation to ensure that you can move a very expensive hull safely have you tried using a cheaper hull Train reading comprehension to 1. It's not an 'obligation'. CCP have outright said in this very thread that this ship is intended to meet the needs of people like Incursion runners to move multiple BS/Logi around chasing incursions. If the ship is not able to move those hulls that are used for that task without being profitable to gank then CCP have outright failed in their intent. Regardless of profitable, it still won't be 'safe'. There will still be plenty of ganks. Since a lot of ganks don't happen for profit.
Dradis Aulmais Ignite Llc. V.L.A.S.T 13	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:06:10 - [735] - Quote Possible ore lore for this ship: ORE developed this to move large fleets around mining centers. This ship allows the formen to meet and brief crews and captains while the ship is in transit. The ships captain will not have to divide his attention from traveling to briefing to security, the bowhead will deal with that while the captain and crew get mission details. Plus you don't have to worry about one of your minding ships warp/jumping to the wrong system.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:07:21 - [736] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: ccp has no obligation to ensure that you can move a very expensive hull safely have you tried using a cheaper hull Train reading comprehension to 1. It's not an 'obligation'. CCP have outright said in this very thread that this ship is intended to meet the needs of people like Incursion runners to move multiple BS/Logi around chasing incursions. If the ship is not able to move those hulls that are used for that task without being profitable to gank then CCP have outright failed in their intent. Regardless of profitable, it still won't be 'safe'. There will still be plenty of ganks. Since a lot of ganks don't happen for profit. no, you're mistaking their intention completely their intention is to allow people to move multiple hulls around using one ship, it isn't to compensate for the incursion community's disgusting habits of bolting every single expensive module to a ship the incursion community was used as an example because they are probably the most in need of being able to shuttle multiple ships around, but it was expressly couched with fitting restraint in mind (as in, the T2 fit, T1 battleships used as an example) that you and yours feel they NEED to use expensive modules on a ship, and in turn have the ability to move them safely, is not something ccp has to compensate for
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:09:10 - [737] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: no, you're mistaking their intention completely their intention is to allow people to move multiple hulls around using one ship, it isn't to compensate for the incursion community's disgusting habits of bolting every single expensive module to a ship the incursion community was used as an example because they are probably the most in need of being able to shuttle multiple ships around, but it was expressly couched with fitting restraint in mind (as in, the T2 fit, T1 battleships used as an example) that you and yours feel they NEED to use expensive modules on a ship, and in turn have the ability to move them safely, is not something ccp has to compensate for Quit misquoting me. This is NOTHING to do with the modules. I am already assuming the modules have been removed from the ship and are being taken separately. Because, you know, that's already what the incursion communities do. This is about moving bare rigged hulls without being profitable to gank automatically.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:12:06 - [738] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Quit misquoting me. This is NOTHING to do with the modules. I am already assuming the modules have been removed from the ship and are being taken separately. Because, you know, that's already what the incursion communities do. This is about moving bare rigged hulls without being profitable to gank automatically. the same principle still applies use less expensive hulls
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:17:08 - [739] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: the same principle still applies use less expensive hulls Live in less expensive space. Don't use Capitals. Blah blah, you want to try and tell people to use bad tools for the job, don't constantly defend your 'need' to have expensive things and be able to run SRP's in return. The same principle does not apply, you use the correct tool for the job. We are also assuming the person is actually max tanking the Bowhead here. Not fitting it for agility & warp speed in which case it would be profitable to gank while carrying more expensive hulls. Good RNG says even at MAX tank it can still be profitable to gank carrying marauders, certainly profitable to gank carrying rigged T3's, and probably profitable to gank if filled with a bunch of smaller T2 ships also. So, the EHP bump that CCP gave it was needed to fufill it's intended role, It was not over the top, and it's EHP was not sufficient before because CCP were basing it on pretty much the cheapest possible option you could be using the Bowhead for, not a realistic situation. Does it need even further EHP? Not that I can see either.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:31:02 - [740] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the same principle still applies use less expensive hulls Live in less expensive space. Don't use Capitals. Blah blah, you want to try and tell people to use bad tools for the job, don't constantly defend your 'need' to have expensive things and be able to run SRP's in return. please tell me more about the costs of living in space and how SRP programs work Nevyn Auscent wrote: The same principle does not apply, you use the correct tool for the job. We are also assuming the person is actually max tanking the Bowhead here. Not fitting it for agility & warp speed in which case it would be profitable to gank while carrying more expensive hulls. Good RNG says even at MAX tank it can still be profitable to gank carrying marauders, certainly profitable to gank carrying rigged T3's, and probably profitable to gank if filled with a bunch of smaller T2 ships also. So, the EHP bump that CCP gave it was needed to fufill it's intended role, It was not over the top, and it's EHP was not sufficient before because CCP were basing it on pretty much the cheapest possible option you could be using the Bowhead for, not a realistic situation. Does it need even further EHP? Not that I can see either. lmao at pirate faction battleships being "realistic"

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1677	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:34:57 - [741] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: lmao at pirate faction battleships being "realistic" Because that is the realistic meta you are dealing with when it comes to the people CCP said they intended this ship to serve. There are PVP groups in low/null that use Pirate BS on a small scale. Your own alliance uses Navy BS on a massive scale. Basing something off the cheapest possible use of it is certainly not realistic, and that's what CCP were doing to start with.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 261	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:38:52 - [742] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Quit misquoting me. This is NOTHING to do with the modules. I am already assuming the modules have been removed from the ship and are being taken separately. Because, you know, that's already what the incursion communities do. This is about moving bare rigged hulls without being profitable to gank automatically. the same principle still applies use less expensive hulls Incursions are meant to be run in pirate faction ships. Using T1 hulls renders you unable to win contests and means your rewards are far inferior to blitzing L4s. To the extent this ship was meant to help incursion runners, the relevant metrics involve putting pirate hulls inside. Edit - meant to as in because of the competitive nature of them in highsec, T1 battleships put you at a hopeless disadvantage and are no the proper doctrine.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:44:38 - [743] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: lmao at pirate faction battleships being "realistic" Because that is the realistic meta you are dealing with when it comes to the people CCP said they intended this ship to serve. There are PVP groups in low/null that use Pirate BS on a small scale. Your own alliance uses Navy BS on a massive scale. Basing something off the cheapest possible use of it is certainly not realistic, and that's what CCP were doing to start with. your problem is that the tail is hella wagging the dog here the bowhead isn't meant to serve the incursion community's whims it is not a boon bestowed upon the incursion community by the gods specifically to solve all of their problems it's a ship that offers functionality that MIGHT be useful to the incursion community, if they aren't clinically ******** about their risk exposure the "realistic meta" isn't something ccp cobbled together, it's something that players have flocculated into existence to maximize their ISK/hr while completely abandoning any rational thoughts towards operational security and common sense i know for a fact that incursions are hella doable in hacs and guardians, and even with t1 battlecruisers, so it's not like the game mechanics force you to fly hideously overspent garbage, that is the community's fault and their fault alone, and ccp doesn't have to kowtow to that garbage, nor should they also you have some pretty funny views on how goonswarm federation operates, we use megathrons, which are t1 battleships, with cheap t2 fits and t1 rigs as our ship of the line the navy battleship era was a year and a half ago and was scrapped due to the inability to acquire enough hulls to meet demand the point of that aside was to gently illuminate your glaring lack of expertise in this particular matter and to softly chide you to stop while you're ahead
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:45:44 - [744] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the same principle still applies use less expensive hulls Live in less expensive space. Don't use Capitals. Blah blah, you want to try and tell people to use bad tools for the job, don't constantly defend your 'need' to have expensive things and be able to run SRP's in return. The same principle does not apply, you use the correct tool for the job. We are also assuming the person is actually max tanking the Bowhead here. Not fitting it for agility & warp speed in which case it would be profitable to gank while carrying more expensive hulls. Good RNG says even at MAX tank it can still be profitable to gank carrying marauders, certainly profitable to gank carrying rigged T3's, and probably profitable to gank if filled with a bunch of smaller T2 ships also. So, the EHP bump that CCP gave it was needed to fufill it's intended role, It was not over the top, and it's EHP was not sufficient before because CCP were basing it on pretty much the cheapest possible option you could be using the Bowhead for, not a realistic situation. Does it need even further EHP? Not that I can see either. the very small bump to the shields and hull are a step in the right dicrection but again... it still weaker then an ORCA.......... this ship will be hauling many times over the value that an orca can haul...... there for the BOWHEAD should have much higher tank to protect the cargo.
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 54	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:46:23 - [745] - Quote So we have the entire goon forum division with their Rapid Tear Launchers overheated, with their FC Tippia sitting at 0 with whineosural beacon lit. If goons cry, it must be something they cannot exploit, which means it's a good design. Now let's get on topic. 1) Definitely lacks EHP to pass uedama in one piece, will need more. 10:1 profitability to investment on gank scale, less than T1 indy going as far as 100:1, or 25:1 on T2 indy, but more than current 5:1 on freighters, and thus useless without other meaningful anti-gank options. And since a whale can't realistically have any of them aside from ehp, needs more. 2) With ganking as easy, brainless and multiboxable as it is now, will be ganked just for griefing, and due to 1) ganks will always succeed, as there is no variety in its fittings, and due to it being niche, no way to use it without being at unfair disadvantage against gank squads. tl;dr Good idea, I like it, but with current game state this implementation would be of limited to no use, because of how riskless, brainless and rewarding it is to gank one. By the way, can you use its SMB in the same way as Orca? If yes, I can imagine seeing this guy in a belt, just so you can quickswap barges for combat ships, cuz Orca just doesn't have enough capacity for it. Maybe it will discourage gankers from dropping on my OP again (not like they ever succeeded, but that is only because they were worse than my dog at eve, a ganker with at least monkey brain would never fail currently). A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:48:37 - [746] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: So we have the entire goon forum division with their Rapid Tear Launchers overheated with their FC Tippia sitting at 0 with whineosural beacon lit. If goons cry, it must be something they cannot exploit, which means it's a good design. what can i say, we're naturally attracted to snuff out entitlement and rank hypocrisy
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:56:53 - [747] - Quote PVPers and Gankers are a core part of EVE ... they always have been and always will be.... but from time to time the highsec or carebears if you will need a some love too.... Saying that the Bowhead has to be easily gankable is counter productive on all parts. look at null and lowsec.... PVPers and Gankers and pirates cry all the time cause they have no one to shoot... and want to find ways to force highsec bears to have to go down and be shot at... here is a thought... stop makeing low/null so hostile to live in and you might see more people there... kill players who venture down there and well they dont stay... they go back to highsec for their fun... then gankers/pirates demand ways to make easier to gank players in high sec.... established characters/groups being able to kill everyone only ends with a result of few and few indies/pvers.. then eventually few players means fewer profits for CCP its a downword spiral... Give highsec bears their love this time and find some way to exploit or demand a easy way for you to grief later
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.11 23:58:53 - [748] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Incursions are meant to be run in pirate faction ships. Using T1 hulls renders you unable to win contests and means your rewards are far inferior to blitzing L4s. To the extent this ship was meant to help incursion runners, the relevant metrics involve putting pirate hulls inside. Edit - meant to as in because of the competitive nature of them in highsec, T1 battleships put you at a hopeless disadvantage and are no the proper doctrine. no, this is what you think incursions demand, not what they actually demand i think that goonswarm should own all of 0.0, this does not entitle us to manna from heaven
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 261	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:02:57 - [749] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Incursions are meant to be run in pirate faction ships. Using T1 hulls renders you unable to win contests and means your rewards are far inferior to blitzing L4s. To the extent this ship was meant to help incursion runners, the relevant metrics involve putting pirate hulls inside. Edit - meant to as in because of the competitive nature of them in highsec, T1 battleships put you at a hopeless disadvantage and are no the proper doctrine. no, this is what you think incursions demand, not what they actually demand i think that goonswarm should own all of 0.0, this does not entitle us to manna from heaven If you don't fit to win, you lose contests, don't make isk, and all your players leave for other fleets. Welcome to the free market. How is BoB doing? Find me one incursion community that is based on HACs and T1s? And if you think it's viable, come run it for a couple of months. Putting yourself at a hopeless disadvantage in a competitive atmosphere is nothing short of wilfully insane.
Battle BV Master Executor BV Sovereign Infinity 55	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:06:30 - [750] - Quote Great idea, a ship like this is needed. But has to be much faster or much tankier. Or its plain dumb to fly one...

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:11:30 - [751] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: If you don't fit to win, you lose contests, don't make isk, and all your players leave for other fleets. Welcome to the free market. How is BoB doing? Find me one incursion community that is based on HACs and T1s? And if you think it's viable, come run it for a couple of months. Putting yourself at a hopeless disadvantage in a competitive atmosphere is nothing short of wilfully insane. ah yes the competitive atmosphere where no one uses suicide ganking, wardecs, or espionage to hamper the opfor painting a hilariously narrow view of how you prefer to operate and then trying to pass it off as the ironclad reality of the situation is pretty funny fact of the matter is that even if what you say is true, somehow, ccp is STILL not beholden to custom-tailor the ship towards your myopic needs because trying to balance the EHP of the ship against your gawdy nonsense is just as insane as you claim my views to be
Doddy Esoteric Operations 905	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:15:17 - [752] - Quote Querns wrote: Rowells wrote: and we chose not to name them ferries because? Ferries only operate between two banks of a river or lake. Tugs move up and down the body of water they are in and can make multiple stops. Um no, Ferries are simply vessels that transport goods and passengers across a body of water. They can have many stops and most are marine (usually to islands), not river/lake crossings. A tug is a vessel that maneuvers other vessels by pushing or pulling. Ferry would not be appropriate for the Bowhead because there are no passengers involved. Tug could be appropriate in that they are for moving other ships, however the mechanism is entirely different and as tugs are generally very small ships with immensely powerful engines they are kind of the opposite of Bowhead. If CCP really wanted a real world example to follow (not saying they should) then the current equivalent would be heavy lift ships. Heavy Lift Ships
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 262	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:17:59 - [753] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: If you don't fit to win, you lose contests, don't make isk, and all your players leave for other fleets. Welcome to the free market. How is BoB doing? Find me one incursion community that is based on HACs and T1s? And if you think it's viable, come run it for a couple of months. Putting yourself at a hopeless disadvantage in a competitive atmosphere is nothing short of wilfully insane. ah yes the competitive atmosphere where no one uses suicide ganking, wardecs, or espionage to hamper the opfor painting a hilariously narrow view of how you prefer to operate and then trying to pass it off as the ironclad reality of the situation is pretty funny fact of the matter is that even if what you say is true, somehow, ccp is STILL not beholden to custom-tailor the ship towards your myopic needs because trying to balance the EHP of the ship against your gawdy nonsense is just as insane as you claim my views to be Yes, it's a more rarified atmosphere of competition, which doesn't revolve around tears and blown up ships. CCP isn't "beholden" to anything, but to the extent that they want to help incursion runners move their ships around highsec, and apparently they do, it's important to design the ship in such a way that incursion runners will actually use it. Otherwise, why bother?
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1679	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:20:38 - [754] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: ah yes the competitive atmosphere where no one uses suicide ganking, wardecs, or espionage to hamper the opfor painting a hilariously narrow view of how you prefer to operate and then trying to pass it off as the ironclad reality of the situation is pretty funny fact of the matter is that even if what you say is true, somehow, ccp is STILL not beholden to custom-tailor the ship towards your myopic needs because trying to balance the EHP of the ship against your gawdy nonsense is just as insane as you claim my views to be Uh, except they actually did. And the surviving incursion communities are those communities that have learnt to survive in that environment and overcome things like that. This also once again is not a 'myopic vision'. This is CCP's vision statement that this ship will serve the needs of people like incursion runners to move their ships around high sec as required, and that any incidental value null gets out of it is simply a bonus for null. You however (and I mean you personally) are campaigning to utterly destroy any use high sec could have for it while still keeping it perfectly intact for null use.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:21:22 - [755] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Yes, it's a more rarified atmosphere of competition, which doesn't revolve around tears and blown up ships. lmbo Veers Belvar wrote: CCP isn't "beholden" to anything, but to the extent that they want to help incursion runners move their ships around highsec, and apparently they do, it's important to design the ship in such a way that incursion runners will actually use it. Otherwise, why bother? tail wagging the dog again the ship isn't tailored specifically for incursioners hell, the first post of the thread doesn't even mention incursions
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:24:13 - [756] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Uh, except they actually did. And the surviving incursion communities are those communities that have learnt to survive in that environment and overcome things like that. if that is the case then you oughta be able to use your brain meats to cobble together a solution inside the existing parameters here is another one I came up with just off the cuff maintain multiple sets of autism chariots on either side of niarja and uedama
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1679	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:24:58 - [757] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: if that is the case then you oughta be able to use your brain meats to cobble together a solution inside the existing parameters here is another one I came up with just off the cuff maintain multiple sets of autism chariots on either side of niarja and uedama Also quit with the insults, it's not funny, it's not cool, it's downright offensive.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:25:37 - [758] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Yes, it's a more rarified atmosphere of competition, which doesn't revolve around tears and blown up ships. lmbo Veers Belvar wrote: CCP isn't "beholden" to anything, but to the extent that they want to help incursion runners move their ships around highsec, and apparently they do, it's important to design the ship in such a way that incursion runners will actually use it. Otherwise, why bother? tail wagging the dog again the ship isn't tailored specifically for incursioners hell, the first post of the thread doesn't even mention incursions acually this ship is tailored for incursioners specifically.... it original concept and thoughts of it were in forums by incursioners... it was also discussed at some length with incursion groups of what we wanted out of the ship concept... supprised a forum troll like you was not aware that there have been numorous threads on this so saying its not tailored specifically for incursioners is not accurate..
They Left NightSong Holdings NightSong Directorate 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:26:28 - [759] - Quote since the bowhead is classified as a freighter... and freighters are capital class ships... and this is a ship meant to haul large amounts of ship hulls. i can understand that the stats for the shields/armor/hull are what they are. but since it has mid slots should it not be able to use a capital class mod such as a capital shield rep?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:28:43 - [760] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: You however (and I mean you personally) are campaigning to utterly destroy any use high sec could have for it while still keeping it perfectly intact for null use. naw i'm just stamping out some hilarious entitlement based on a ludicrous, unfounded fear of SUICIDE GANKING when actually being the victim of suicide ganking approaches lightning-strike probabilities not to mention the supposition that ccp has an obligation to ensure you can use the ship inside of your tiny, aberrant view of how the game works y'all talk about competition, what about the situation in which folks who can find a way to use the bowhead efficiently and safely outcompeting those of you who are terrified of suicide ganking due to being able to sashay towards the next incursion more effectively than the scareds seems like something y'all might enjoy, if how you're posting about incursions is actually the case

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:29:59 - [761] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: acually this ship is tailored for incursioners specifically.... it original concept and thoughts of it were in forums by incursioners... it was also discussed at some length with incursion groups of what we wanted out of the ship concept... supprised a forum troll like you was not aware that there have been numorous threads on this so saying its not tailored specifically for incursioners is not accurate.. even if everything you said is true and ccp's motivation for making this ship was lifted directly from incursioner wishlist threads, it STILL doesn't obligate them to kowtow to your every wish i'm not sure how much more plainly I can put this, it is just not a thing they have to do
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1679	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:31:59 - [762] - Quote Right, given that level of delusional posting, thanks for the Hide post function CCP, first person I've ever made use of it on. I don't mind Goon posters who will actually provide numbers and acknowledge reasonable counter arguments, I do mind utterly delusional posters who do nothing but mock, deride and belittle reasonable arguments while presenting none of their own.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 262	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:32:29 - [763] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Fruckton Haulalot wrote: acually this ship is tailored for incursioners specifically.... it original concept and thoughts of it were in forums by incursioners... it was also discussed at some length with incursion groups of what we wanted out of the ship concept... supprised a forum troll like you was not aware that there have been numorous threads on this so saying its not tailored specifically for incursioners is not accurate.. even if everything you said is true and ccp's motivation for making this ship was lifted directly from incursioner wishlist threads, it STILL doesn't obligate them to kowtow to your every wish i'm not sure how much more plainly I can put this, it is just not a thing they have to do Well, since this ship is close to useless for everyone else in highsec...if it doesn't help incursion runners, why bother making it at all? And if it is meant to help incursion runners, then I'm sure you would also want it made in such a way as to make incursion runners actually want to use it. Right?
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:34:25 - [764] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Fruckton Haulalot wrote: acually this ship is tailored for incursioners specifically.... it original concept and thoughts of it were in forums by incursioners... it was also discussed at some length with incursion groups of what we wanted out of the ship concept... supprised a forum troll like you was not aware that there have been numorous threads on this so saying its not tailored specifically for incursioners is not accurate.. even if everything you said is true and ccp's motivation for making this ship was lifted directly from incursioner wishlist threads, it STILL doesn't obligate them to kowtow to your every wish i'm not sure how much more plainly I can put this, it is just not a thing they have to do its not a matter of "feeling of inttilement" its more of a matter dont waste time putting a ship in that both CCPs the CSMs and the incursioners have been kicking around for months almost a year into the game saying its what you asked for when its not.... all the time and energy wasted and feelings of trust and being part of community get slapped down when you take the concept say here its what you asked for ... then come to find its just gank bait or a way to make it easier for Ganker/greifers to destory what you worked hard to put together. entitled no.... but promised somthing usefull then handed a gimpy waste of time ship yea a little resentment...
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 464	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:35:11 - [765] - Quote There are basically two possibilities how this will end here. a) You create a ship with tank options, so the stupid player with no tank will lose his ** while the intelligent player with max tank and piloting skills may be too hard to gank. b) You create an ungankable ship which will enable us to AFK ship all our prefitted ganking assets to every corner of Highsec with zero effort. We will use whatever stuff you trow at us with max efficiency. As I have said many times already, this is not a war of carebears vs. ganker, this is a war of player who care about game mechanics against players who give a ** about how the game works. the Code ALWAYS wins
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:35:25 - [766] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Well, since this ship is close to useless for everyone else in highsec...if it doesn't help incursion runners, why bother making it at all? And if it is meant to help incursion runners, then I'm sure you would also want it made in such a way as to make incursion runners actually want to use it. Right? it's only useless if you are stupid when using it, simple as that don't be dumb and you'll find yourself operating at a significant advantage over your rarified competlmbo i can't even say it Nevyn Auscent wrote: Right, given that level of delusional posting, thanks for the Hide post function CCP, first person I've ever made use of it on. I don't mind Goon posters who will actually provide numbers and acknowledge reasonable counter arguments, I do mind utterly delusional posters who do nothing but mock, deride and belittle reasonable arguments while presenting none of their own. breaking news, "limit your risk" is not a reasonable argument
Deadly Hobbitses Furry Footed Felons 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:39:26 - [767] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Let us know what you think. BOWHEAD Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to inertia modifier per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 21000 / 11000 / 39500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 65 / .0675 / 640000000 / 1.37 / 59.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 edit: base HP and bonuses updated based on feedback. How about shaking things up a bit and adding a little bit of uniqueness to these things? Increase base SMA volume to 1750000 Install 2.5LY jump drive Adjust hp/capacitor as needed Remove fatigue bonus Role Bonus: Jump drive gate scanner (renders vessel's jump drive capable of locking onto stargates remotely in the absence of a cynosural field) When activated, the ship would be capable of using its jump drive to jump to a cyno or a gate in any system which is in range. If a system is chosen, the ship would jump to a random gate in the system at normal jump-in range. This ability to shorten one's journey by means of bypassing some systems along the way would give the ship purpose while the low jump range and buildup of fatigue would help to prevent it being used as easily for force projection. In the case of highsec incursioners this might be enough of a buff to make it worth putting their shiny toys in as opposed to just flying them in a high hp travel fit.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:40:11 - [768] - Quote 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
Paranoid Loyd 2569	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:44:32 - [769] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: And if it is meant to help incursion runners, then I'm sure you would also want it made in such a way as to make incursion runners actually want to use it. Right? I will use it extensively and I have never even considered running incursions. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:45:15 - [770] - Quote Deadly Hobbitses wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Let us know what you think. BOWHEAD Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to inertia modifier per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 21000 / 11000 / 39500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 65 / .0675 / 640000000 / 1.37 / 59.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 edit: base HP and bonuses updated based on feedback. How about shaking things up a bit and adding a little bit of uniqueness to these things? Increase base SMA volume to 1750000 Install 2.5LY jump drive Adjust hp/capacitor as needed Remove fatigue bonus Role Bonus: Jump drive gate scanner (renders vessel's jump drive capable of locking onto stargates remotely in the absence of a cynosural field) When activated, the ship would be capable of using its jump drive to jump to a cyno or a gate in any system which is in range. If a system is chosen, the ship would jump to a random gate in the system at normal jump-in range. This ability to shorten one's journey by means of bypassing some systems along the way would give the ship purpose while the low jump range and buildup of fatigue would help to prevent it being used as easily for force projection. In the case of highsec incursioners this might be enough of a buff to make it worth putting their shiny toys in as opposed to just flying them in a high hp travel fit. Neat twist but goes back to the whole jump drive thing.... This should i feel should not be able to use jump drives or jump bridges for that matter.... moving the battleships inside from place the place is the purpose ofcourse... but some travel time still needs to be part of it.... otherwise you just have whole groups jumping the fleets instantly to new location... so the whole power projection becomes issues again...

MuffinAss Armed Guardian Services Incorporated 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:49:18 - [771] - Quote yes- the ship can carry 3 Bs's , I don't know if it has been mentioned but, hi sec travelers will move 1 BS,T3, and alot of smaller ships, worm's,scanning ship,cruiser etc... SO buy using a insta warp alt in rapier/or equivalent can save alot of travel time due to the sheer amount of smaller ships need to fly and Bowhead will make things alot faster. yes 2 pliot gang is not worth moving 3 bs's but when you need to move alot of smalls it's worth it .
Deadly Hobbitses Furry Footed Felons 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 00:51:54 - [772] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: Deadly Hobbitses wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Let us know what you think. BOWHEAD Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to inertia modifier per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 21000 / 11000 / 39500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 65 / .0675 / 640000000 / 1.37 / 59.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 edit: base HP and bonuses updated based on feedback. How about shaking things up a bit and adding a little bit of uniqueness to these things? Increase base SMA volume to 1750000 Install 2.5LY jump drive Adjust hp/capacitor as needed Remove fatigue bonus Role Bonus: Jump drive gate scanner (renders vessel's jump drive capable of locking onto stargates remotely in the absence of a cynosural field) When activated, the ship would be capable of using its jump drive to jump to a cyno or a gate in any system which is in range. If a system is chosen, the ship would jump to a random gate in the system at normal jump-in range. This ability to shorten one's journey by means of bypassing some systems along the way would give the ship purpose while the low jump range and buildup of fatigue would help to prevent it being used as easily for force projection. In the case of highsec incursioners this might be enough of a buff to make it worth putting their shiny toys in as opposed to just flying them in a high hp travel fit. Neat twist but goes back to the whole jump drive thing.... This should i feel should not be able to use jump drives or jump bridges for that matter.... moving the battleships inside from place the place is the purpose ofcourse... but some travel time still needs to be part of it.... otherwise you just have whole groups jumping the fleets instantly to new location... so the whole power projection becomes issues again... It would move no faster than a carrier in nullsec and if used to jump about without cynos in lowsec, nullsec or when you have kill rights or are at war could have hilarious consequences. If the ship is incapable of moving vessels faster than a person could fly them manually it will prove to be of little or no use to anyone who doesn't want to just afk around in it.
captain foivos State War Academy Caldari State 259	Posted - 2014.11.12 01:00:48 - [773] - Quote I think my ships should be ungankable in highsec because
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 01:01:08 - [774] - Quote It would move no faster than a carrier in nullsec and if used to jump about without cynos in lowsec, nullsec or when you have kill rights or are at war could have hilarious consequences. If the ship is incapable of moving vessels faster than a person could fly them manually it will prove to be of little or no use to anyone who doesn't want to just afk around in it.[/quote] this boat will haul up to three battleships.... in one trip... instead of a player having to fly three times he makes 1 trip.... hmmm seems faster to me... what your suggesting in my opinion would be rather well "OP"
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 1	Posted - 2014.11.12 01:18:30 - [775] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: ... unfounded fear of SUICIDE GANKING... BWAHAHAHAHA.... that was the best joke today.
Masao Kurata Z List 135	Posted - 2014.11.12 02:09:05 - [776] - Quote CCP Rise: since this thread is clearly demonstrating that people are too stupid to understand that base HP is not fitted EHP, remove all the slots.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2014.11.12 02:11:40 - [777] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: CCP Rise: since this thread is clearly demonstrating that people are too stupid to understand that base HP is not fitted EHP, remove all the slots. we understand the differece just fine... you dont seem to understand a TUG boat designed to carry billions in cargo aka battle ships for incursions has less TOTAL EHP then a fully fit fully skilled with best implants orca.
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 4	Posted - 2014.11.12 02:21:45 - [778] - Quote The bowhead again... will be used by players who have multiple battle ships fit they need to move around mostly in highsec.... this ship should be closer to this BOWHEAD Ore Freighter Bonus: 5% bonus to inertia modifier per level 5% bonus to ship maintenance array capacity per level Role Bonus: 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 215 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 30000 / 10000 / 80000 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 65 / .0675 / 640000000 / 1.37 / 59.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 10000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 this makes its sheilds twice as strong as an orca.... and armor a little less.....hull only 10k better then an orca.... you still have the rigs slots mids slots and low slots to customize per player tank speed cargospace agility and the like.... gives it a much closer to what will be needed to be ganker resistant also a cargo hold usefull for carrier mods/ammo of a proper amount.
Oddsodz The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. 115	Posted - 2014.11.12 02:36:43 - [779] - Quote I say LOWER THE TANK. LOWER THE TANK. LOWER THE TANK. LOWER THE TANK And add a Bonus to fit "Target Spectrum Breakers" with an increase module cycle time. This would bring interesting gank attempts that may fail or not due to the nature of how "Target Spectrum Breakers" work. How is that for something different?
Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 292	Posted - 2014.11.12 02:51:52 - [780] - Quote Phew, this thread seems to be 90% off-topic, but fortunately the other 10% seems to address the issues with the relatively simple ship. The ship: Addressing the agility and EHP of the Bowhead pretty much covers it for me. As many have point out, it'd take a really dedicated (i.e. loss-making) effort to take one down if set up for survival, and it's not like it can be a freighter loaded with 10bil+ isk of loot. SMA does limit how valuable the cargo can be. Sure, in the early days of the ship's life it will be subject to lolganks for zero profit because of killmails, but this simply can't go on forever for reasons of isk. The other stuff: The assertion that ganking is the only risk some of these big haulers will face is correct. Let's face it, the only way to stop this sort of activity would be to prevent people firing on one another in HS altogether, which is so outside the character of Eve as to be abandoning the sandbox concept altogether. Not going to happen. Ships should be subject to attack in HS. The only issues I see with HS ganking in general are: Bumping (it's stupid, lets face it). Cheap glass-cannon ships (I'd prefer to see ships like this be more expensive, possibly T2). High-volley weaponry (should be pared down in general across the board, along with a stacking penalty to remote reps imo) NPC corps (being able to hide in them indefinitely is probably a big reason for the rise of suicide ganking) Either bumping needs to be addressed, or the NPC corp wardec immunity issue. Certainly wardec mechanics need another pass. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1864	Posted - 2014.11.12 02:55:18 - [781] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta. There are different ships in an HQ incursion fleet. Depending on whom you fly with there will be snipers, dps, logi, and the drone bunny. Yes some of them will be pirate hulls (nightmare, mach, vindi) but you can also see the occasional hyperion, rokh, TFI. etc. Unless you are talking multiboxers you are very apt to see a mix of ships and styles and if you wan the best chance of being called up you will have an assortment handy so you can step into any role. So you bring a couple of BS's and maybe a cruiser or two. This is why I asked for this ship and why I am trying to follow this thread (aside from the debate societies additions) So . . . the basic stats. Is it big enough? Does it fullfill the stated role? Is the tank sufficient? I am NOT asking if it shoudl have jumpdrive, doomsday, hammer4 fittings. Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Master Apollyon BLACK REGIMENT 3	Posted - 2014.11.12 03:23:47 - [782] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'. 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...
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 03:49:34 - [783] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: the hull on the Bowhead should be about half.. or at lease 1/3 that of the Rorqual.... as this ship is about half the size of the Rorq.... the sheils should be about 30,000 and the armor should be about where it is now.... also please look at increasing the cargo hold a little... closer to 10k or add in an ammo bay that can hold around 5k Ammo can be carried in the cargo hold of the ships in the maintenance bay.
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 17590	Posted - 2014.11.12 03:54:08 - [784] - Quote Go ahead highsec.. ask for all the tank you want... When you fill it with your shiny incursion running goodies.. its still a freaking pi+¦ata.. with a target on its back. Rise, don't release any pics of this thing, the only pic that needs to be released is a pic of the wreck it will leave. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 18	Posted - 2014.11.12 03:59:12 - [785] - 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. This little comment is kind of eye opening. I mean, everyone knows the Devs like to cater to hisec players. But you really want to balance something so that people ganking it wont make any money? If you really want to make it unprofitable, then don't let it drop anything. There.
Ivory Kantenu Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance 73	Posted - 2014.11.12 04:17:57 - [786] - Quote You guys can keep squabbling over this all day. All I know is I can't wait to Doomsday one. [i]Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread[/i]
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13860	Posted - 2014.11.12 04:56:39 - [787] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: 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 You just demanded the ship to be immortal in high sec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13860	Posted - 2014.11.12 05:10:10 - [788] - Quote Master Apollyon wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'. 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... More like lazy bears. Its got a 420k tank plus a mwd just using t2 mods and t1 rigs which is more than enough. What these idiots want is a ship that they can overstuff with the most expensive hulls and face zero risk. Thats not going to happen. They keep on whining about how they will die to a 40 man fleet yet refuse to work with other incursion pilots to protect themselves. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bad Bobby Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust 617	Posted - 2014.11.12 05:40:07 - [789] - Quote Nice, I'll take two.
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling 476	Posted - 2014.11.12 05:51:59 - [790] - Quote I disapprove of the changes. More tank was already dubious enough, but an inertia bonus on top of that is just too much. There is simply no precedent for both in the industrial/freighter line up and for good reason. These ships should not be escape artists, that's the job of the blockade runner. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper The Fate of Forum Alts

Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 55	Posted - 2014.11.12 05:53:21 - [791] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: So we have the entire goon forum division with their Rapid Tear Launchers overheated with their FC Tippia sitting at 0 with whineosural beacon lit. If goons cry, it must be something they cannot exploit, which means it's a good design. what can i say, we're naturally attracted to snuff out entitlement and rank hypocrisy 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? Dreiden Kisada wrote: This little comment is kind of eye opening. I mean, everyone knows the Devs like to cater to hisec players. But you really want to balance something so that people ganking it wont make any money? If you really want to make it unprofitable, then don't let it drop anything. There. Or take this example of propagoonda: baltec1 wrote: More like lazy bears. Its got a 420k tank plus a mwd just using t2 mods and t1 rigs which is more than enough. What these idiots want is a ship that they can overstuff with the most expensive hulls and face zero risk. Thats not going to happen. They keep on whining about how they will die to a 40 man fleet yet refuse to work with other incursion pilots to protect themselves. 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? A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:16:36 - [792] - Quote Dear CCP Rise here you will find my recommandations for the "BOW HEAD" ,i hope you will take the time and effort to read my opinions and thoughts on this much waited ship Let's start. Ore freighter skill doesn't sound good to me, it's too much rebundant with Ore skill and Capital industrial ships. For me the skill requirement should be : -Advanced spaceship command to 5 - Ore skill to 3 -Capital industrial ship to 1 -Capital ship to 1 (for reference rorqual need the skills at 2 but use jump drive) I think this way it does make much more sense than creating another skill for only one ship There is currently no reason that this ships doesn't have an ore bay ,it's an Ore ships after all. -Add 75000 m3 ore bay The cargo bay is a bit small in my opinion especially with 2 T2 bulkheads in the lows. Cargo bay :10000 m3 There is no reason for the SMA to grew up with skills ,this bonus is currently intended so please give us give the proper SMA size from the beginning. -SMA 2.1Millions m3 This ships will draw attention of gankers (see the 30 page of whinning from CODE and BAT menbers) Give it a proper tank. -New bonus 5 % to damage control effectiveness by level (it should just give the right amount of EHP this ship his lacking) -There is no reason for the 90 % reduced jump fatigue regeneration bonus, this ship is much more a demilitarized carrier than anything else and carrier doesn't have this bonus. -This ship is too slow is in this state, it ll be faster to move BS individualy. -This ship lack a bit of CPU to fit T2 harderner or Invuln with a MWD. -Lore wise i'm a bit dissapointed you didn't came with some sort of collaboration between Ore industries and Concord in response to an ever growing piracy in high sec.Make BP and Ship available trought concord LP Reward . BOWHEAD -Ore skill Bonus: 5% bonus to damage control effectiveness by level -Capital industrial ship Bonus: 5% bonus to inertia modifier per level -Capital ship Bonus : 10% to warp speed per level -Role Bonus : SMA Immune to cargo scanning Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 235 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 21000 / 11000 / 39500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 65 / .0675 / 640000000 / 1.37 / 59.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array/ore bay): 10000 / 1800000 /75000 Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 This way i like it much more, it does look like a Capital version of the ORCA and he's coherent with the Rorqual. -Ehp should be around 550k to 580K, still gankable but not that easily,multiple wave will be needed to take it down,and that much EHP will force gankers to be much prepared and come with new strategies. -SMA with the incoming change will drop ships but will be immune to cargo scan .Huge Ehp + SMA scan immunity =Risk ,Multiple Ships dropping from SMA = Reward -Making both the Ship and the BP available trought Concord LP Store ,will give a decent price range for the ship and ensure ship availability on markets. -Enhanced speed at the cost of a painful skill to train make it a viable alternative to move BS one by one. -The increased SMA allow to carry 3 BS + a Logistic+a command ship + a scout of any type and race ,a nice easter eggs basket if you want my opinion. Thanx you for the time and effort of reading this post, i hope this ship will find his niche aka "incursion all in one carrier"
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:24:59 - [793] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Dear CCP Rise here you will find my recommandations for the "BOW HEAD" ,i hope you will take the time and effort to read my opinions and thoughts on this much waited ship Let's start. Ore freighter skill doesn't sound good to me, it's too much rebundant with Ore skill and Capital industrial ships. For me the skill requirement should be : -Advanced spaceship command to 5 - Ore skill to 3 -Capital industrial ship to 1 -Capital ship to 1 (for reference rorqual need the skills at 2 but use jump drive) I think this way it does make much more sense than creating another skill for only one ship There is currently no reason this ships doesn't have an ore bay ,it's an Ore ship after all. -Add 75000 m3 ore bay The cargo bay is a bit small in my opinion especially with 2 T2 bulkheads in the lows. Cargo bay :10000 m3 There is no reason for the SMA to grew up with skills (it's not a balloon),this bonus is currently intended so please give us give the proper SMA size from the beginning. -SMA 2.1Millions m3 This ship will draw attention of gankers (see the 30 page of whinning from CODE and BAT menbers) Give it a proper tank. -New bonus 5 % to damage control effectiveness by level (it should just give the right amount of EHP this ship his lacking) -There is no reason for the 90 % reduced jump fatigue regeneration bonus, this ship is much more a demilitarized carrier than anything else and carrier doesn't have this bonus. -This ship is too slow is in this state, it ll be faster to move BS individualy. -This ship lack a bit of CPU to fit T2 harderner or Invuln with a MWD. -Lore wise i'm a bit dissapointed you didn't came with some sort of collaboration between Ore industries and Concord in response to an ever growing piracy in high sec.Make BP and Ship available trought concord LP Reward . BOWHEAD -Ore skill Bonus: 5% bonus to damage control effectiveness by level -Capital industrial ship Bonus: 5% bonus to inertia modifier per level -Capital ship Bonus : 10% to warp speed per level -Role Bonus : SMA Immune to cargo scanning Slot layout: 0H, 3M, 3L, 3R; 0 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1350 PWG, 235 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 21000 / 11000 / 39500 Capacitor (amount / recharge) : 3900 / 235000 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / warp speed / align time): 65 / .0675 / 640000000 / 1.37 / 59.89s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 51.5km / 45 / 3 Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array/ore bay): 10000 / 1800000 /75000 Sensor strength: 12 Signature radius: 3200 This way i like it much more, it does look like a Capital version of the ORCA and he's coherent with the Rorqual. -Ehp should be around 550k to 580K, still gankable but not that easily,multiple wave will be needed to take it down,and that much EHP will force gankers to be much prepared and come with new strategies. -SMA with the incoming change will drop ships but will be immune to cargo scan .Huge Ehp + SMA scan immunity =Risk ,Multiple Ships dropping from SMA = Reward -Making both the Ship and the BP available trought Concord LP Store ,will give a decent price range for the ship and ensure ship availability on markets. -Enhanced speed at the cost of a painful skill to train make it a viable alternative to move BS one by one. -The increased SMA allow to carry 3 BS + a Logistic+a command ship + a scout of any type and race ,a nice easter eggs basket if you want my opinion. Thanx you for the time and effort of reading this post, i hope this ship will find his niche aka "incursion all in one carrier"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13860	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:26:36 - [794] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: So we have the entire goon forum division with their Rapid Tear Launchers overheated with their FC Tippia sitting at 0 with whineosural beacon lit. If goons cry, it must be something they cannot exploit, which means it's a good design. what can i say, we're naturally attracted to snuff out entitlement and rank hypocrisy 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? Dreiden Kisada wrote: This little comment is kind of eye opening. I mean, everyone knows the Devs like to cater to hisec players. But you really want to balance something so that people ganking it wont make any money? If you really want to make it unprofitable, then don't let it drop anything. There. Or take this example of propagoonda: baltec1 wrote: More like lazy bears. Its got a 420k tank plus a mwd just using t2 mods and t1 rigs which is more than enough. What these idiots want is a ship that they can overstuff with the most expensive hulls and face zero risk. Thats not going to happen. They keep on whining about how they will die to a 40 man fleet yet refuse to work with other incursion pilots to protect themselves. 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? yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns... This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on? Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Orchid Fury University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:27:43 - [795] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying. it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP. "but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13860	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:36:30 - [796] - Quote Orchid Fury wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying. it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP. "but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship. 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. This ship is not aimed at incursion runners, its aimed at anyone who needs to move a small personal fleet from one deployment zone to another without destroying the rigs. The vast bulk of this demand is out in null space. Incursion runners using this ship are going to be a tiny minority. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 55	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:37:30 - [797] - Quote baltec1 wrote: yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns... This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on? Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them. 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. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13861	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:49:42 - [798] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns... This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on? Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them. 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. We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank. As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Orchid Fury University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:50:12 - [799] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Orchid Fury wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying. it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP. "but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship. 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. This ship is not aimed at incursion runners, its aimed at anyone who needs to move a small personal fleet from one deployment zone to another without destroying the rigs. The vast bulk of this demand is out in null space. Incursion runners using this ship are going to be a tiny minority. 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.
Koniforous Tauren Transit 176	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:51:27 - [800] - Quote I can't believe this ****. TAUTX: Private Bank and Lending TAUTX: Collateral Liquidation / Discount Items

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13861	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:54:19 - [801] - Quote Orchid Fury wrote: baltec1 wrote: Orchid Fury wrote: Dave Stark wrote: i must say, even for eve, i am shocked by all the entitled "it needs more ehp" crying. it equals an orca, give or take. it already has a solid amount of HP. "but mah marauder", yeah take precautions if you're going to haul expensive things... just like you would with any other expensive cargo in any other industrial ship. 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. This ship is not aimed at incursion runners, its aimed at anyone who needs to move a small personal fleet from one deployment zone to another without destroying the rigs. The vast bulk of this demand is out in null space. Incursion runners using this ship are going to be a tiny minority. 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. That highsec comment was a mistake that has lead to a number of incursion runners and professional bears thinking this ship is aimed at only them. personally I would remove it as its only causing problems such as this neverending whine on grr gankers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Orchid Fury University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 06:55:33 - [802] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: yes lets gank stuff with weapons with the pricetag of faction guns... This is exactly the kind of idiotic post I was going on about. You have little to no idea of how ganking works and spew forth made up comments such as these ships facing twice as much risk as freighters. What exactly do you base that nonsense on? Seriously, how is it hard for an incursion group to form a convoy of these ships to move to a new area escorted by the very same logi boats they use in the incursions? The moby dicks are already heavily tanked and with an escort of pimped out logi nothing is going to be ganking them. 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. i bow down to the king of maths and highsec ganking.
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:26:50 - [803] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta. There are different ships in an HQ incursion fleet. Depending on whom you fly with there will be snipers, dps, logi, and the drone bunny. Yes some of them will be pirate hulls (nightmare, mach, vindi) but you can also see the occasional hyperion, rokh, TFI. etc. Unless you are talking multiboxers you are very apt to see a mix of ships and styles and if you wan the best chance of being called up you will have an assortment handy so you can step into any role. So you bring a couple of BS's and maybe a cruiser or two. This is why I asked for this ship and why I am trying to follow this thread (aside from the debate societies additions) So . . . the basic stats. Is it big enough? Does it fullfill the stated role? Is the tank sufficient? I am NOT asking if it shoudl have jumpdrive, doomsday, hammer4 fittings. Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'. m People are asking for crazy stuff because it is 'meh' as it is now, a 1.6m m3 freighter. According to my finger math, with 2x fitted bs, T3 and a T2 logi, you will very likely be past the treshold of profitability. But maybe it is exactly that what you have wanted, dunno, i do not see it as the highsec equivalent of a suitcase carrier, and not because of the inability to jump.
Lugh Crow-Slave 198	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:32:31 - [804] - Quote Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: Rise, don't release any pics of this thing, the only pic that needs to be released is a pic of the wreck it will leave. Don't go and ruin the surprise
Lugh Crow-Slave 198	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:34:16 - [805] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: 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. This little comment is kind of eye opening. I mean, everyone knows the Devs like to cater to hisec players. But you really want to balance something so that people ganking it wont make any money? If you really want to make it unprofitable, then don't let it drop anything. There. Wanna hear a cool story ship maint bays as of now don't drop anything....
Orchid Fury University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:38:49 - [806] - Quote Candente wrote: First of all. Has CCP clarified on whether the ships in the SMA of this ship will actually drop or no upon getting ganked? It's an important question on the whole risk vs reward scale. they said they wont and it will be "fixed" later, which kinda makes no sense. might aswell spend the time now as it isn't even in game yet. the same goes for ship hauling contracts that would fit in the bay tbh.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:40:44 - [807] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wanna hear a cool story ship maint bays as of now don't drop anything.... I've got a better story. CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Reading is hard yo.
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 57	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:49:07 - [808] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank. Good girl! Now invent some math. Hint: there is a difference between "actually not profitable" and "less than 1 billion per hour, meh, not profitable", which you intentionally avoid. baltec1 wrote: As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people. You need more escort than ships you can stuff inside this whale, thus there is no point in using it, period. Training into travel fits doesn't take much nowadays - you don't need all those gunnery skills to fly it from A to B, so if you have people to escort, you have people to actually fly them, and since escort+bowhead is at least equal to 3 bs flying by themselves, there is no point in Bowhead, unless it can offer something flying 3 bs doesn't, like less gank vulnerability, faster travel, or anything else to make it stand out. What's risk free here is ganking it: if you have sufficient force, you win, if you don't, you don't gank. Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option. As it stands now, flying bs themselves is less risk, hauling them in freighters is less risk - which basically means that at current values the Bowhead is the most risk option, since it's risk free to gank it. I'd even say it's a suicide option at current values. It should stand out to be used or it might as well not exist. With a risk-free gank on it, no advantages in speed, and requiring more escort than it hauls there is just nothing in it which is useful outside of blue donut. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 393	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:52:52 - [809] - Quote Sounds like I'm one of the very few who are actually looking forward to using one of these things. The change on the bonuses is a nice one, velocity bonuses on a large ship like this feel too weak to be of use. Strangely, if you look into the past with the forums, people have practically begged on their knees for this exact ship for years...now, everyone seems to be pissed or sad-panda to see it finally arrive. You people worry me sometimes.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 07:58:15 - [810] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Sounds like I'm one of the very few who are actually looking forward to using one of these things. The change on the bonuses is a nice one, velocity bonuses on a large ship like this feel too weak to be of use. Strangely, if you look into the past with the forums, people have practically begged on their knees for this exact ship for years...now, everyone seems to be pissed or sad-panda to see it finally arrive. You people worry me sometimes. They're sad panda because they're not convinced this solution delivers the solution they actually wanted.

Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1865	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:01:11 - [811] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: People are asking for crazy stuff because it is 'meh' as it is now, a 1.6m m3 freighter. According to my finger math, with 2x fitted bs, T3 and a T2 logi, you will very likely be past the treshold of profitability. But maybe it is exactly that what you have wanted, dunno, i do not see it as the highsec equivalent of a suitcase carrier, and not because of the inability to jump. I want it to be the decision of the owner of the Bowhead. Overload it and take a chance of gank or fit sensibly and be a lot safer. You should have the option of fitting/filling badly and paying the price for greed. Yeah, I am a carebear . . . m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:18:10 - [812] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I want it to be the decision of the owner of the Bowhead. Overload it and take a chance of gank or fit sensibly and be a lot safer. You should have the option of fitting/filling badly and paying the price for greed. Yeah, I am a carebear . . . m I haven't really seen people argue against this mentality. The unfortunate reality with it's current limitation on capacity is that it's near impossible for it to make sense for what's it's been promoted as being intended for. There is a real desire for a means to move 2 Faction BS's + 1 or 2 logi + misc without being a glorious loot pinata for little to no risk or loss . The problem lies in the tiny room for balance on the scale of maxing out at 3 BS's. Providing more room for people to overstuff would ease the balance of opportunity to stuff beyond reasonable levels while still offering reasonable protection for it's desired niche, however, it also exacerbates the force projection factor. It's a very tight squeeze to make this ship practical on all fronts. SOMEONE is going to be disappointed with the end result, It would just make more sense for it to not be the intended pilots. Otherwise the time and energy of everyone that worked on making it happen becomes devalued. I feel there is a strong need to seriously evaluate the practicality of removing the jump fatigue bonus as it doesn't provide any benefit for its proposed purpose (High sec) and opens up a large opportunity to circumvent the efforts of the jump fatigue changes. Unless this is an intended and planned use of the ship that is. I propose people debate on the premise of adding more cost, SMB capacity, more tank and removing the jump fatigue. If the target audience is incursion runners, a 2bil isk ship to move everything they own safely in one trip is pocket change. For specialized pilots focusing on moving fitted and rigged ships, it's a small investment yet again. Especially if players were no longer provided the ability to plastic wrap rigged ships into freighters. The larger cost will help justify the capacity and defenses while also providing more opportunity for people to be greedy and overstuff. I also feel like treating this as a neutered carrier or rorqual makes more sense than treating it as a niche freighter.
Dave Stark 7146	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:25:27 - [813] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I want it to be the decision of the owner of the Bowhead. Overload it and take a chance of gank or fit sensibly and be a lot safer. You should have the option of fitting/filling badly and paying the price for greed. Yeah, I am a carebear . . . m it'll fall on deaf ears, mike. it's crap unless it's a gank proof hauler that can move trillions with 0 risk.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:34:28 - [814] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I haven't really seen people argue against this mentality. so, you haven't read half of the posts in the thread? I've read every single post and not a single one of them argued against a situation for the pilot to overstuff and experience great loss. The ship has been presented by CCP as a solution for Incursion pilots. The reality of a good majority of incursion pilots is that they have multiple faction BS's and multiple logi's that they need to regularly move around. WIth that being the context, the average value they need to move regularly is well over the threshold for "you WILL be ganked". You also need to factor beyond the isk value. A single item worth 1 bil isk vs 10 items worth 100 million isk is more likely to instill greed in pirates and convince them to f1. The argument is that this solution doesn't provide a reasonable enough solution to justify its risks for what it's been presented as a solution for.
Lugh Crow-Slave 198	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:36:34 - [815] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wanna hear a cool story ship maint bays as of now don't drop anything.... I've got a better story. CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Reading is hard yo. Yes i read that particularly the part about trying to get that implemented in time.... my hopes aren't high
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 08:50:13 - [816] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Yes i read that particularly the part about trying to get that implemented in time.... my hopes aren't high So to you, waiting an extra 5 weeks for the fix isn't reasonable on any level?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:10:10 - [817] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: stuff This is like arguing with a brick. You keep on going on about maths so lets see if you can follow these very easy sums. one pilot in a bowhead can transport 3 battleships, lets assume each incursion runner owns two battleships and a logi. In a group of 20 you would use 15 bowheads to transport the battleships and logi and 5 pilots to fly a logi support when moving. To do this same move without the bowheads will require 3 trips. The bowheads just saved you a lot of time and by moving in a convoy they were all but invincible to gankers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:31:03 - [818] - Quote what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:36:31 - [819] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" 2.4 bil. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:38:37 - [820] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" 2.4 bil. yeah just checked the jita price of nado hulls, the hulls alone come to about that.

Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 58	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:40:35 - [821] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: stuff This is like arguing with a brick. This is like arguing with a goon. baltec1 wrote: You keep on going on about maths so lets see if you can follow these very easy sums. one pilot in a bowhead can transport 3 battleships, lets assume each incursion runner owns two battleships and a logi. In a group of 20 you would use 15 bowheads to transport the battleships and logi and 5 pilots to fly a logi support when moving. To do this same move without the bowheads will require 3 trips. The bowheads just saved you a lot of time and by moving in a convoy they were all but invincible to gankers. Transporting your ships in this way is infact much safer than flying the battleships themselves as there is no force in high sec with the manpower or firepower to alpha something with the tank of a bowhead being supported with 5 logi. 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. A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:42:25 - [822] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: That said, a group of 20 people is just too big for hisec. What about smaller (and more realistic) groups? Screwed? erm, if we're being realistic... an incursion fleet is 40 people. so, 20 people is actually too small.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:43:38 - [823] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" 2.4 bil. yeah just checked the jita price of nado hulls, the hulls alone come to about that. To put that into context 3 mach hulls are only worth 1.8 bil. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1867	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:50:04 - [824] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank. Good girl! Now invent some math. Hint: there is a difference between "actually not profitable" and "less than 1 billion per hour, meh, not profitable", which you intentionally avoid. baltec1 wrote: As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people. You need more escort than ships you can stuff inside this whale, thus there is no point in using it, period. Training into travel fits doesn't take much nowadays - you don't need all those gunnery skills to fly it from A to B, so if you have people to escort, you have people to actually fly them, and since escort+bowhead is at least equal to 3 bs flying by themselves, there is no point in Bowhead, unless it can offer something flying 3 bs doesn't, like less gank vulnerability, faster travel, or anything else to make it stand out. What's risk free here is ganking it: if you have sufficient force, you win, if you don't, you don't gank. Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option. As it stands now, flying bs themselves is less risk, hauling them in freighters is less risk - which basically means that at current values the Bowhead is the most risk option, since it's risk free to gank it. I'd even say it's a suicide option at current values. It should stand out to be used or it might as well not exist. With a risk-free gank on it, no advantages in speed, and requiring more escort than it hauls there is just nothing in it which is useful outside of blue donut. I usually do not agree with baltec. But he is RIGHT this time. Incursiosn are the group that would have the LEAST issues making this thing work, as long as you guys use brains. You can send 10 of these ships together and paired by 4 guardians and it would be incredbly safe. They will be useless as a solo "let me move my whole collection" type of ship. But I do not think that was their intended role. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:53:50 - [825] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank. Good girl! Now invent some math. Hint: there is a difference between "actually not profitable" and "less than 1 billion per hour, meh, not profitable", which you intentionally avoid. baltec1 wrote: As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people. You need more escort than ships you can stuff inside this whale, thus there is no point in using it, period. Training into travel fits doesn't take much nowadays - you don't need all those gunnery skills to fly it from A to B, so if you have people to escort, you have people to actually fly them, and since escort+bowhead is at least equal to 3 bs flying by themselves, there is no point in Bowhead, unless it can offer something flying 3 bs doesn't, like less gank vulnerability, faster travel, or anything else to make it stand out. What's risk free here is ganking it: if you have sufficient force, you win, if you don't, you don't gank. Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option. As it stands now, flying bs themselves is less risk, hauling them in freighters is less risk - which basically means that at current values the Bowhead is the most risk option, since it's risk free to gank it. I'd even say it's a suicide option at current values. It should stand out to be used or it might as well not exist. With a risk-free gank on it, no advantages in speed, and requiring more escort than it hauls there is just nothing in it which is useful outside of blue donut. I usually do not agree with baltec. But he is RIGHT this time. Incursiosn are the group that would have the LEAST issues making this thing work, as long as you guys use brains. You can send 10 of these ships together and paired by 4 guardians and it would be incredbly safe. They will be useless as a solo "let me move my whole collection" type of ship. But I do not think that was their intended role. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:56:37 - [826] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: stuff This is like arguing with a brick. This is like arguing with a goon. baltec1 wrote: You keep on going on about maths so lets see if you can follow these very easy sums. one pilot in a bowhead can transport 3 battleships, lets assume each incursion runner owns two battleships and a logi. In a group of 20 you would use 15 bowheads to transport the battleships and logi and 5 pilots to fly a logi support when moving. To do this same move without the bowheads will require 3 trips. The bowheads just saved you a lot of time and by moving in a convoy they were all but invincible to gankers. Transporting your ships in this way is infact much safer than flying the battleships themselves as there is no force in high sec with the manpower or firepower to alpha something with the tank of a bowhead being supported with 5 logi. 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. Incursions are run in groups of 40 and any incursion corp will have many more members than that. The reality is that these conyoys are going to be numbering 100+ pilots when these incursion groups move. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:58:21 - [827] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" 2.4 bil. yeah just checked the jita price of nado hulls, the hulls alone come to about that. To put that into context 3 mach hulls are only worth 1.8 bil. even fitted you're probably only doubling the value, then assuming 50% drop rate as per other loot drop mechanics... we're back at an expected profit of 1.8bn which is still less than the cost of the 40 nados needed to "bypass" the logistics element of the convoy. maybe a bit more, then again, just put 2 and a few cheaper logistics ships/command ships/drone bunny ships etc in with the 2 battleships to spread cost.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 09:58:55 - [828] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: 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. You ask your corp for help moving. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 949	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:05:31 - [829] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset. I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career. 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. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:07:10 - [830] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: 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. You ask your corp for help moving. Doesnt the inclusion of a corp service kinda shrink the use cases to "i dont want to loose the insurance on my navy bs" ?

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:07:43 - [831] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: 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. You ask your corp for help moving. 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.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:11:33 - [832] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: 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. You ask your corp for help moving. 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. if you're not moving the instant that an incursion focus changes, and you're only carrying your own personal assets. the chance of anyone bothering to gank you is minimal anyway. besides, if the focus has moved and the fleets already up and full... you have all the time in the world to move your ships as slowly and safely as you want.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:12:21 - [833] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset. I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career. 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. You just killed eve for families/students ect who share a computer and anyone who pvps in low sec plus anyone who accidentaly shoots things in high sec thinking its low sec and people who wish to give up their life of crime. Meanwhile the people who are neg ten all the time anyway are not impacted. Please take these terrible ideas to another thread. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:15:47 - [834] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: 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. You ask your corp for help moving. 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. Its not balanced around needing logi support, its just that it works best in an organised group. Just like every single other ship in EVE. Frankly, this is a good example of why you should leave the state war acadamy and make some friends. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:17:39 - [835] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: 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. You ask your corp for help moving. Doesnt the inclusion of a corp service kinda shrink the use cases to "i dont want to loose the insurance on my navy bs" ? So long as they dont enter your ship your insurance is fine. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:18:53 - [836] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: stuff This is like arguing with a brick. You keep on going on about maths so lets see if you can follow these very easy sums. one pilot in a bowhead can transport 3 battleships, lets assume each incursion runner owns two battleships and a logi. In a group of 20 you would use 15 bowheads to transport the battleships and logi and 5 pilots to fly a logi support when moving. To do this same move without the bowheads will require 3 trips. The bowheads just saved you a lot of time and by moving in a convoy they were all but invincible to gankers. Transporting your ships in this way is infact much safer than flying the battleships themselves as there is no force in high sec with the manpower or firepower to alpha something with the tank of a bowhead being supported with 5 logi. 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 .
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:20:12 - [837] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Frankly, this is a good example of why you should leave the state war acadamy and make some friends. 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 ;)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:21:00 - [838] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: stuff This is like arguing with a brick. You keep on going on about maths so lets see if you can follow these very easy sums. one pilot in a bowhead can transport 3 battleships, lets assume each incursion runner owns two battleships and a logi. In a group of 20 you would use 15 bowheads to transport the battleships and logi and 5 pilots to fly a logi support when moving. To do this same move without the bowheads will require 3 trips. The bowheads just saved you a lot of time and by moving in a convoy they were all but invincible to gankers. Transporting your ships in this way is infact much safer than flying the battleships themselves as there is no force in high sec with the manpower or firepower to alpha something with the tank of a bowhead being supported with 5 logi. 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 . So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:22:52 - [839] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: Frankly, this is a good example of why you should leave the state war acadamy and make some friends. 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 ;) with the amount of whining you're doing, it's pretty evident that you're unlikely to have friends or be in a half decent corp. baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. or people stop hauling 5 ships to every focus and just take the ones they need (which is like, 2 ships)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:22:57 - [840] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: Frankly, this is a good example of why you should leave the state war acadamy and make some friends. 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 ;) Point still stands. Get into a corp and life becomes a lot easier in EVE. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:26:43 - [841] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:27:42 - [842] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people. no, the purpose of this ship is to carry multiple battleships. which it does perfectly fine. if you don't want to use it, then make 2 trips. it's entirely up to you.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:28:08 - [843] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: with the amount of whining you're doing, it's pretty evident that you're unlikely to have friends or be in a half decent corp. It's amazing what people will delude themselves into believing when it comes to making attempts to insult others.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:28:49 - [844] - Quote Quote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Man you are hilarious admitting a 25 jumps move that make 75 jumps at 1.37 au /S ,you won't play this game anymore when we ll end this trip ... Deal with incursions BS are out of your hands now they should remain so after this ship hit TQ
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:29:00 - [845] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: with the amount of whining you're doing, it's pretty evident that you're unlikely to have friends or be in a half decent corp. It's amazing what people will delude themselves into believing when it comes to making attempts to insult others. so you're just whining for the sake of it, then?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:29:31 - [846] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people. The point of the ship is to make less trips. Last I looked two trips is still fewer than six or seven. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:30:59 - [847] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: with the amount of whining you're doing, it's pretty evident that you're unlikely to have friends or be in a half decent corp. It's amazing what people will delude themselves into believing when it comes to making attempts to insult others. so you're just whining for the sake of it, then? NO ,Dave Stark what you just did is called a personnal attack and that is the usual tactic one use when short of arguments
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:32:09 - [848] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people. The point of the ship is to make less trips. Last I looked two trips is still fewer than six or seven. 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 .
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:32:41 - [849] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: so you're just whining for the sake of it, then? I have no say in what you perceive as whining. But for me to respond to this question seriously would require that I agree with your opinion of it. I will say it's not very mature to simply belittle your opponent simply because you're not capable or unwillingly to actually retort. If you're interested in debating the situation of the ship, I'll be right here waiting. Let me know when you're done beating your chest over the internet.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:34:50 - [850] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: with the amount of whining you're doing, it's pretty evident that you're unlikely to have friends or be in a half decent corp. It's amazing what people will delude themselves into believing when it comes to making attempts to insult others. so you're just whining for the sake of it, then? NO ,Dave Stark what you just did is called a personnal attack and that is the usual tactic one use when short of arguments well we've pretty much addressed every situation in this thread, and he's still complaining. there's not much else to point out that hasn't already been pointed out. if you support the ship, the only way around it is unfeasably expensive. if you don't want to support the ship and you're moving between incursions, and everyone's already ahead of you and in the fleet, then you're in no rush and you can move everything more safely anyway. somehow, the fact that you can move everything as safely as before, but now with added convenience somehow isn't good enough for him?

Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1867	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:34:54 - [851] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: baltec1 wrote: We are the corp that invented industrialised ganking of freighters. With a bulkhead setup and three faction battleships in the hold it is unprofitable to gank. Good girl! Now invent some math. Hint: there is a difference between "actually not profitable" and "less than 1 billion per hour, meh, not profitable", which you intentionally avoid. baltec1 wrote: As for the incursion escort comment, it is entirely viable to run an escort as you will have to do multiple trips if you just fly the ships themselves. This is the entire crux of the argument. These ships sport a good tank and are virtually invincible with an escort of logi. Transporting 3x pirate faction battleships solo in one of these things is not ment to be risk free. You people are forever banging on about how close the incursion community is, its about time you showed this by working together rather than whining that you cant solo your way past 40 people. You need more escort than ships you can stuff inside this whale, thus there is no point in using it, period. Training into travel fits doesn't take much nowadays - you don't need all those gunnery skills to fly it from A to B, so if you have people to escort, you have people to actually fly them, and since escort+bowhead is at least equal to 3 bs flying by themselves, there is no point in Bowhead, unless it can offer something flying 3 bs doesn't, like less gank vulnerability, faster travel, or anything else to make it stand out. What's risk free here is ganking it: if you have sufficient force, you win, if you don't, you don't gank. Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option. As it stands now, flying bs themselves is less risk, hauling them in freighters is less risk - which basically means that at current values the Bowhead is the most risk option, since it's risk free to gank it. I'd even say it's a suicide option at current values. It should stand out to be used or it might as well not exist. With a risk-free gank on it, no advantages in speed, and requiring more escort than it hauls there is just nothing in it which is useful outside of blue donut. I usually do not agree with baltec. But he is RIGHT this time. Incursiosn are the group that would have the LEAST issues making this thing work, as long as you guys use brains. You can send 10 of these ships together and paired by 4 guardians and it would be incredbly safe. They will be useless as a solo "let me move my whole collection" type of ship. But I do not think that was their intended role. 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. They need to move their single battleship alone. Since they are alone, there is no sense on usign a ship capable of moving 3 battleships at a time? Also.. you want to ccp take you by the hand? if you lost the onvoy, it is YOUR FAULT> "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:35:41 - [852] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: so you're just whining for the sake of it, then? I have no say in what you perceive as whining. But for me to respond to this question seriously would require that I agree with your opinion of it. I will say it's not very mature to simply belittle your opponent simply because you're not capable or unwillingly to actually retort. If you're interested in debating the situation of the ship, I'll be right here waiting. Let me know when you're done beating your chest over the internet. i'm not chest beating at all, you've been given solutions to every scenario and continue to whine.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 949	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:36:13 - [853] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Harvey James wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset. I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career. 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. You just killed eve for families/students ect who share a computer and anyone who pvps in low sec plus anyone who accidentaly shoots things in high sec thinking its low sec and people who wish to give up their life of crime. Meanwhile the people who are neg ten all the time anyway are not impacted. Please take these terrible ideas to another thread. we were talking about high sec ganking.. low sec pirates don't really come into that.. if you take a ship into lowsec especially this type of ship you should expect too be ganked by pirates.. CCP do need too add more awareness info in the game beyond basic tutorials ... eve wiki is just old and out of date most of the time i expect .. give us a eve rulebook in game .. covering most things ... have basic and advanced parts too cater for the young and old pilots .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:40:51 - [854] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you make two trips rather than one. This isnt hard people. Because this negates the entire purpose of this ship. This isn't hard people. The point of the ship is to make less trips. Last I looked two trips is still fewer than six or seven. 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 . In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:43:58 - [855] - Quote there's almost no way you get increased risk, and increased travel time using this ship. at the very worst, you sacrifice one for the other. which is fine, this ship shouldn't do both in every situation anyway.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:49:59 - [856] - Quote Quote: In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. 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 ....
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:51:25 - [857] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: They need to move their single battleship alone. Since they are alone, there is no sense on usign a ship capable of moving 3 battleships at a time? This assumes they have only one ship to move. This is not the norm amongst Incursioners. Kagura Nikon wrote: Also.. you want to ccp take you by the hand? By resorting to such cliche and terrible personal attacks you discredit yourself which actually works against you in the long run. Kagura Nikon wrote: if you lost the onvoy, it is YOUR FAULT> It's a reality that is common for Incursioners to log in and have the entire focus moved in a matter of hours. Your ignorance of such a simple fact demonstrates your lack of context to effectively debate the situation thereby negating any validity you could have offered to the debate on this aspect. Dave Stark wrote: if you support the ship, the only way around it is unfeasably expensive.[/qoute] I'm not sure you comprehend what unfeasibly expensive is in the context of EVE online which comes a little bit of a shock to me as you didn't seem like you were THAT uninformed. [quote=Dave Stark]if you don't want to support the ship and you're moving between incursions, and everyone's already ahead of you and in the fleet, then you're in no rush and you can move everything more safely anyway. somehow, the fact that you can move everything as safely as before, but now with added convenience somehow isn't good enough for him? You're suggesting a drastic behavioral shift of an entire community just to provide them with a mediocre solution when the changes you imposed benefit only the tiny population of gankers at the expense of convenience of a much larger group.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:53:09 - [858] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. 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 .... i can't log in to eve right now but, according to eve uni, a machariel warps at 3au so even if we can do the math on 5au warping, it's irrelevant.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:55:35 - [859] - Quote Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve ....
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:57:35 - [860] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: if you support the ship, the only way around it is unfeasably expensive.[/qoute] I'm not sure you comprehend what unfeasibly expensive is in the context of EVE online which comes a little bit of a shock to me as you didn't seem like you were THAT uninformed. [quote=Dave Stark]if you don't want to support the ship and you're moving between incursions, and everyone's already ahead of you and in the fleet, then you're in no rush and you can move everything more safely anyway. somehow, the fact that you can move everything as safely as before, but now with added convenience somehow isn't good enough for him? You're suggesting a drastic behavioral shift of an entire community just to provide them with a mediocre solution when the changes you imposed benefit only the tiny population of gankers at the expense of convenience of a much larger group. if you're ganking for profit, spending 2.4bn isk on hulls alone, to gank something carrying only 1.8bn isk of hulls... is unfeasably expensive. considering your expected profit is only 900m (assuming ship bays drop like cargo bays?), that's not even half of your costs (before ship fittings). if some one wants to gank you for ***** and giggles, they'll do it regardless of this ship so it's a moot point. if people don't feel the extra convenience is worth the extra effort, they're under no obligation to use the bowhead. also, people can't expected to be given a way to transport billions of isk across eve completely risk free. you don't need everyone to form bigass convoys to get a benefit out of the bowhead, but if you do the benefit is exponentially increased.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:58:04 - [861] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. 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 you are moving 30 jumps to a new spot then we get the sum of 90 jumps for the bowhead fleet vs 390 for manually piloting all the ships. Yes, the bowhead fleet is faster even without using any warp speed tools. On top of the faster speed of the operation you also have the fact that the bowhead fleet is effectivly unkillable thanks to having 200k more ehp than the battleships they carry and if you have a full incursion group moving you will have at least 10 logi in support. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 10:59:20 - [862] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve .... sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another. just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling. sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:04:20 - [863] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve .... sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another. just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling. sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay. Why won't we such ships maintain a 150 K ehp or higher ....+ clone jumpings for moving isn't really a bother for most pilots for only 1 slots change aka PDS or RC 2 and only for the most extreme of them assuming full skill full genolutions clone ... and only for a median 20 hours or so
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:06:53 - [864] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve .... sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another. just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling. sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay. Why won't we such ships maintain a 150 K ehp or higher ....+ clone jumpings for moving isn't really a bother for most pilots for only 1 slots change aka PDS or RC 2 and only for the most extreme of them assuming full skill full genolutions clone ... so 150k ehp is fine? good, that mean the bowhead's 400k+ ehp is more than acceptable. i was more pointing out that you've then got no skill hardwirings or pirate implants. etc.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:09:52 - [865] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve .... sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another. just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling. sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay. Why won't we such ships maintain a 150 K ehp or higher ....+ clone jumpings for moving isn't really a bother for most pilots for only 1 slots change aka PDS or RC 2 and only for the most extreme of them assuming full skill full genolutions clone ... so 150k ehp is fine? good, that mean the bowhead's 400k+ ehp is more than acceptable. i was more pointing out that you've then got no skill hardwirings or pirate implants. etc. The more you post, the more convinced I become that you're not very attuned to what incursion communities are actually like.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:11:20 - [866] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Dave Stark wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Ever heard of ASCENDANCY implants and or warp accelerators .Welcome to eve .... sure i've heard of them. but nobody's going to pod jump to a warp speed clone to move ships from one incursion site to another. just like nobody's going to fit warp accelerators instead of a travel fit if they're traveling. sure they could, but then we're back at risk vs convenience. you know, a choice, the thing ccp loves because that's what encourages interesting gameplay. Why won't we such ships maintain a 150 K ehp or higher ....+ clone jumpings for moving isn't really a bother for most pilots for only 1 slots change aka PDS or RC 2 and only for the most extreme of them assuming full skill full genolutions clone ... so 150k ehp is fine? good, that mean the bowhead's 400k+ ehp is more than acceptable. i was more pointing out that you've then got no skill hardwirings or pirate implants. etc. The more you post, the more convinced I become that you're not very attuned to what incursion communities are actually like. really? cos that's how i make most of my isk on this character.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:13:08 - [867] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. 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 you are moving 30 jumps to a new spot then we get the sum of 90 jumps for the bowhead fleet vs 390 for manually piloting all the ships. Yes, the bowhead fleet is faster even without using any warp speed tools. On top of the faster speed of the operation you also have the fact that the bowhead fleet is effectivly unkillable thanks to having 200k more ehp than the battleships they carry and if you have a full incursion group moving you will have at least 10 logi in support. 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 [url]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/eveonlineassets/expansion/rbc/new/WarpSpeedAfterV2.jpg[/url] its simply much faster to move ships by ships and burn back in extremely fast shuttle ... than to do your endless 90 jumps.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:14:11 - [868] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: really? cos that's how i make most of my isk on this character. That just leaves me more baffled by most of what you've been posting.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:15:04 - [869] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: really? cos that's how i make most of my isk on this character. That just leaves me more baffled by most of what you've been posting. too easy.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:16:50 - [870] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: too easy. If by easy you mean posting nonsense in an effort to confuse people, Yes. That's an easy thing to do. You're correct.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:19:09 - [871] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: In what world do you live in? You are literally arguing that making two trips is more travel time than six or seven. 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 you are moving 30 jumps to a new spot then we get the sum of 90 jumps for the bowhead fleet vs 390 for manually piloting all the ships. Yes, the bowhead fleet is faster even without using any warp speed tools. On top of the faster speed of the operation you also have the fact that the bowhead fleet is effectivly unkillable thanks to having 200k more ehp than the battleships they carry and if you have a full incursion group moving you will have at least 10 logi in support. 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. Im the last person you should be trying to lecture on the use of warp speed tools. 390 jumps vs 90. Even at base warp speed the bowheads will be faster and in a convoy they sport a defence that cannot be broken by gankers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Ben Ishikela Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 5	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:20:20 - [872] - Quote 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.) Schrodinger's Hot Dropper Ice for Wormholes
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:21:52 - [873] - Quote Ben Ishikela wrote: 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.) Packaged ships can't be put into Ship Maintenance Bay's.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:22:34 - [874] - Quote Ben Ishikela wrote: 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.) It cant carry packaged ships Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:24:16 - [875] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: too easy. If by easy you mean posting nonsense in an effort to confuse people, Yes. That's an easy thing to do. You're correct. nothing i've posted is nonsense, though. shrug
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:33:19 - [876] - Quote 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:35:23 - [877] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: however if you'd like to quote something that confused you, i'd be glad to explain it to you in the same way i'd explain it to say, a 5 year old. if that would help you? I'm not going to go back and quote most of the things you've posted pertaining to incursion communities as I value my time more than doing that work for you. With the majority of what you say in regards to incursion communities drastically contrasting everything I've observed, The method with which you explain them is irrelevant as it's not my capacity to comprehend what you're saying that's the issue it's the content itself. But let's be honest, You already know all of this, You we're just looking for a way to lash out at me.
Malou Hashur Ministry of War Amarr Empire 51	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:36:18 - [878] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Malou Hashur wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont 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. Given the current highsec meta of "GANK ALL THE THINGS", I think many people, myself inluded, see a raw speed bonus as a waste. With Bumper Cars Online, a speed bonus is less than useless - it's actually harmful since it increases the unmodified time it takes you to get into warp. Please consider an agility or (!) hull resistance bonus modifier per level. Another example of the Devs not having a clue how the game is actually played. Ever piloted a capital or orca out of bubbles? Suddenly you love that speed bonus. Yes, many times. However this will mainly be used in Hisec, so that doesn't really apply. CCP Philosophy -->> If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it and break something else.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:41:23 - [879] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Dave Stark wrote: however if you'd like to quote something that confused you, i'd be glad to explain it to you in the same way i'd explain it to say, a 5 year old. if that would help you? I'm not going to go back and quote most of the things you've posted pertaining to incursion communities as I value my time more than doing that work for you. With the majority of what you say in regards to incursion communities drastically contrasting everything I've observed, The method with which you explain them is irrelevant as it's not my capacity to comprehend what you're saying that's the issue it's the content itself. But let's be honest, You already know all of this, You we're just looking for a way to lash out at me. doesn't really matter what you think you know about incursion communities; how they function is irrelevant. this is a discussion about the bowhead.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:42:11 - [880] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: 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. You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1536	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:48:32 - [881] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:50:49 - [882] - Quote Zappity wrote: Warr Akini wrote: The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "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. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:52:42 - [883] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: 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. You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 78	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:54:17 - [884] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: doesn't really matter what you think you know about incursion communities; how they function is irrelevant. this is a discussion about the bowhead. With the Bowhead poised to have a significant impact on incursioners, it is relevant.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:56:05 - [885] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: 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. You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. 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. actually, it fits 3 vindicators or nightmares with your skills at IV, maybe even III (too lazy to check, besides IV shouldn't be that long of a train anyway). it won't fit 3 machariels at V anyway but, why are you carrying 3 of the same ship to begin with, if we're talking specifically about incursions?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1536	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:56:51 - [886] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: Warr Akini wrote: The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "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. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 11:57:51 - [887] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: 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. You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. 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 just showed you that they are faster. Look at those numbers again, the bowhead fleet is a good deal faster per run than manually piloting the ships. I assumed that you made an honest mistake and I give you this chance to say as such. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:00:11 - [888] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: Warr Akini wrote: The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "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. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. 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. Code are ganking randomly because of the nerfs to ganking. Nerfing it more will just reduce the activity as a viable way to make isk and make more people just gank randomly in protest. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1536	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:05:11 - [889] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: Warr Akini wrote: The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "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. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. 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. Code are ganking randomly because of the nerfs to ganking. Nerfing it more will just reduce the activity as a viable way to make isk and make more people just gank randomly in protest. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:07:03 - [890] - Quote Zappity wrote: 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 don't think any argued that CODE we're particularly inspired in their methods. ;)

Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1536	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:09:48 - [891] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Zappity wrote: 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 don't think any argued that CODE we're particularly inspired in their methods. ;) Yes. Good point. :) Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:10:00 - [892] - Quote Zappity wrote: 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. to be fair, if people don't want empty freighters getting ganked because of a blacklash from a subset of players due to changes that come about from the whining about freighter ganking... perhaps freighter pilots should have just stopped overstuffing their cargo rather than whining on the forums, cos how's that working out for them now 'more' freighters are being ganked so 'easily'? but that's rhetoric, as this isn't the place for such a discussion.
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 329	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:12:03 - [893] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Incursions are meant to be run in pirate faction ships. Using T1 hulls renders you unable to win contests and means your rewards are far inferior to blitzing L4s. To the extent this ship was meant to help incursion runners, the relevant metrics involve putting pirate hulls inside. Edit - meant to as in because of the competitive nature of them in highsec, T1 battleships put you at a hopeless disadvantage and are no the proper doctrine. no, this is what you think incursions demand, not what they actually demand I have to agree here, as an incursion FC (not on this toon obviously) I can tell you that a T1 battleship can be used and has been used multiple times by many players. thinking that you must have the best bling to win is not accurate. does it help in some respects to fly blingy ships?, sure it does, I won't sit here and tell you it doesn't, but it is most definitely NOT required to succeed or to win against the competitiveness of other groups. we used to run VGs with 10 man fleets in 5 to 6 minutes each, most of our ships were T1 ships with the occasional T3 pilot, we ran assaults, HQs, and even the mom site with the same ships, just different fits for each site and the proper amount of logistics on the field. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13862	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:14:48 - [894] - Quote Zappity wrote: 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. What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1536	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:28:56 - [895] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: 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. What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea. 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. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5484	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:31:19 - [896] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Flying it doesn't need to be risk free, but it sure as **** shouldn't be MORE risky than any other option. Actually, yes it should be more risky. It should be more convenient, and the price for that is more risk. As it currently stands, it is over-tanked and under-sized. One side of the equation claims they wont use it, the other side claims they wont gank it. Clearly it is pointless in current form - CCP Rise, you're not there yet.... I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:34:22 - [897] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: 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. What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea. 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. you'd have a point if code started ganking everything before the nerfs, not in response to them.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13863	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:37:46 - [898] - Quote Zappity wrote: baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: 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. What option do they have left? They have seen nerf after nerf several times a year for the last decade. All because people are too dumb to protect themselves. CODE is entirely the fault of highsec bears pushing to be ever safer. They got all of the professional gankers who were after profits nerfed so now you are left with the likes of CODE who dont care about profit. Remember these are the same people who demanded fittings for their frieghters and then kicked up a stink when CCP gave them what they wanted because it turned out to be a nerf. All that after years of gankers telling them it was a terrible idea. 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. What other option do they have? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
admiral root Red Galaxy 1842	Posted - 2014.11.12 12:48:03 - [899] - Quote Zappity wrote: 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. Responsible transport behaviour includes webbing your space truck into warp. Short of being incredibly unlucky, you're not going to get bumped or ganked. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Dradis Aulmais Ignite Llc. V.L.A.S.T 13	Posted - 2014.11.12 13:14:11 - [900] - Quote Mm mm the tears on this thread make me happy.

Dave Stark 7147	Posted - 2014.11.12 13:19:58 - [901] - Quote Dradis Aulmais wrote: Mm mm the tears on this thread make me happy. in. not on.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 13:30:01 - [902] - Quote Tippia wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account. How? You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot. You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits. Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it. There is literally nothing he can do. Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something.
Dave Stark 7149	Posted - 2014.11.12 13:38:05 - [903] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Tippia wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account. How? You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot. You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits. Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it. There is literally nothing he can do. Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something. know how the ganker brought his friends? well so can the bowhead pilot. we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 13:41:23 - [904] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Suicide Smith wrote: I've got it! A Solution to make everyone unhappy. Cut the EHP of the ship.. AND remove all 0.5 bottleneck systems in Highsec. Either by adding some additional gates to go around them, or changing them to say 0.7 systems.. There, now you get the easier kill, and we get to not be required to go through the most vulnerable systems in Highsec to move about. And now you actually have to hunt your prey, rather than just sit in a system where you know they have to go through just to move from A to B. These routes already exist http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Amarr:Jita:-Niarja http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Dodixie:Jita:-Uedama e: hahaha okay nevermind these go through each other as a result There is no way of going from Amarr to Jita avoiding Niarja and Uedama unless you go via low sec. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/route/2:Amarr:Jita:-Niarja:-Uedama
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 13:56:33 - [905] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things. Incursion runners don't really use rattles. Standard runner using this would have mach + vindi + nightmare....not very cheap hulls. Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta. In HQs at least, you go in with about 40 people. An incursion fleet needs 8 to 10 logistics about 15 to 20 vindis and about 10 to 15 snipers. You don;t always have the perfect number of ships in each category. Sometimes you need more snipers and sometimes more DPS. Sometimes you have too many Scimis and you need a Basilisk ... or the other way around. Many incursion runners can fly all the needed ships so, if the FC needs more vindis and it's late and you can't find people to invite, some guy in the fleet will reship ... if he has the hull. Usually the logistics guys have it easy. An orca can fit enough hulls, drones, ammo, etc :) With DPS/Snipers, unless you have 2 characters it's complicated.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 14:00:09 - [906] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: An incursion fleet needs about 15 to 20 vindis ahahahaha
Dave Stark 7149	Posted - 2014.11.12 14:00:45 - [907] - Quote you can somewhat predict what's is and isn't going to be in demand, mind you. that's why i've flown my nightmare more recently than my machariel. i love the mach but the NM just gets invites so much easier than the mach does.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 535	Posted - 2014.11.12 14:24:46 - [908] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Tippia wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account. How? You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot. You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits. Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it. There is literally nothing he can do. Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something. know how the ganker brought his friends? well so can the bowhead pilot. we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long. Its the clash of lone wolf versus the ccp drive for team play built into the game. Latter is odd I know, a MMO that says why not try playing with others a bit. Don't know wtf ccp was thinking there.... Ship not even in game to be proven a failure the funny thing. Me...I see some entrepreneurs running these with logi support I mentioned way back in a tangential way. Will you pay a few isk more for this? I will say yes. Collateral it, you get paid if lost. Not lost...a few bs moved just like that in one contract. Latter alone very appealing. I know I have had fun helping friends move and going umm....break your contract dude and try again. I said charon at freighter 4....... (this was old scheme pre frieghter mod change, my m3 limits were very cut and dry). I see them making this work. Will the independent 1 man shows have an issue? Sure, they do now. Since they want eve to cater to lone wolf tendencies. Several guys with a plan versus 1 lone wold blind jumping gates since....what is the worst than can heppen?
Aeril Malkyre Knights of the Ouroboros 374	Posted - 2014.11.12 14:32:50 - [909] - Quote Love the edited numbers Rise. Now it's worth it.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 16:06:50 - [910] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: Its the clash of lone wolf versus the ccp drive for team play built into the game. Latter is odd I know, a MMO that says why not try playing with others a bit. Don't know wtf ccp was thinking there.... Ship not even in game to be proven a failure the funny thing. Me...I see some entrepreneurs running these with logi support I mentioned way back in a tangential way. Will you pay a few isk more for this? I will say yes. Collateral it, you get paid if lost. Not lost...a few bs moved just like that in one contract. Latter alone very appealing. I know I have had fun helping friends move and going umm....break your contract dude and try again. I said charon at freighter 4....... (this was old scheme pre frieghter mod change, my m3 limits were very cut and dry). I see them making this work. Will the independent 1 man shows have an issue? Sure, they do now. Since they want eve to cater to lone wolf tendencies. Several guys with a plan versus 1 lone wold blind jumping gates since....what is the worst than can heppen? Given the current awoxxing/wardecc/theft mechanics the rational play in highsec is to stay in npc/1-man corp. Demanding that people "get friends" or "work together" ignores the reality that the mechanics encourage avoiding joining a corporation. CCP is accepting that a lot of people don't want to "work together" but just want an easier way for transporting ships through highsec rather than individually moving cloak + mwd + travel fit battleships with near 100% safety. To the extent that the bowhead has significantly more risk than that when used solo, it is unlikely to be a worthwhile ship.

TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 308	Posted - 2014.11.12 16:20:43 - [911] - Quote I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.11.12 16:25:06 - [912] - Quote TheMercenaryKing wrote: I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well. I'm assuming you mean packaged?
Dave Stark 7149	Posted - 2014.11.12 16:28:36 - [913] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: TheMercenaryKing wrote: I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well. I'm assuming you mean packaged? no, he means packaged... the nerf to size will allow you to carry a lot more packaged ships, at the cost of capacity for packaged ships. not sure i agree with that one, personally.
FunGu Arsten Fungu .Inc 29	Posted - 2014.11.12 16:37:44 - [914] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: 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. You left out the three other ships from your list. Under your new list of just three battleships it would be just one trip of 30 jumps for the bowheads. 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 for the average 3 BS +logi +CS + scout ,In his present version So this ships need a bigger SMA + more warpspeed and EHP ... i just dont get why you do 90 jumps in the bowhead and only 30jumps on the bs... by my fast look at this you need to do: 30jumps with the bowhead vs 30 x3 BS + 30 x 3 travelback with leopard... added: or 90j with bowhead vs 90 x 3 bs + 90x 3 back with leopard. (bowhead: 5670s vs bs+leopard:11070s by your own average times) incase you have an alt: you also need to take into account that with a bowhead alt you can move 3 bs while your main already is flying a logi/T3 in the actual incursion.... + as you only move them in your bowhead, your alt does not have to be able to fly all those ships and saves you skilltime. have you actualy done the math at how long it would take if you would have 10+ ships in that bowhead?? I dont see why people are against this ship, other then yes it will be easier to move your intire shiphangar... Though we're going to see hilarious killmails....
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:05:35 - [915] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" edit, 64m per hull. so 40 hulls are 2.5bn isk already. this is before we even get in to fittings. that's not an insignificant cost... If you have 40 people, why would you use tornados and not catalysts? Have a bowhead (the irony) with fitted catalysts and have your people refit. One cruiser will keep the bowhead away from warping while you send a few waves a cheap ships to kill it.
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:07:43 - [916] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: know how the ganker brought his friends? well so can the bowhead pilot. we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long. I've seen this argument before and I have no idea why people insist on it. The problem with ganking is that they have all the advantages. They determine the time, the place, and what their thresholds are. They have the element of surprise and they can have over whelming force. I know people hate real life analogies here, but I want you to image what life would be like if in every civilized country (US, All the EU nations, Japan, etc) that in order to transport goods via a high speed route like a highway you would have to get an escort to do so. Think about the economic burden that would be placed on just trying to move things. Keep in mind not I'm talking about low sec or null sec right now, which the Somali pirates would be a good comparison to make there. The problem with the mechanic as it exists now is that if people like gankers exist that continually preyed on business etc like they do in eve, they would be systematically hunted down and dealt with. The free flow of goods is vitally important to any economy, and frankly your argument just isn't practical to that end.
Dave Stark 7149	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:21:47 - [917] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" edit, 64m per hull. so 40 hulls are 2.5bn isk already. this is before we even get in to fittings. that's not an insignificant cost... If you have 40 people, why would you use tornados and not catalysts? Have a bowhead (the irony) with fitted catalysts and have your people refit. One cruiser will keep the bowhead away from warping while you send a few waves a cheap ships to kill it. because the point is that logi reps can keep up with catalysts sufficiently long enough to allow a concord response. even more so with the bowhead than a normal freighter, as the bowhead can fit invulns and various hardeners to increase the repping power unlike normal freighters that are stuck with the base resist profiles. unlike tornados just taking the ship off the grid before reps can be a factor. Valterra Craven wrote: Dave Stark wrote: know how the ganker brought his friends? well so can the bowhead pilot. we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long. I've seen this argument before and I have no idea why people insist on it. The problem with ganking is that they have all the advantages. They determine the time, the place, and what their thresholds are. They have the element of surprise and they can have over whelming force. I know people hate real life analogies here, but I want you to image what life would be like if in every civilized country (US, All the EU nations, Japan, etc) that in order to transport goods via a high speed route like a highway you would have to get an escort to do so. Think about the economic burden that would be placed on just trying to move things. Keep in mind not I'm talking about low sec or null sec right now, which the Somali pirates would be a good comparison to make there. The problem with the mechanic as it exists now is that if people like gankers exist that continually preyed on business etc like they do in eve, they would be systematically hunted down and dealt with. The free flow of goods is vitally important to any economy, and frankly your argument just isn't practical to that end. sure they choose all those things. but the pilot can choose not to be a target by not overstuffing his cargo or going in to systems that are the home of known gankers who do it "for the lulz". if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me. your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is soley yours.
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:31:59 - [918] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me. your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses. So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles?
TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 308	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:40:27 - [919] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: TheMercenaryKing wrote: I would like to see the Volume of the ship maintenance array be nerfed to 1-1.25 million (after skills ) BUT allow Unpackaged ships in the bay as well. I'm assuming you mean packaged? no, he means packaged... the nerf to size will allow you to carry a lot more packaged ships, at the cost of capacity for packaged ships. not sure i agree with that one, personally. yes, I mean Packaged ships like 50km3 battleships. With the jump changes its harder to move stuff around and ships are some of the, if not the, largest items in the game. It would be a freighter for only ships.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:41:01 - [920] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Dave Stark wrote: if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me. your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses. So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles? confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:42:00 - [921] - Quote TheMercenaryKing wrote: yes, I mean Packaged ships like 50km3 battleships. With the jump changes its harder to move stuff around and ships are some of the, if not the, largest items in the game. It would be a freighter for only ships. how would this be any better than just using a normal freighter
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:49:30 - [922] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: how would this be any better than just using a normal freighter To be honest the entire concept of this ship is entirely asinine. The ONLY reason its being made is because CCP can't get its stuff together and allow people to put assembled ships inside a normal cargo bay. There is no logical reason a bs could not fit inside a freighter. Packaged or not.
TerminalSamurai Sunji Bureau of Explosions 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:56:21 - [923] - Quote I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could)
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 17:59:13 - [924] - Quote TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could) pretty sure they both have three lowslots
TerminalSamurai Sunji Bureau of Explosions 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 18:08:34 - [925] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: TerminalSamurai Sunji wrote: I do agree that the warp speed is a bit low on this, I mean hell the Rorqual has a higher base warp speed, and for all intents and purposes, CAN fit more warp speed lows (Not saying you would... but you could) pretty sure they both have three lowslots You're right, but the statement still is valid that the rorqual warps faster than this proposal.
Apaolo Miros Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition. 14	Posted - 2014.11.12 18:26:04 - [926] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: MMOs die for a number of reasons. The main reason is lack of new players. Highsec ganking, in general, is killing Eve; whether it is killing newbs or killing slightly more experienced carebears in freighters. Some people play online games to relax and have fun, without getting abused. Highsec is not the place for non-consensual PVP. It should be restricted to lowsec and nullsec, where people who are there have chosen to accept the risk. Making ships ungankable and cargo unscannable helps a little, but it doesn't solve the problem. CCP, the real problem is not making the old players happy - it is attracting and keeping the new players. There is value in breaking up enemy logistics, even in hisec. Perhaps "no loot" drops on ganks in hisec would solve both. Just have it all blow up with the ship. You can still ransom. Pirating is a BIG part of EVE. It keeps the economy going and adds value to everything not ganked. I've never done it for profit or fun - 'collecting tears" is so base when you have all this amazing complication around you.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5489	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:00:36 - [927] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Dave Stark wrote: if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me. your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses. So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles? confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded This seems entirely reasonable. Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps. And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships. What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:03:23 - [928] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Dave Stark wrote: if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me. your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses. So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles? confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded This seems entirely reasonable. Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps. And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships. What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13867	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:22:47 - [929] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Dave Stark wrote: if people choose not to use all the tools at their disposal it pretty much disqualifies them from making a complaint. if i crashed my car and told the insurance company "no, i didn't try to avoid the other car, it was his job not to hit me" they'd laugh at me. your safety is your responsibility, if you choose not to do everything you can to keep yourself safe - the blame for being the victim of a gank is yours and nobody elses. So basically your argument boils down to the fact that a tool was given to the players that can't be used to its fullest potential because they have to protect themselves against douchewaffles? confirming that the afk ratting tool that is the ishtar should be made invincible because I can't use it to its fullest potential when it is being exploded This seems entirely reasonable. Along the same lines, interdictors should have more range and as much EHP as the Bowhead - probably more EHP since an interdictor tool being used for its purpose cannot even receive reps. And catalysts... they need more EHP and alpha. Their purpose is clearly only to destroy. It's even their ship class name. For these tools to complete their purpose, it shouldn't require multiple ships. What other overkill can we justify in the name of tools needing to be easily used to their fullest potential? Because this is obviously a good way to balance things. 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. Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:26:25 - [930] - Quote 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.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13867	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:32:45 - [931] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 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. All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:36:24 - [932] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned. ATM,yes but soon enought that will be adressed as specified by Rise.
Cadence Abergnathy Troll-Republic The Initiative. 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:39:27 - [933] - Quote Give this ship a bonus for Micro Jump Drives, so that the MJD cannot be disrupted by Warp Scramblers! Autopiloted ships will still be ganked, but actively flown ships have at least a chance to get away alive!
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 393	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:43:42 - [934] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: Sounds like I'm one of the very few who are actually looking forward to using one of these things. The change on the bonuses is a nice one, velocity bonuses on a large ship like this feel too weak to be of use. Strangely, if you look into the past with the forums, people have practically begged on their knees for this exact ship for years...now, everyone seems to be pissed or sad-panda to see it finally arrive. You people worry me sometimes. They're sad panda because they're not convinced this solution delivers the solution they actually wanted. Then, I guess this is where I abandon any interest in this topic at least beyond Rise's initial post, since that seems like all that's being discussed by this point. We haven't even gotten the damned thing and people are already acting like they are terribly disappointed in it. Maybe I'm no longer quite sure what people wanted all along? I've been hoping for a ship that could carry a rigged battleship...simple, yet elegant in it's own right. That's what I see, and even better it'll be able to carry more than one. Hell, I was more afraid it was going to have a SMA only slightly larger than the Orca's. No matter, I'm happy. Hope this thing turns out to be what others are looking for too...
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13867	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:46:47 - [935] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned. ATM,yes but soon enought that will be adressed as specified by Rise. No he said ships will drop from a destroyed bowhead, he didn't say you could scan the fitted ships inside. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 19:55:35 - [936] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned. ATM,yes but soon enought that will be adressed as specified by Rise. No he said ships will drop from a destroyed bowhead, he didn't say you could scan the fitted ships inside. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13867	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:01:38 - [937] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. All you can see are the ships. Any mods on those ships cannot be scanned. ATM,yes but soon enought that will be adressed as specified by Rise. No he said ships will drop from a destroyed bowhead, he didn't say you could scan the fitted ships inside. 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. What makes you think there was no reason to gank this freighter alt? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:05:25 - [938] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. What makes you think there was no reason to gank this freighter alt? 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.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:08:00 - [939] - Quote The ganking of freighters lately in Uedama has been cheap destroyers - the total destroyers lost 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 *****.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1539	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:09:09 - [940] - Quote WTB deployable bubble shield. Can be fitted to industrial ships and freighters only. It would give these ships a chance to respond to a gank if they are being actively piloted. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13868	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:09:37 - [941] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. What makes you think there was no reason to gank this freighter alt? 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. And yet, 99.999% of freighters are not ganked. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:11:10 - [942] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Tippia wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. The ship already fulfils that prerequisite before we even take the 450k EHP it has into account. How? You can keep that ship to enter warp until next downtime if you find a bored cruiser pilot. You can kill it with cheap throw away destroyer fits. Yes, you need manpower but, the pilot of the bowhead has no means to make a run for it. There is literally nothing he can do. Why not make it like Orca. Give it a high slot, give it a drone bay so he can at least do something. know how the ganker brought his friends? well so can the bowhead pilot. we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13868	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:11:14 - [943] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 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 ***. What exactly is wrong with countering a fleet with a fleet of your own? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:12:21 - [944] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: S'No Flake wrote: An incursion fleet needs about 15 to 20 vindis ahahahaha Hohoho, now that xmas it's coming ....
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13868	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:13:43 - [945] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: 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. We went over this, the bowheads were faster at transporting 3 battleships over 30 jumps by a sizeable margin. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:16:25 - [946] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. What makes you think there was no reason to gank this freighter alt? 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. And yet, 99.999% of freighters are not ganked. 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.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:18:05 - [947] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Dave Stark wrote: what's the cost of like 40 fully fit tornados? which is the obvious counter to "bring logi" edit, 64m per hull. so 40 hulls are 2.5bn isk already. this is before we even get in to fittings. that's not an insignificant cost... If you have 40 people, why would you use tornados and not catalysts? Have a bowhead (the irony) with fitted catalysts and have your people refit. One cruiser will keep the bowhead away from warping while you send a few waves a cheap ships to kill it. because the point is that logi reps can keep up with catalysts sufficiently long enough to allow a concord response. even more so with the bowhead than a normal freighter, as the bowhead can fit invulns and various hardeners to increase the repping power unlike normal freighters that are stuck with the base resist profiles. unlike tornados just taking the ship off the grid before reps can be a factor. You are wrong. Freighters can fit some nice a-types, which are almost cheap, to raise resists. Well, charon got the short stick here but some of the freighters can get nice resists.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:20:34 - [948] - Quote baltec1 wrote: What exactly is wrong with countering a fleet with a fleet of your own? 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?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:22:29 - [949] - Quote Cadence Abergnathy wrote: Give this ship a bonus for Micro Jump Drives, so that the MJD cannot be disrupted by Warp Scramblers! Autopiloted ships will still be ganked, but actively flown ships have at least a chance to get away alive! agreed nevermind that a capital ship such as the bowhead cannot fit an MJD
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13868	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:23:59 - [950] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Tens of thousands of freighters move through that system every week. The number of kills are on average a few dozen. As for your "completely safe" battleship, it has half the tank of the bowhead. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:24:29 - [951] - Quote -Will the SMA on the BOW HEAD use of the actual the code of the ship maintenance array or the code of the ship maintenance bay ?Could that be answered dear CCP ? -The SMA seems a bit low at l4 1.580 M just enought for a nightmare,a mach and a vindi at L5 you just gain enought room to get one more scimi ...i'd like to be more comfy as far as i'm concerned ... -Any chance for an Ore bay (61200 m3 200 stack of lyavite ^^)? -Considering EHP this ship can be taken by probably around 20 to 21 Talos for a Cost of 2.4B ,that's seems low compared to 6 B investment it'll carry (2.2B in BS+2B in implants for a better efficiency than moving ships one by one+ hull cost +rigs) -Skill wise i don't like at all the new skill would be better to use capital industrial +capital ships. -Speed is a bit low if you don't use implants...
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8990	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:25:42 - [952] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: What exactly is wrong with countering a fleet with a fleet of your own? 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? I highlighted your problem here. I WANT to be able to 1-2 jump my carrier to empire to ferry stuff around like I could for YEARS. Now, after a patch I'm 6 jumps deep in null sec and have to wait out jump fatigue every jump unless i want to wait longer next time. CCP doesn't balanced the game based on what you 'want' to do, it balances stuff based on what's best for the game. No one is forcing you to use this ship. if you do use it and want to protect it, you need to stop being solo (like I did, now i have to ask people for cynos to get to to and from empire with ships, or hire a jump freighter). Simple as that.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:26:29 - [953] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Tens of thousands of freighters move through that system every week. The number of kills are on average a few dozen. As for your "completely safe" battleship, it has half the tank of the bowhead. 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13870	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:28:46 - [954] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: What exactly is wrong with countering a fleet with a fleet of your own? 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? Or you can use some common sense and realise that when 40 people come after you screaming no fair I want to play alone isn't a valid tactic in a massively multiplayer online game Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:30:33 - [955] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. We went over this, the bowheads were faster at transporting 3 battleships over 30 jumps by a sizeable margin. It's usually 2 BSs and 2 Logi ships but because NM and Vindi are slower than Machariel, i'll take your word it. At the end, you won't have time to go and buy a pizza... but, enough to go and take a beer from the fridge.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:31:04 - [956] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: What exactly is wrong with countering a fleet with a fleet of your own? 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? Or you can use some common sense and realise that when 40 people come after you screaming no fair I want to play alone isn't a valid tactic in a massively multiplayer online game That would be true if didn't play ISBOXER ONLINE
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:31:05 - [957] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: And yet, 99.999% of freighters are not ganked. That is certainly not true for freighters/JFs going through Uedama/Niarja the last couple of months. ooh it is time, here is the time where I get to completely destroy a poster using statistics let's take a look at the freighter deaths in Niarja c/o zkillboard, noted kill accumulator and statistics haver https://zkillboard.com/system/30003504/group/513/ wow, an average of less than one freighter ganked a day in niarja, with stretches of up to five days without any dying whatsoever now let's go czech out uedama https://zkillboard.com/system/30002768/group/513/ looks scarier, but mine eyes doth detect a trend it looks like code dot only gets up to its antics on the weekends and even then only in ustz prime jump freighter statistics paint an even thinner picture please refrain from projecting the localized cognitive dissonance in your own head into these fine forums, you are doing a service to no one
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13870	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:32:33 - [958] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Tens of thousands of freighters move through that system every week. The number of kills are on average a few dozen. As for your "completely safe" battleship, it has half the tank of the bowhead. 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? There are millions of freighter trips made every month across EVE. Amarr Jita is one of the busiest trade routes in the game. As for your battleship, its rather easy to catch and gank. You don't bother to bump it. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:32:59 - [959] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. We went over this, the bowheads were faster at transporting 3 battleships over 30 jumps by a sizeable margin. It's usually 2 BSs and 2 Logi ships but because NM and Vindi are slower than Machariel, i'll take your word it. At the end, you won't have time to go and buy a pizza... but, enough to go and take a beer from the fridge. And please that's only true if you have High grade ascendancy full set ,at 1.37s au/S that is a different story...
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:35:32 - [960] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Tens of thousands of freighters move through that system every week. The number of kills are on average a few dozen. As for your "completely safe" battleship, it has half the tank of the bowhead. But, it can fit 2x ASBs and a AAR with enough buffer... and, it can fit a few flights of ECM drones. So yea, flying the BSs it's much better than the bowhead.

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:35:45 - [961] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: And yet, 99.999% of freighters are not ganked. That is certainly not true for freighters/JFs going through Uedama/Niarja the last couple of months. ooh it is time, here is the time where I get to completely destroy a poster using statistics let's take a look at the freighter deaths in Niarja c/o zkillboard, noted kill accumulator and statistics haver https://zkillboard.com/system/30003504/group/513/ wow, an average of less than one freighter ganked a day in niarja, with stretches of up to five days without any dying whatsoever now let's go czech out uedama https://zkillboard.com/system/30002768/group/513/ looks scarier, but mine eyes doth detect a trend it looks like code dot only gets up to its antics on the weekends and even then only in ustz prime jump freighter statistics paint an even thinner picture please refrain from projecting the localized cognitive dissonance in your own head into these fine forums, you are doing a service to no one 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?
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5489	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:36:30 - [962] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. What makes you think there was no reason to gank this freighter alt? Aha! I've found the flawed assumption on your part Baltec. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 729	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:37:26 - [963] - Quote Any word on whether the ship bay on the Bowhead will allow ships to be boarded/stored/refit form space, or is it just for storage? In addition to moving large, fitted ships form point A to point B, I could see the Bowhead making for an interesting remote staging base. I wonder how many assembled Catalysts could a Bowhead piloted by a neutral CODE. alt carry? CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
Masao Kurata Z List 136	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:37:47 - [964] - Quote tl;dr version: 605k EHP with a 400M fit and 300M pod I'm just going to do the maths I did in post #200 again for tank (the agility's improved by 25%, I think even posters as innumerate as I'm seeing in this thread should be able to handle that), this time with updated HP and faction modules (reasonably priced ones! Fit price is in the post) to show just how ridiculously tanky the ship that you're still whining about is: 444 Nanite Compound 296 Interface Circuit 388 Single-crystal Superalloy I-beam 4 R.A.M.- Armor/Hull Tech Damage Control II [1 MW, 30 tf] Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf] Reinforced Bulkheads II [1 MW, 40 tf] Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I [1250 MW, 75 tf] Pith X-Type Thermic Dissipation Field [1 MW, 42 tf] Pith A-Type Kinetic Deflection Field [1 MW, 39 tf] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] Capital Transverse Bulkhead II [75 calibration] 1255/1687 MW, 266/268 tf, 225/400 calibration http://evepraisal.com/e/3944332 800M HOWEVER that's mostly in the rigs, which there's no market for atm. If I substitute the rigs with the 133% materials... http://evepraisal.com/e/3944367 415M ISK Pod: Zainou 'Gnome' Shield Management SM-705 Inherent Implants 'Noble' Mechanic MC-805 http://evepraisal.com/e/3944395 284M ISK Versus void without heat: 542165 EHP = 395536 hull + 121742 shield + 24887 armor Versus void with heat: 605158 EHP = 395536 hull + 184735 shield + 24887 armor Versus EMP (lol) without heat (lol): 460410 EHP = 395536 hull + 36948 shield + 27926 armor Versus void with everything switched off because you're AFK autopiloting like the moron you are: 218742 EHP = 158214 hull + 39375 shield + 21153 armor
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:38:03 - [965] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: I highlighted your problem here. I WANT to be able to 1-2 jump my carrier to empire to ferry stuff around like I could for YEARS. Now, after a patch I'm 6 jumps deep in null sec and have to wait out jump fatigue every jump unless i want to wait longer next time. CCP doesn't balanced the game based on what you 'want' to do, it balances stuff based on what's best for the game. No one is forcing you to use this ship. if you do use it and want to protect it, you need to stop being solo (like I did, now i have to ask people for cynos to get to to and from empire with ships, or hire a jump freighter). Simple as that. and no to the high sec entitlement BS. high sec is still in EVE, the 'yahoos' have every right to play there if they choose. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13870	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:38:36 - [966] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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? Go look up the mission hubs, you will find a good deal of dead battleships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8993	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:40:39 - [967] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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? The answer is "you shouldn't". only the completely entitled mind could think "new ship, ccp should give everyone a reason to use it without risk". When I move to a new focus I nano+buffer fit my mach and put my mach's shiny fit in an UNSCANNABLE Prorator (or double wrap it and put in in a orca so I can also bring a Basi plus all my ammo). If someone is dumb enough to put shiny Incursion fit ships in a scannable ship, they should pay for being dumb.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:40:48 - [968] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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? to be able to move multiple ships at once if you're only moving one ship then yeah, don't bother also speaking as someone who has decloaked and murdered nullified covert T3s in gatecamps, cloak + mwd trick is by no means complete safety the fact that you view any amount of risk greater than zero as unacceptable does not merit adding more EHP to a 600k EHP ship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 265	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:40:54 - [969] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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? Go look up the mission hubs, you will find a good deal of dead battleships. 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?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 490	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:41:45 - [970] - Quote Bertucio wrote: fly a freighter solo - AND SO DO A GOOD MAJORITY OF PLAYERS IN THE GAME RIGHT NOW. [citation needed]

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13870	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:42:55 - [971] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: I highlighted your problem here. I WANT to be able to 1-2 jump my carrier to empire to ferry stuff around like I could for YEARS. Now, after a patch I'm 6 jumps deep in null sec and have to wait out jump fatigue every jump unless i want to wait longer next time. CCP doesn't balanced the game based on what you 'want' to do, it balances stuff based on what's best for the game. No one is forcing you to use this ship. if you do use it and want to protect it, you need to stop being solo (like I did, now i have to ask people for cynos to get to to and from empire with ships, or hire a jump freighter). Simple as that. and no to the high sec entitlement BS. high sec is still in EVE, the 'yahoos' have every right to play there if they choose. 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. This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8993	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:43:23 - [972] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 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. I don't gank, im a pve player. No on is 'entitled' to anything. Quote: 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. Too bad. Quote: 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 don't care what makes gankers happy. I care about playing a sandbox game that doesn't coddle people like you as if it were a themepark game. No one is forcing you to do anything.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:48:23 - [973] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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? Go look up the mission hubs, you will find a good deal of dead battleships. 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? First, its not 100% safety. Its rather easy to grab a battleship with a cloak. Second, your travel fit battleship has even less tank than the ones getting ganked running missions And finally, the bowhead gets a massive tank, carries a small fleet and when use in a convoy is next to impossible for gankers to kill. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:48:33 - [974] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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.
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:49:57 - [975] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. A velator can't do more dps when its in a group. A raven can't hold more torpedoes when its in a group. Better is relative.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 8993	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:52:22 - [976] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. No it can't. it CAN however move 12 times faster (webbing frigate) with more EHP (links) while having help if it gets ganked (reps).
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:53:42 - [977] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: A raven can't hold more torpedoes when its in a group. ah yes torpedo having, truly the benchmark of a ship's worthiness and value this is why ample light misl launchers are so popular crickets oh ohh
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:54:07 - [978] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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, it is a multiplayer game. We can interact with you in space at any time in any way we wish. You have zero rights to be left alone. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:56:12 - [979] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. No it can't. it CAN however move 12 times faster (webbing frigate) with more EHP (links) while having help if it gets ganked (reps). As if protection ,links and webs were provided by fleet in null sec ...
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:56:16 - [980] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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. actually, eve is the most multiplayer game in existence since every ship of worth in the game is produced by players and because highends aren't found in empire, you have to trade with other players to build things you have to trade with other players to get money for your LP and hoarded mission garbage even if you never talk to another soul while playing the game, every single underpinning of the game relies on interaction with others

Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:57:14 - [981] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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, it is a multiplayer game. We can interact with you in space at any time in any way we wish. You have zero rights to be left alone. That's not a multiplayer game anymorebut a massivemultiboxer one
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:57:49 - [982] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. No it can't. it CAN however move 12 times faster (webbing frigate) with more EHP (links) while having help if it gets ganked (reps). As if protection ,links and webs were provided by fleet in null sec ... AUTOMATED FORUMS WARNING: Poster is edging into territory he has no hope of understanding this has been the automated forums warning protocol
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:58:25 - [983] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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, it is a multiplayer game. We can interact with you in space at any time in any way we wish. You have zero rights to be left alone. Wrong. Not all of Eve is nul-sec.
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:58:50 - [984] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. No it can't. it CAN however move 12 times faster (webbing frigate) with more EHP (links) while having help if it gets ganked (reps). 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.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 20:59:54 - [985] - Quote Quote: AUTOMATED FORUMS WARNING: Poster is edging into territory he has no hope of understanding this has been the automated forums warning protocol Iknew you were a bot ,less personnal attack more arguments plz...
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:00:13 - [986] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: Wrong, it is a multiplayer game. We can interact with you in space at any time in any way we wish. You have zero rights to be left alone. Wrong ccp falcon disagrees
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5489	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:00:56 - [987] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. A velator can't do more dps when its in a group. A raven can't hold more torpedoes when its in a group. Better is relative. A freighter can align faster and be safer in a group. A velator CAN do more dps in a group due to fleet bonuses. A raven also performs better in a group due to fleet bonuses. Better can fit more than your narrowly defined criteria. You're the one being disingenuous with those silly arguments. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:01:05 - [988] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: 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. ah yes the attempting to parallel real life society to a video game option
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:02:00 - [989] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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, it is a multiplayer game. We can interact with you in space at any time in any way we wish. You have zero rights to be left alone. Wrong. Not all of Eve is nul-sec. You fundermentally do not understand the core mechanic of EVE. You are not safe in any space. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:02:18 - [990] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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. actually, eve is the most multiplayer game in existence since every ship of worth in the game is produced by players and because highends aren't found in empire, you have to trade with other players to build things you have to trade with other players to get money for your LP and hoarded mission garbage even if you never talk to another soul while playing the game, every single underpinning of the game relies on interaction with others Pffft. I'm going to stop now because you guys now are just arguing to be right. If you think all players now should run around in fleets in hi-sec - good luck. But it's just goonswarm crazy talk to justify more cheap low risk ganking in Uedama. That's all it is and nothing more. This is my last post on this thread since I'm not going to argue how may angels are on the head of a pin.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:03:45 - [991] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. No it can't. it CAN however move 12 times faster (webbing frigate) with more EHP (links) while having help if it gets ganked (reps). 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. Every single delivery made to Bastion in Afghanistan Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:03:52 - [992] - Quote Quote: You fundermentally do not understand the core mechanic of EVE. You are not safe in any space. You fundamentally doesn't understant that as a sand box their should be place for all kind of a gameplay high sec if for carebear leave us alone :)
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:04:41 - [993] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: actually, eve is the most multiplayer game in existence since every ship of worth in the game is produced by players and because highends aren't found in empire, you have to trade with other players to build things you have to trade with other players to get money for your LP and hoarded mission garbage even if you never talk to another soul while playing the game, every single underpinning of the game relies on interaction with others Pffft. I'm going to stop now because you guys now are just arguing to be right. If you think all players now should run around in fleets in hi-sec - good luck. But it's just goonswarm crazy talk to justify more cheap low risk ganking in Uedama. That's all it is and nothing more. This is my last post on this thread since I'm not going to argue how may angels are on the head of a pin. there are many possible reactions to having one's cognitive dissonance intersect poorly with reality i see you have chosen the "plug own ears and hum loudly" option
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:05:01 - [994] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: ah yes the attempting to parallel real life society to a video game option Ah yes, another person stating the obvious without coming up with a counter argument.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 105	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:05:34 - [995] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. A velator can't do more dps when its in a group. A raven can't hold more torpedoes when its in a group. Better is relative. A freighter can align faster and be safer in a group. A velator CAN do more dps in a group due to fleet bonuses. A raven also performs better in a group due to fleet bonuses. Better can fit more than your narrowly defined criteria. You're the one being disingenuous with those silly arguments. sorry no fleet bonus for dps. also doesnt increase ammo holding ability.
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:05:49 - [996] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Every single delivery made to Bastion in Afghanistan Not a modern country.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:06:28 - [997] - Quote Quote: there are many possible reactions to having one's cognitive dissonance intersect poorly with reality i see you have chosen the "plug own ears and hum loudly" option Personnal attacks no arguments ....thats a bad habit you have.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:06:51 - [998] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: You fundermentally do not understand the core mechanic of EVE. You are not safe in any space. You fundamentally doesn't understant that as a sand box their should be place for all kind of a gameplay high sec if for carebear leave us alone :) "sandbox" does not mean "every possible permutation of how the game is perceived to operate should be enforced and protected" it means "here are some loose guidelines and no discrete goal, have fun" use of the phrase "sandbox" to try and justify your own cognitive dissonance is pretty much the weakest play in the book
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:08:09 - [999] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single delivery made to Bastion in Afghanistan Not a modern country. goalposts status: moved
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:08:11 - [1000] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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, it is a multiplayer game. We can interact with you in space at any time in any way we wish. You have zero rights to be left alone. Wrong. Not all of Eve is nul-sec. You fundermentally do not understand the core mechanic of EVE. You are not safe in any space. Sorry charlie - you don't understand a fundamental EVE mechanic: RISK vs REWARD. There is no risk involved when you use a bunch of cheap dessies in Uedama taking down a billion+ freighter. Game balance involves allowing a big enough sand box to allow all types of play - not just allowing gankers to do whatever the **** they want in hi-sec. hi-sec has rules - you just don't want to play by them.

Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:08:28 - [1001] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Better can fit more than your narrowly defined criteria. You're the one being disingenuous with those silly arguments. Considering that none of what you talk about is free, I'm not being disingenuous. Enlisting help to move goods is at the bare min an opportunity cost to anyone involved, as well as huge expense to the freighter pilot themselves. Just like freedom isn't free, neither is protection and having to pay someone to help me do a job I should be able to do alone is NOT better.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:09:36 - [1002] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: ah yes the attempting to parallel real life society to a video game option Ah yes, another person stating the obvious without coming up with a counter argument. my counter argument is that trying to draw a parallel to real life in a video game is the height of folly and renders anything that slipped out of your words bindle irrelevant
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:10:36 - [1003] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: goalposts status: moved Would you like me to provide a link to you listing every modern (ie 1st world) nation in the world or are you telling me that you are unfamiliar with the geopolitical situation/turmoil in that country. Either way you have no idea what you are talking about.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:12:11 - [1004] - Quote Bertucio wrote: baltec1 wrote: This isnt a single player game, stop treating it as such. 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. i am glad people like you play eve because your outraged squeals as you get whipped and yoked to our mighty chariots that this can't be happening is really the best part
Valterra Craven 341	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:12:54 - [1005] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: my counter argument is that trying to draw a parallel to real life in a video game is the height of folly and renders anything that slipped out of your words bindle irrelevant Oh, do you have an actual reason for the opinion that you hold or do you just like stating things that make no sense as a followup?
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:14:02 - [1006] - Quote Quote: "sandbox" does not mean "every possible permutation of how the game is perceived to operate should be enforced and protected" it means "here are some loose guidelines and no discrete goal, have fun" use of the phrase "sandbox" to try and justify your own cognitive dissonance is pretty much the weakest play in the book Your thruth not mine , your definition not mine .Being disruptive to a gameplay is fine destroying it, is not .
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:14:16 - [1007] - Quote Bertucio wrote: hi-sec has rules - you just don't want to play by them. what you perceive as the rules of highsec inside your own addled think pan and how the game is coded and administrated are two separate things this is the textbook definition of cognitive dissonance
Celly S Concord Attraction Services The Ditanian Alliance 331	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:14:52 - [1008] - Quote Deadly Hobbitses wrote: How about shaking things up a bit and adding a little bit of uniqueness to these things? Increase base SMA volume to 1750000 Install 2.5LY jump drive Adjust hp/capacitor as needed Remove fatigue bonus Role Bonus: Jump drive gate scanner (renders vessel's jump drive capable of locking onto stargates remotely in the absence of a cynosural field) When activated, the ship would be capable of using its jump drive to jump to a cyno or a gate in any system which is in range. If a system is chosen, the ship would jump to a random gate in the system at normal jump-in range. This ability to shorten one's journey by means of bypassing some systems along the way would give the ship purpose while the low jump range and buildup of fatigue would help to prevent it being used as easily for force projection. In the case of highsec incursioners this might be enough of a buff to make it worth putting their shiny toys in as opposed to just flying them in a high hp travel fit. you can't light a cyno in High sec, and carriers can move ships in null, there's absolutely "zero" reason to have a jump drive on this thing. if you bridge in null you get the 90% reduction in fatigue, if you install a jump drive on it, then you can't bridge. 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.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:15:16 - [1009] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Oh, do you have an actual reason for the opinion that you hold or do you just like stating things that make no sense as a followup? said the pot to the shining white beacon of light
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:16:43 - [1010] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single delivery made to Bastion in Afghanistan Not a modern country. Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:17:26 - [1011] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: my counter argument is that trying to draw a parallel to real life in a video game is the height of folly and renders anything that slipped out of your words bindle irrelevant Oh, do you have an actual reason for the opinion that you hold or do you just like stating things that make no sense as a followup? it's not an opinion, it's fact GÇö-átrying to apply the norms and mores of real life to the infinitely less complex structure of a video game is at once impossible and, frankly, kinda stupid even if it is possible
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:17:31 - [1012] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Oh, do you have an actual reason for the opinion that you hold or do you just like stating things that make no sense as a followup? said the pot to the shining white beacon of light Do you guys just like to post to see your own words on the screen or do you not understand what an actual argument looks like?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:19:21 - [1013] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: "sandbox" does not mean "every possible permutation of how the game is perceived to operate should be enforced and protected" it means "here are some loose guidelines and no discrete goal, have fun" use of the phrase "sandbox" to try and justify your own cognitive dissonance is pretty much the weakest play in the book Your thruth not mine , your definition not mine .Being disruptive to a gameplay is fine destroying it, is not . okay, so by your definition, the sandbox should let me own every single resource and scrap of content in eve and grub it all for myself, because it's what i want and it's a ssaaaaaaannnddbooxxxx mommy i want it i want it i want it
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:19:41 - [1014] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: it's not an opinion, it's fact GÇö-átrying to apply the norms and mores of real life to the infinitely less complex structure of a video game is at once impossible and, frankly, kinda stupid even if it is possible The difference between an opinion and a fact, is that facts are proven and have evidence to support them. Since your post has none of that, it remains that: an opinion. Now if you want to link some research on how people should relate to games without comparing them to real life or anything else that has context outside of a game, then please by all means.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:20:53 - [1015] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Do you guys just like to post to see your own words on the screen or do you not understand what an actual argument looks like? you not agreeing with our argument doesn't somehow preclude it from being relevant
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:21:18 - [1016] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's not an opinion, it's fact GÇö-átrying to apply the norms and mores of real life to the infinitely less complex structure of a video game is at once impossible and, frankly, kinda stupid even if it is possible The difference between an opinion and a fact, is that facts are proven and have evidence to support them. Since your post has none of that, it remains that: an opinion. Now if you want to link some research on how people should relate to games without comparing them to real life or anything else that has context outside of a game, then please by all means. that the sky is blue remains a fact even when we do not bother to provide you a picture of it and that fire is hot remains true even when we do not put your hand into the fire
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:22:03 - [1017] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it's not an opinion, it's fact GÇö-átrying to apply the norms and mores of real life to the infinitely less complex structure of a video game is at once impossible and, frankly, kinda stupid even if it is possible The difference between an opinion and a fact, is that facts are proven and have evidence to support them. Since your post has none of that, it remains that: an opinion. Now if you want to link some research on how people should relate to games without comparing them to real life or anything else that has context outside of a game, then please by all means. seeing as your argument falls under this category on the merits of being in the "hella is an opinion" box i fail to see what you gain from shooting yourself in the foot in this manner
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:22:55 - [1018] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. 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.
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:24:09 - [1019] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: seeing as your argument falls under this category on the merits of being in the "hella is an opinion" box i fail to see what you gain from shooting yourself in the foot in this manner Considering that I never stated my argument was a fact or that it should be treated as Gospel unlike you, I have neither gained nor lost anything.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:25:52 - [1020] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. 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. Welcome to Afghanistan. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 491	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:26:31 - [1021] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: seeing as your argument falls under this category on the merits of being in the "hella is an opinion" box i fail to see what you gain from shooting yourself in the foot in this manner Considering that I never stated my argument was a fact or that it should be treated as Gospel unlike you, I have neither gained nor lost anything. so when you make an argument it doesn't have to be backed up by facts eh
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 465	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:26:51 - [1022] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Sorry charlie - you don't understand a fundamental EVE mechanic: RISK vs REWARD. There is no risk involved when you use a bunch of cheap dessies in Uedama taking down a billion+ freighter. Well there is. The gank ship are an investment. The loot is the price. There is a lot that can go wrong here. - The drop rate is 50% you can just end with nothing at all - Someone can loot the wreck before you do - Someone can kill the wreck - Someone can stop the gank Bertucio wrote: Game balance involves allowing a big enough sand box to allow all types of play - not just allowing gankers to do whatever the **** they want in hi-sec. hi-sec has rules - you just don't want to play by them. The rules of Highsec are that you can shoot anyone for a (extremely) limited time at the cost of your ship and not that it is a combat free zone. the Code ALWAYS wins
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:27:36 - [1023] - Quote Quote: okay, so by your definition, the sandbox should let me own every single resource and scrap of content in eve our in yand grub it all for myself, because it's what i want and it's a ssaaaaaaannnddbooxxxx mommy i want it i want it i want it I just see you have nothing more constructive to say except trolling and personnal attack people who disagree with you.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 493	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:28:09 - [1024] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. 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. apparently in order for players to fight one another in highsec the npcs have to be fighting each other too man this world you live in is pretty trippy
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 493	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:30:53 - [1025] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Quote: okay, so by your definition, the sandbox should let me own every single resource and scrap of content in eve our in yand grub it all for myself, because it's what i want and it's a ssaaaaaaannnddbooxxxx mommy i want it i want it i want it I just see you have nothing more constructive to say except trolling and personnal attack people who disagree with you. "constructive" does not mean "implicitly agrees with one's argument and never dares to posit a differing argument" i am being constructive as hell by layin it on the line how things actually work outside these alarmingly frequent bubbles of alternate reality vignettes
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:31:15 - [1026] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. 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. apparently in order for players to fight one another in highsec the npcs have to be fighting each other too man this world you live in is pretty trippy Apparently in your world dictionaries do not exist. Last I checked high sec was not torn apart by war. Or would you like to see some videos on what actual war looks like?
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:32:42 - [1027] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Welcome to Afghanistan. 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.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:33:08 - [1028] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. 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. apparently in order for players to fight one another in highsec the npcs have to be fighting each other too man this world you live in is pretty trippy Apparently in your world dictionaries do not exist. Last I checked high sec was not torn apart by war. Or would you like to see some videos on what actual war looks like? i would actually like to see this dictionary please post it
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 493	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:33:23 - [1029] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Neither is EVE. We live in a cruel, war torn world. 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. apparently in order for players to fight one another in highsec the npcs have to be fighting each other too man this world you live in is pretty trippy Apparently in your world dictionaries do not exist. Last I checked high sec was not torn apart by war. Or would you like to see some videos on what actual war looks like? in this thread, dictionaries contain information about historical and/or current events
Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:34:27 - [1030] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Do you guys just like to post to see your own words on the screen or do you not understand what an actual argument looks like? you not agreeing with our argument doesn't somehow preclude it from being relevant You not agreeing with my comparisons also doesn't somehow preclude them from being relevant.

Valterra Craven 343	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:35:38 - [1031] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: i would actually like to see this dictionary please post it http://www.thefreedictionary.com/war-torn
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:36:45 - [1032] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: You not agreeing with my comparisons also doesn't somehow preclude them from being relevant. agreeing implies that there is an opinion involved if anything you saying that video games are anything like real life is kinda insulting to the billions of lives that have worked to shape real life why you gotta tear them down like that man
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:36:49 - [1033] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Do you guys just like to post to see your own words on the screen or do you not understand what an actual argument looks like? you not agreeing with our argument doesn't somehow preclude it from being relevant You not agreeing with my comparisons also doesn't somehow preclude them from being relevant. the fact they are self-evidently irrelevant does, however
admiral root Red Galaxy 1847	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:37:21 - [1034] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 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. No, he's saying you're perfectly entitled to fly solo, but if a bunch of us asplode you there's no victim - you're just a willing volunteer. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:38:00 - [1035] - Quote also lmao at trying to compare real life war with freighter ganks in eve that kinda shit is way more sociopathic than any ganker in eve ever got it up in themselves to be you are clinically incapable of any kind of empathy, aren't you
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 105	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:38:11 - [1036] - Quote I'm glad there has been nothing constructive for the last couple pages means this thread is over and nothing will we looked at anyway. I'm looking forward to the day caps can enter high sec.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:39:11 - [1037] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Welcome to Afghanistan. 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. Suicide gankers. I wonder what that can be compared to... Then we have wardecs, blood feuds, robberies, piracy... High sec is not safe, never has been never will be. CCP Falcon wrote: 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 Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:39:32 - [1038] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: i would actually like to see this dictionary please post it http://www.thefreedictionary.com/war-torn ctrl-f "npc" no results ctrl-f "prolonged" no results ctrl-f "patrol" no results ctrl-f "navy" no results hmm it seems your dictionary does not support your argument at all
Valterra Craven 350	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:42:22 - [1039] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: agreeing implies that there is an opinion involved if anything you saying that video games are anything like real life is kinda insulting to the billions of lives that have worked to shape real life why you gotta tear them down like that man Considering that everything I've put forth so far is my opinion.... As to your thought pattern, why? What exactly about applying critical thinking to a problem and using examples to put that critical thinking into a context that it can be related to something else tears others down?
Valterra Craven 350	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:43:58 - [1040] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: i would actually like to see this dictionary please post it http://www.thefreedictionary.com/war-torn ctrl-f "npc" no results ctrl-f "prolonged" no results ctrl-f "patrol" no results ctrl-f "navy" no results hmm it seems your dictionary does not support your argument at all Well given that my argument is that your arguments make no sense and that you don't back up anything you say, the fact that you don't know how to use a dictionary kinda speaks for itself.

Valterra Craven 351	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:46:39 - [1041] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Suicide gankers. I wonder what that can be compared to... Then we have wardecs, blood feuds, robberies, piracy... High sec is not safe, never has been never will be. 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.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:47:32 - [1042] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: agreeing implies that there is an opinion involved if anything you saying that video games are anything like real life is kinda insulting to the billions of lives that have worked to shape real life why you gotta tear them down like that man Considering that everything I've put forth so far is my opinion.... As to your thought pattern, why? What exactly about applying critical thinking to a problem and using examples to put that critical thinking into a context that it can be related to something else tears others down? because the very thing you're trying to draw parallels to is completely incongruous with the subject matter at hand highsec is not a developed country in real life, it is a series of solar systems in a videogame populated by individuals with eternal life the very underpinnings of real life society is completely unavailable for comparison due to this
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:47:56 - [1043] - Quote I thought the goons only ganked in Uedama with cheap dessies. But apparently they also use cheap dessies to gank forum threads as well.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:47:58 - [1044] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Well given that my argument is that your arguments make no sense and that you don't back up anything you say, the fact that you don't know how to use a dictionary kinda speaks for itself. i see we are in agreement that I am completely correct not in the sense that you are explicitly agreeing, more in the sense that your hilarious retreat into nonsense signals you understand that i am completely correct as i am a generous and humble poster i will allow you to slink away into the darkness in peace
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:48:46 - [1045] - Quote Bertucio wrote: I thought the goons only ganked in Uedama with cheap dessies. But apparently they also use cheap dessies to gank forum threads as well. this is very true, please continue to pilot 40b freighters in other systems and ignore taloses on scan
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:54:38 - [1046] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Suicide gankers. I wonder what that can be compared to... Then we have wardecs, blood feuds, robberies, piracy... High sec is not safe, never has been never will be. 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. I see you are ignoring CCPs own words on this matter. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 351	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:55:36 - [1047] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: because the very thing you're trying to draw parallels to is completely incongruous with the subject matter at hand highsec is not a developed country in real life, it is a series of solar systems in a videogame populated by individuals with eternal life the very underpinnings of real life society is completely unavailable for comparison due to this So the basis of your argument is that you don't know what your talking about? A. Eve is populated mainly by humans. B. Only a select few of those humans have the ability to cheat death. C. All of those other humans would have a vested interest in keeping the peace for the systems they control in order to foster trade and the growth of their empires. D. These compare almost exactly to how a real life nation would behave and act in real life.
Valterra Craven 353	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:56:56 - [1048] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I see you are ignoring CCPs own words on this matter. The reality of the game speaks far more volumes than anything CCP marketing can cook up.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:57:26 - [1049] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: because the very thing you're trying to draw parallels to is completely incongruous with the subject matter at hand highsec is not a developed country in real life, it is a series of solar systems in a videogame populated by individuals with eternal life the very underpinnings of real life society is completely unavailable for comparison due to this So the basis of your argument is that you don't know what your talking about? A. Eve is populated mainly by humans. B. Only a select few of those humans have the ability to cheat death. C. All of those other humans would have a vested interest in keeping the peace for the systems they control in order to foster trade and the growth of their empires. D. These compare almost exactly to how a real life nation would behave and act in real life. wrongo buddy every player in eve has the ability to cheat death we're talking about violencing space boats in a video game, please keep it on topic
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:58:31 - [1050] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: I see you are ignoring CCPs own words on this matter. The reality of the game speaks far more volumes than anything CCP marketing can cook up. i see you have retreated into declaring your own reality that is an ingenious way to avoid ever confronting the multitude of ways that your vision of reality conflicts with the actual reality just be careful of those bad men in the white coats coming to take you to the padded reality

Valterra Craven 353	Posted - 2014.11.12 21:59:37 - [1051] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: your hilarious retreat into nonsense signals you understand that i am completely correct Well see there you'd be wrong again. Given that my arguments have always followed the same line of thinking I haven't retreated into anything. But if you knew how to use a dictionary, you'd likely also know how to use the word retreat correctly.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:01:49 - [1052] - Quote welp looks like he's brought out the dictionary thing again here's something you can look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Valterra Craven 353	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:04:01 - [1053] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: wrongo buddy every player in eve has the ability to cheat death we're talking about violencing space boats in a video game, please keep it on topic I'm not wrong, and on this one point neither are you. The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. While we are the actual players of the game, we are far outnumbered by the inhabitants that are there. You might be talking about violencing space boats in a video game, but what I'm talking about is the concept that the inhabitants of the game (namely the space navies) would have a vested interest to ensure that stuff didn't hit the fan in their space to ensure the free flow of goods etc.
Valterra Craven 353	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:05:44 - [1054] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: welp looks like he's brought out the dictionary thing again here's something you can look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Linking to something that shows others what you are suffering from doesn't help your case.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:07:04 - [1055] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. no it doesn't show me a single player of Eve: Online that isn't a capsuleer
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:08:49 - [1056] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: wrongo buddy every player in eve has the ability to cheat death we're talking about violencing space boats in a video game, please keep it on topic I'm not wrong, and on this one point neither are you. The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. While we are the actual players of the game, we are far outnumbered by the inhabitants that are there. You might be talking about violencing space boats in a video game, but what I'm talking about is the concept that the inhabitants of the game (namely the space navies) would have a vested interest to ensure that stuff didn't hit the fan in their space to ensure the free flow of goods etc. there are vast amounts of highseccers compared to the small numbers of goonswarm ubermensch who have their own vested interests, yet they are all irrelevant when the goonswarm ubermensch choose to dictate how it shall be so too are the mortal humans of eve who are so irrelevant they have no impact on the game whatsoever
Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:09:11 - [1057] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. no it doesn't show me a single player of Eve: Online that isn't a capsuleer Show me a single posts by CCP that states that the only beings in the game are Capsuleers.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:09:20 - [1058] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: welp looks like he's brought out the dictionary thing again here's something you can look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Linking to something that shows others what you are suffering from doesn't help your case. i know you are but what am i
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:09:46 - [1059] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: welp looks like he's brought out the dictionary thing again here's something you can look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Linking to something that shows others what you are suffering from doesn't help your case. deploying the i am rubber you are glue defense we've got a live one here kids
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:10:12 - [1060] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. no it doesn't show me a single player of Eve: Online that isn't a capsuleer Show me a single posts by CCP that states that the only beings in the game are Capsuleers. uh you said players not beings do the goalposts get heavy after moving them so much or do you work out

Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:10:48 - [1061] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: so too are the mortal humans of eve who are so irrelevant they have no impact on the game whatsoever Let me know how that works out for after you fight for a faction in faction warfare and try to accessing an opposing factions space after you stop playing faction warefare. I'd love to see the impending killmail generated by their navy!
Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:11:59 - [1062] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Show me a single posts by CCP that states that the only beings in the game are Capsuleers. uh you said players not beings do the goalposts get heavy after moving them so much or do you work out Actually I said humans. Putting words in my mouth is not the same thing as me moving the goal posts.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:12:15 - [1063] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: so too are the mortal humans of eve who are so irrelevant they have no impact on the game whatsoever Let me know how that works out for after you fight for a faction in faction warfare and try to accessing an opposing factions space after you stop playing faction warefare. I'd love to see the impending killmail generated by their navy! hate to break it to you buddy but those aren't real people, they are video game constructs
Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:13:09 - [1064] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: deploying the i am rubber you are glue defense we've got a live one here kids You don't exactly have the moral high ground to be making character judgments.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:13:20 - [1065] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Actually I said humans. Putting words in my mouth is not the same thing as me moving the goal posts. nope you said players ain't puttin words in your mouth, it's literally quoting what you said the treasonous words, issued by your Benedictian mouth
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:15:03 - [1066] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Actually I said humans. Putting words in my mouth is not the same thing as me moving the goal posts. Valterra Craven wrote: The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. i suppose this puts the rest of the attempted facts you've tried to declare into perspective
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:18:54 - [1067] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: the inhabitants of the game (namely the space navies) would have a vested interest to ensure that stuff didn't hit the fan in their space to ensure the free flow of goods etc. What did the space navies think about the recent lapse in technology where they can no longer jump drive more than once every 10 minutes? Oh also how come the space navies don't put their space navy gear on the market, there is a huge demand for instalocking perma-jamming setups
Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:19:39 - [1068] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Actually I said humans. Putting words in my mouth is not the same thing as me moving the goal posts. Valterra Craven wrote: The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. i suppose this puts the rest of the attempted facts you've tried to declare into perspective No it just brings to the fore front a human error. The goal posts have not moved as you recall this was (and still is) the core argument I'm making Valterra Craven wrote: A. Eve is populated mainly by humans. B. Only a select few of those humans have the ability to cheat death. C. All of those other humans would have a vested interest in keeping the peace for the systems they control in order to foster trade and the growth of their empires. D. These compare almost exactly to how a real life nation would behave and act in real life. I bolded the important part
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:22:39 - [1069] - Quote Attempting to utilize Eve Lore as an argument in any decision CCP makes is an absolute joke. The sole purpose of Eve Lore is only to provide context for why we are flying spaceships and shooting each other. Example: Jump gates. Jump gates were never designed or intended (lore wise) to allow capital ship travel. Whoops. Also, what kind of actual corporation would design such an awful ship as the Rorqlol.
Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:22:43 - [1070] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: What did the space navies think about the recent lapse in technology where they can no longer jump drive more than once every 10 minutes? Oh also how come the space navies don't put their space navy gear on the market, there is a huge demand for instalocking perma-jamming setups Not sure, why don't you ask them?

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:23:41 - [1071] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Actually I said humans. Putting words in my mouth is not the same thing as me moving the goal posts. Valterra Craven wrote: The lore states that there are vast amounts of non capsular players that inhabit the game. i suppose this puts the rest of the attempted facts you've tried to declare into perspective No it just brings to the fore front a human error. The goal posts have not moved as you recall this was (and still is) the core argument I'm making Valterra Craven wrote: A. Eve is populated mainly by humans. B. Only a select few of those humans have the ability to cheat death. C. All of those other humans would have a vested interest in keeping the peace for the systems they control in order to foster trade and the growth of their empires. D. These compare almost exactly to how a real life nation would behave and act in real life. I bolded the important part ah yes eve online where lore drives the game mechanics also every human playing eve online still has the ability to cheat death so i still don't get where you're going with that
Valterra Craven 354	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:25:11 - [1072] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: Attempting to utilize Eve Lore in any decision CCP makes is an absolute joke. The sole purpose of Eve Lore is only to provide context for why we are flying spaceships and shooting each other. Oh, so you admit that context helps with building things? You mean like putting a poorly built video game system in context within the world it was built in and trying to relate that to the real world to show why it doesn't make sense? Glad to know we agree.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:26:05 - [1073] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Mr Omniblivion wrote: Attempting to utilize Eve Lore in any decision CCP makes is an absolute joke. The sole purpose of Eve Lore is only to provide context for why we are flying spaceships and shooting each other. Oh, so you admit that context helps with building things? You mean like putting a poorly built video game system in context within the world it was built in and trying to relate that to the real world to show why it doesn't make sense? Glad to know we agree. only if the context isn't garbage hint: your context is what we in the posting biz like to refer to as "hot buttered sewage"
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:30:45 - [1074] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Mr Omniblivion wrote: Attempting to utilize Eve Lore in any decision CCP makes is an absolute joke. The sole purpose of Eve Lore is only to provide context for why we are flying spaceships and shooting each other. Oh, so you admit that context helps with building things? You mean like putting a poorly built video game system in context within the world it was built in and trying to relate that to the real world to show why it doesn't make sense? Glad to know we agree. What exactly are you trying to argue, I have been pulling a CCP and not actually reading this thread
Bertucio Chandra Labs 8	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:30:56 - [1075] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Mr Omniblivion wrote: Attempting to utilize Eve Lore in any decision CCP makes is an absolute joke. The sole purpose of Eve Lore is only to provide context for why we are flying spaceships and shooting each other. Oh, so you admit that context helps with building things? You mean like putting a poorly built video game system in context within the world it was built in and trying to relate that to the real world to show why it doesn't make sense? Glad to know we agree. only if the context isn't garbage hint: your context is what we in the posting biz like to refer to as "hot buttered sewage" She made sense to me. And she pointed out the flaws of your argument. You just aren't willing to admit you were wrong.
Valterra Craven 355	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:36:35 - [1076] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: What exactly are you trying to argue, I have been pulling a CCP and not actually reading this thread I'm not going to lie, after the pages upon pages of this thread I had kinda forgotten. But this was the original post I made that got this whole debate started. Valterra Craven wrote: Dave Stark wrote: know how the ganker brought his friends? well so can the bowhead pilot. we've been through this tired old incorrect spew in every thread containing the word "freighter" for the last god knows how long. I've seen this argument before and I have no idea why people insist on it. The problem with ganking is that they have all the advantages. They determine the time, the place, and what their thresholds are. They have the element of surprise and they can have over whelming force. I know people hate real life analogies here, but I want you to image what life would be like if in every civilized country (US, All the EU nations, Japan, etc) that in order to transport goods via a high speed route like a highway you would have to get an escort to do so. Think about the economic burden that would be placed on just trying to move things. Keep in mind I'm not talking about low sec or null sec right now, which the Somali pirates would be a good comparison to make there. The problem with the mechanic as it exists now is that if people like gankers exist that continually preyed on business etc like they do in eve, they would be systematically hunted down and dealt with. The free flow of goods is vitally important to any economy, and frankly your argument just isn't practical to that end.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:37:20 - [1077] - Quote Bertucio wrote: She made sense to me. And she pointed out the flaws of your argument. You just aren't willing to admit you were wrong. my argument is that the entire premise of his thing is wrong because it uses a facile, impossible comparison as its fulcrum given that that is the case, nothing he's said has any meaning whatsoever comparing real life to a video game is garbage, comparing real life to eve lore is garbage, implying that eve lore drives gameplay decisions and is not, at best, a tacked-on bit of fiction designed to explain some game mechanics in a fun way that some nerds can integrate into their own personal stories and have wholesome, unironic fun times, is asymptotically approaching the cognitive dissonance of shooting up a mall because God told you to inside your own head like i am seriously running out of ways to describe this, it's just universal untruth and no amount of wishing it is real is ever gonna make it be real
Bertucio Chandra Labs 9	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:44:28 - [1078] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: comparing real life to a video game is garbage, comparing real life to eve lore is garbage, This simply is irrational. You seem a bit bent right now. There are a lot of elements in Eve that do simulate real life. Good fiction simulates real life. It's how we can identify and participate in a story or even in an MMO. I think that's what makes Eve particularly engaging - is that it has many elements that are similar to real life (if we imagine what it might be like in space). Eve isn't just a simple arcade game of shooting gallery. It has production values, exploration values, a back story. It has give and take simulation of what kind of ship you want to fly. And it has a real economy - unlike almost any other MMO. To say comparing Eve to real life or the back story is "garbage" is just irrational goon talk. In fact, the more successful MMO's I think simulate real life more and more - have more realistic graphics, more realistic mechanics - so it isn't just some kind of cartoon game for 2 year olds.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:44:31 - [1079] - Quote but hey let ol auntie promfem schoolfeed y'all some actual facts: fact: it is possible to suicide gank nerds in highsec fact: ccp is the sole arbiter of whether or not this is allowed fact: it'd be pretty effin trivial to disallow weapons fire on another player in highsec fact: they haven't fact: and here is the big one no area of space in eve is 100% safe this has been Paroxysm of Facts by Promiscuous Female, facthaver
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:44:34 - [1080] - Quote Don't tell the other goons, but I personally think the current way high sec ganking is set up is pretty dumb game design. That said, you can't change high sec ganking until you change people hiding in NPC corps. If haulers couldn't hide in npc corps and war dec mechanics weren't garbage, then you could change high sec ganking. The intent isn't just to **** people off (well okay, one intent is), but we actually commit warfare by killing haulers en route to hostile territory. Disrupting their supply chain and income is a very valid way of winning wars. Every day high sec folk are just the victims here because our enemies decide to hide in NPC corporations (only the less unintelligent ones). If they all used their main alliance to haul, then we would just wardec them and not have to worry about suicide ganking in high sec. But, since that doesn't happen often, we have to just kill as many neutral freighters we can. By law of averages, we're damaging their supply lines or forcing them to take extra long and tedious routes to their space. So really- you should be upset at our enemies, not at us. We're just using a game mechanic that CCP decided was in the scope of context of the original design of Eve. CCP: Game design at its finest* *note: except in actual games

Masao Kurata Z List 137	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:47:14 - [1081] - Quote Another disgusting stat: you can get 344k EHP with a 100% afk fit, no active modules.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:52:12 - [1082] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: comparing real life to a video game is garbage, comparing real life to eve lore is garbage, You seem a bit bent right now. There are a lot of elements in Eve that do simulate real life. Good fiction simulates real life. It's how we can identify and participate in a story or even in an MMO. I think that's what makes Eve particularly engaging - is that it has many elements that are similar to real life (if we imagine what it might be like in space). Eve isn't just a simple arcade game of shooting gallery. It has production values, exploration values, a back story. It has give and take simulation of what kind of ship you want to fly. And it has a real economy - unlike almost any other MMO. and yet nothing in eve even remotely approaches the complexity of real life institutions but hey if we wanna do this, i've got a real humdinger there's nothing stopping me, being a first world country haver, from selecting an unlucky random off the street and snuffing their shit however if i do that the likelihood of me getting punished and potentially even murdered by the state is pretty darn high eve is similar because if i snuff someone's shit i get punished by the state in the form of explosions Bertucio wrote: To say comparing Eve to real life or the back story is "garbage" is just irrational goon talk. In fact, the more successful MMO's I think simulate real life more and more - have more realistic graphics, more realistic mechanics - so it isn't just some kind of cartoon game for 2 year olds. "irrational goon talk" for folks who are champing at the bit to declare an attack a personal attack you sure are fast on the ol' "guilt by association" button
Bertucio Chandra Labs 9	Posted - 2014.11.12 22:58:12 - [1083] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: for folks who are champing at the bit to declare an attack a personal attack you sure are fast on the ol' "guilt by association" button Yeah - you're right. I've been adding fuel to the fire. But it hasn't just been me. I'll try to take it down a bit.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:02:50 - [1084] - Quote Bertucio wrote: I also think there should be a place in Eve where you can fly around relatively safely if you want to - that in fact, my guess is there are quite a few players that would rather NOT have PvP forced upon them. That PvP should be a choice not a requirement when logging on. And I think if CCP makes a big enough sand-box, that it won't ruin the game by making hi-sec pretty secure against ganking. PvP will still continue hot and heavy in low or nul sec - even if hi-sec is made more secure. after thinking on it a bit i've decided that comments like this fit into the ever-widening scope of "the most ingratiating position of surrender possible" they do so on account of the vignette they live in instantly discarding any potential of retribution towards the aggressors in any form in this vignette, the aggressors are completely untouchable, have perfect awareness, have infinite wallets, and stalwart, unimpeachable morale in fact, no weakness exists at all that could ever be exploited to be fair, this is largely true GÇö-áour efforts at empire building have left us with few flaws indeed but having it codified into the very underpinnings of the vignette with nary a thought left towards attempting to stop it with the hands of the people crafting the vignette is actually pretty damn flattering seeing that cowed, skulking existence just be a matter of fact, just, man, it's a rush
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:03:43 - [1085] - Quote Bertucio wrote: One of the more reasonable arguments I have read. I still think though that the RISK vs REWARD equation is not equal when a bunch of cheap dessies can take down a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec. The gankers need to put out more if they want to gank in hi-sec IMO. you've always been able to gank in destroyers, it is merely so difficult almost nobody can organize the needed people highsec pubbies, who screech at the idea that cooperation should be rewarded, somehow never factor in that effort cost
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:06:38 - [1086] - Quote a cleverer pubbie might ask if, when destroyers are so cheap, why so many gankers use taloses instead and start realizing the cost of effort those pubbies generally aren't flying freighters though
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:08:17 - [1087] - Quote Bertucio wrote: One of the more reasonable arguments I have read. I still think though that the RISK vs REWARD equation is not equal when a bunch of cheap dessies can take down a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec. The gankers need to put out more if they want to gank in hi-sec IMO. I also think there should be a place in Eve where you can fly around relatively safely if you want to - that in fact, my guess is there are quite a few players that would rather NOT have PvP forced upon them. That PvP should be a choice not a requirement when logging on. And I think if CCP makes a big enough sand-box, that it won't ruin the game by making hi-sec pretty secure against ganking. PvP will still continue hot and heavy in low or nul sec - even if hi-sec is made more secure. By "dessies" I'm assuming you mean Destroyers, right? The data that people don't consider about suicide ganking is that it is a huge cost to the gankers. They must sit around and scope out targets for up to hours at a time. Once they get a target, they will incur a guaranteed loss and will not always get loot from the freighter gank. I'm sure if you pulled up MINILUV kills in high sec, you'd see plenty that didn't drop any loot. Thus, this isn't a "profitable" venture in high sec, which is why it isn't rampant. Furthermore, once they've ganked several times, there is the cost of having to grind out security standings back to acceptable levels. It's a rather lengthy process that requires good logistics, which is why the entire goon community does not suicide gank. Some people just want to run missions all day and that is fine, but if there is ever an instance with zero risk, then that only hurts the economy as a whole. If you start getting tens/hundreds/thousands of people doing this activity that has zero risk, then that is when you would start seeing rampant inflation, botting, etc. Destruction leads to consumption, which is good for everyone except the guy that just got blown up. If there were a way to allow people to run missions with zero risk but they had to pay a 50% tax, they would likely stop doing that and whine about how it's unfair that they only get 50% of the profit from doing zero risk activities. What most people don't realize is that your actual risk of being ganked in empire is a number approaching zero by default. That number goes up if you decide to fly an officer fit battleship in your missions, run an obvious multiboxed fleet of 50 mackinaws, or fly 30 bil worth of goods in your 1 bil isk freighter. So yes, high sec ganking mechanics are dumb. But they're only an actual risk to players if they are also dumb or lazy. You only hear about high sec ganking because people yell really loud when they get ganked in high sec- you don't hear from the thousands of high sec dwellers that go about their normal, unabiding, routine on a daily basis. Edit: run missions with zero risk for a 50% tax
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:10:19 - [1088] - Quote during burn jita on one year or another we also organized a freighter gank with rookie ships nerf rookie ships
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:11:48 - [1089] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: Bertucio wrote: One of the more reasonable arguments I have read. I still think though that the RISK vs REWARD equation is not equal when a bunch of cheap dessies can take down a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec. The gankers need to put out more if they want to gank in hi-sec IMO. I also think there should be a place in Eve where you can fly around relatively safely if you want to - that in fact, my guess is there are quite a few players that would rather NOT have PvP forced upon them. That PvP should be a choice not a requirement when logging on. And I think if CCP makes a big enough sand-box, that it won't ruin the game by making hi-sec pretty secure against ganking. PvP will still continue hot and heavy in low or nul sec - even if hi-sec is made more secure. By "dessies" I'm assuming you mean Destroyers, right? The data that people don't consider about suicide ganking is that it is a huge cost to the gankers. They must sit around and scope out targets for up to hours at a time. Once they get a target, they will incur a guaranteed loss and will not always get loot from the freighter gank. I'm sure if you pulled up MINILUV kills in high sec, you'd see plenty that didn't drop any loot. Thus, this isn't a "profitable" venture in high sec, which is why it isn't rampant. Furthermore, once they've ganked several times, there is the cost of having to grind out security standings back to acceptable levels. It's a rather lengthy process that requires good logistics, which is why the entire goon community does not suicide gank. Some people just want to run missions all day and that is fine, but if there is ever an instance with zero risk, then that only hurts the economy as a whole. If you start getting tens/hundreds/thousands of people doing this activity that has zero risk, then that is when you would start seeing rampant inflation, botting, etc. Destruction leads to consumption, which is good for everyone except the guy that just got blown up. If there were a way to allow people to run missions but they had to pay a 50% tax, they would likely stop doing that and whine about how it's unfair that they only get 50% of the profit from doing zero risk activities. What most people don't realize is that your actual risk of being ganked in empire is a number approaching zero by default. That number goes up if you decide to fly an officer fit battleship in your missions, run an obvious multiboxed fleet of 50 mackinaws, or fly 30 bil worth of goods in your 1 bil isk freighter. So yes, high sec ganking mechanics are dumb. But they're only an actual risk to players if they are also dumb or lazy. You only hear about high sec ganking because people yell really loud when they get ganked in high sec- you don't hear from the thousands of high sec dwellers that go about their normal, unabiding, routine on a daily basis. your entire post assumes that pubbies are mad at ganking because of the cost it imposes on them they're not they're furious that someone can affect their gameplay in any way. remember, these are the people who screamed bloody murder at getting a 'wanted' tag from a 100k bounty pubbies hate ganking because it is a reminder that they are at the bottom of the pyramid, that our lashes go down and only their plaintive cries go up
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:13:50 - [1090] - Quote it's not the only thing that goes up but i'll refrain from specific examples

Bertucio Chandra Labs 9	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:14:35 - [1091] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Bertucio wrote: One of the more reasonable arguments I have read. I still think though that the RISK vs REWARD equation is not equal when a bunch of cheap dessies can take down a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec. The gankers need to put out more if they want to gank in hi-sec IMO. you've always been able to gank in destroyers, it is merely so difficult almost nobody can organize the needed people highsec pubbies, who screech at the idea that cooperation should be rewarded, somehow never factor in that effort cost I don't believe organizing an alliance group to gank in dessies are equivalent to the amount of loss to an Industrialist losing a multi-billion hull along with whatever she had in that hull (which can be billions too). This will especially be true regarding rigged ships. Yes - it does take effort to organize a large gank group. But is equivalent - nope.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:14:37 - [1092] - Quote okay maybe I won't refrain it's blood pressure, the blood pressure goes up goons are fat you see and furthermore
Deadly Hobbitses Furry Footed Felons 0	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:16:31 - [1093] - Quote Can we start a pool on how many pages ago the Devs stopped reading this thread as it devolved from being constructive suggestions into a petty forum war between the gankers and the bears? I still think that it should change from being another cookie cutter boring hauler to something more unique. It isn't as if any amount of HP buff that is in the realm of reason is going to keep more grief-oriented gankers from giving it a go either way.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:17:39 - [1094] - Quote Bertucio wrote: I don't believe organizing an alliance group to gank in dessies are equivalent to the amount of loss to an Industrialist losing a multi-billion hull along with whatever she had in that hull (which can be billions too). This will especially be true regarding rigged ships. Yes - it does take effort to organize a large gank group. But is equivalent - nope. you're correct, it's significantly more effort on the part of the ganker to such a degree that there is no contest fortunately the outraged squeals provide enough of a benefit to make it worth it it is also interesting that you are complaining that the effort for the gankers does not go up as the gankee becomes stupider and lazier as they pack more and more into their freighter as the gankee becomes lazier and lazier the reward for the scourging lash of the gankers goes up just as it should
Bertucio Chandra Labs 9	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:31:06 - [1095] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Bertucio wrote: I don't believe organizing an alliance group to gank in dessies are equivalent to the amount of loss to an Industrialist losing a multi-billion hull along with whatever she had in that hull (which can be billions too). This will especially be true regarding rigged ships. Yes - it does take effort to organize a large gank group. But is equivalent - nope. you're correct, it's significantly more effort on the part of the ganker to such a degree that there is no contest fortunately the outraged squeals provide enough of a benefit to make it worth it it is also interesting that you are complaining that the effort for the gankers does not go up as the gankee becomes stupider and lazier as they pack more and more into their freighter as the gankee becomes lazier and lazier the reward for the scourging lash of the gankers goes up just as it should I said I was going to tone it down - so I won't respond to the implication that I'm a squealer and lazy. Losing a few hundred million ISK destroyers to a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec is not equivalent. And the Industrialist who put time into Eve getting the billions of ISK to get the freighter, and rig it - and whatever that freighter contained - considerable amount of work and effort. It is not lazy as you imply. It's easier in Eve to put together and fly a cheap destroyer than it is to buy, fill up and use a freighter. Not everyone has billions of ISK to spend or spends the time shipping in a freighter. The two are not equivalent ISK wise or time wise. The gankers are getting a good deal in Uedama - they're making quite a killing right now off the backs of often solo freighter pilots (my guess). And to expect hi-sec freighters now to fly around in fleets or use scouts is to force people to play a game that a good number don't do right now - and probably don't want to have to do. You want it all your way - i.e. you want to gank for cheap in Uedama and are unwilling to consider that not all hi-sec Industrialists are squeelers as you put it - or are lazy. I know I"m not lazy. And just because you can organize a bunch of cheap dessies and prey upon a solo freighter in hi-sec doesn't make me lazy. In fact, IMO, you and the goon alliance do a disservice to the game by insisting that all of Eve should be one large nul-sec where a big alliance should get to write the rules however they want. It's done quite a bit of harm to the game this attitude IMO- there are other players who want to play the game differently - and ought to be able to play the game differently. And it isn't like that PvP and ganking will disappear if hi-sec is made more secure. There needs to be a space for new players and players who want to be free of griefers like the Goon alliance.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:33:41 - [1096] - Quote Bertucio wrote: There needs to be a space for new players and players who want to be free of griefers like the Goon alliance. i recommend a different game choose carefully however as goons maintain a presence in quite a few
Bertucio Chandra Labs 9	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:35:06 - [1097] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: There needs to be a space for new players and players who want to be free of griefers like the Goon alliance. i recommend a different game choose carefully however as goons maintain a presence in quite a few Yeah. Although I think CCP is starting to see the light with you guys. Limiting force projection at least is a start.
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:37:30 - [1098] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: but hey let ol auntie promfem schoolfeed y'all some actual facts: fact: it is possible to suicide gank nerds in highsec fact: ccp is the sole arbiter of whether or not this is allowed fact: it'd be pretty effin trivial to disallow weapons fire on another player in highsec fact: they haven't fact: and here is the big one no area of space in eve is 100% safe this has been Paroxysm of Facts by Promiscuous Female, facthaver Fact: Eve is not perfect. Fact. The balance in Eve is not perfect. Fact. Eve is programmed by imperfect beings. Fact. A lot of people disagree on a lot of those program mechanics work. See I too can state things that are true and factual and have no real bearing on anything. So let me add some more facts. Fact. I've never advocated for High sec to be 100% safe. Fact I've never advocated for ganking in high sec to be wiped off the face of the map. Fact. I merely pointed out that as it stands the current game mechanics don't make sense to me and are illogical. Fact. I pointed out that it is a poor argument that some people's play styles should dictate everyone else's play styles. That being said. What I've been advocating for this whole time is that high sec ganking still needs some adjustments and that players that want to play under the assumption that they should be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, that the solution was to give them a taste of their own medicine and grant them blinky red and yellow permanently.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:40:27 - [1099] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: That being said. What I've been advocating for this whole time is that high sec ganking still needs some adjustments and that players that want to play under the assumption that they should be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, that the solution was to give them a taste of their own medicine and grant them blinky red and yellow permanently. "players should be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, here is a list of parameters under which players must operate"
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:44:46 - [1100] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: and yet nothing in eve even remotely approaches the complexity of real life institutions but hey if we wanna do this, i've got a real humdinger there's nothing stopping me, being a first world country haver, from selecting an unlucky random off the street and snuffing their shit however if i do that the likelihood of me getting punished and potentially even murdered by the state is pretty darn high eve is similar because if i snuff someone's shit i get punished by the state in the form of explosions Except that there are several problems with your analogy and how you are applying it. Generally speaking it depends on how you define "high chance". As posted earlier by someone else there are actually a quite a high number of unsolved crimes, up to and including murder. I would say your chances of getting caught are entirely dependent on the methods you use and how careful you are to cover your tracks and maybe a bit of luck. Given the stats of the FBI I'd say your chances are actually only moderate that you'd get caught. The point I'm trying to make in this is that a once off crime can be pretty hard to track down. But given the continued repeat behavior your chances are going to go up as well as the severity of your punishment. This is not true in Eve. In eve you are allowed to commit crime into infinity with no real long term consequences or even consequences that scale given the amount of crime you commit. Point the out the illogicialness of this using the real world context is not foolish and actually quite pragmatic given the circumstances when trying to explain how human behavior would be dealt with in normal situation.

Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:44:48 - [1101] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Fact. The balance in Eve is not perfect. Fact. Eve is programmed by imperfect beings. If only there were a way that they could seek advice from players and actually utilize those ideas in the design of the game going forward, instead of just assembling a player representative group and throwing ideas at them saying "here is what we are doing". This is how you get awful design decisions like jump fatigue. Seriously. Let's introduce a completely obscure and terrible mechanic to nerf jumps instead of mechanics already in the game, like changing jump fuel usage to have exponential costs. Because always travelling in gates in every ship is great game design
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:46:23 - [1102] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: "players should not be able to dictate a vast majority of the parameters under which they operate, here is a list of parameters under which players must operate" The problem is A. that you are misquoting what I said. and B. I'm not advocating for more for the same. I'm advocating that the activities be more balanced to the degree under which they are committed.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:47:26 - [1103] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: and yet nothing in eve even remotely approaches the complexity of real life institutions but hey if we wanna do this, i've got a real humdinger there's nothing stopping me, being a first world country haver, from selecting an unlucky random off the street and snuffing their shit however if i do that the likelihood of me getting punished and potentially even murdered by the state is pretty darn high eve is similar because if i snuff someone's shit i get punished by the state in the form of explosions Except that there are several problems with your analogy and how you are applying it. Generally speaking it depends on how you define "high chance". As posted earlier by someone else there are actually a quite a high number of unsolved crimes, up to and including murder. I would say your chances of getting caught are entirely dependent on the methods you use and how careful you are to cover your tracks and maybe a bit of luck. Given the stats of the FBI I'd say your chances are actually only moderate that you'd get caught. The point I'm trying to make in this is that a once off crime can be pretty hard to track down. But given the continued repeat behavior your chances are going to go up as well as the severity of your punishment. This is not true in Eve. In eve you are allowed to commit crime into infinity with no real long term consequences or even consequences that scale given the amount of crime you commit. Point the out the illogicialness of this using the real world context is not foolish and actually quite pragmatic given the circumstances when trying to explain how human behavior would be dealt with in normal situation. congratulations, you triggered the whole point of the comparison comparing eve to real life things is inherently stupid and inadvisable
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:48:02 - [1104] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Losing a few hundred million ISK destroyers to a multi-billion freighter in hi-sec is not equivalent. And the Industrialist who put time into Eve getting the billions of ISK to get the freighter, and rig it - and whatever that freighter contained - considerable amount of work and effort. It is not lazy as you imply. It's easier in Eve to put together and fly a cheap destroyer than it is to buy, fill up and use a freighter. Not everyone has billions of ISK to spend or spends the time shipping in a freighter. go organize a destroyer freighter gank don't worry, I'll still be here in eight years when you may have finally succeeded the lazy freighter pilots afking through highsec, who have never once tried to organize anything, imagine that all people in eve work as little as they do - set destination, set autopilot. but carrying out a freighter destroyer gank takes actual skill, daring, intelligence, and time - and this time is infinitely more valuable because it is the time of actual skilled people those people use their immensely valuable time and skills to deprive our foolish lazy freighter pilot of his isk that he has earned with his far less valuable time. the highsec freighter pilot, because his time is worthless, incorrectly believes that the time and effort of the ganker is worthless. but it's not: if the ganker overmen just wanted isk they could make far more with their initiative, skills, and intelligence in that time. instead they have done a service to the eve community (and to the freighter pilot himself) by chastising the freighter pilot once again i ask you: if destroyer ganking is so easy and cheap why do people generally use taloses instead
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:51:35 - [1105] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: If only there were a way that they could seek advice from players and actually utilize those ideas in the design of the game going forward, instead of just assembling a player representative group and throwing ideas at them saying "here is what we are doing". This is how you get awful design decisions like jump fatigue. Seriously. Let's introduce a completely obscure and terrible mechanic to nerf jumps instead of mechanics already in the game, like changing jump fuel usage to have exponential costs. Because always travelling in gates in every ship is great game design Well I wont disagree with you that the new jump mechanic is needlessly complicated. But to be fair you are complaining wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Your very alliance were the ones that spear headed the null sec agenda recently to CCP and this is the mechanic that resulted in that feedback. You can't say on hand that you should be allowed to tell ccp their game sucks because they source feedback from players while at the same time giving them feedback on why their game sucks and expect them to take you seriously!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:53:35 - [1106] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: [quote=Promiscuous Female] I'm advocating that the activities be more balanced to the degree under which they are committed. except things are plenty balanced right now the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre ganking of low-to-no value targets is reserved for publicly announced ganking holidays which operate specifically at a loss, feeding off of alliance reimbursement funds, or to mess with folks that have specifically wronged us in the nullsec political landscape or are otherwise our enemies, whereupon the financial loss incurred takes a backseat to the strategic value of the kill also lawl at this destroyer business, the way y'all have it set up in your head makes it sound like it takes one catalyst to destroy a freighter, not the dozens upon dozens it actually takes also the fact that we don't use catalysts very much makes it laughable in a completely different, yet equally hilarious candor but hey far be it from me to ask that my claims be believed when actual proof exists here is miniluv's killboard: http://miniluv.apoff.com/ find me a recent spat of freighter/jf killings using catalysts or other destroyers
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:55:33 - [1107] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to. this is basically the summation of the incursion community's feedback in this thread
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:56:53 - [1108] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately?
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:57:24 - [1109] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Mr Omniblivion wrote: If only there were a way that they could seek advice from players and actually utilize those ideas in the design of the game going forward, instead of just assembling a player representative group and throwing ideas at them saying "here is what we are doing". This is how you get awful design decisions like jump fatigue. Seriously. Let's introduce a completely obscure and terrible mechanic to nerf jumps instead of mechanics already in the game, like changing jump fuel usage to have exponential costs. Because always travelling in gates in every ship is great game design Well I wont disagree with you that the new jump mechanic is needlessly complicated. But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Your very alliance were the ones that spear headed the null sec agenda recently to CCP and this is the mechanic that resulted in that feedback. You can't say on hand that you should be allowed to tell ccp their game sucks because they source feedback from players while at the same time giving them feedback on why their game sucks and expect them to take you seriously! No intelligent nullsec player is disputing that a change needed to be made. A change absolutely needed to be made, no doubt. The method in which CCP made this change without any input from the CSM or any players is pretty standard based on CCP's track record. There could have been a much better system implemented that is less complicated and has the same or better effect. Instead, we have an artificial timer in which a ship is effectively stuck in a system - or taking gates in a capital ship, lol - with no effect other than wasting time. Oh, and crashing ice markets because of all the reduction in fuel usage, but that was intended and CCP foresaw this coming, right? It's cool, they just need to put ice on 8 hour respawn timers to compensate
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:57:51 - [1110] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Your very alliance were the ones that spear headed the null sec agenda recently to CCP and this is the mechanic that resulted in that feedback. You can't say on one hand that you should be allowed to tell ccp their game sucks because they source feedback from players while at the same time giving them feedback on why their game sucks and expect them to take you seriously! actually ccp rushed through jump fatigue on short notice and gave the csm 0-12 hours (depending on the TZ of the particular csmhaver) to actually think about it before they drove the ol' clown car onto eveo for initial feedback if you were even remotely engaged in this community you'd know that but i guess that is asking too much

Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:57:52 - [1111] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to. this is basically the summation of the incursion community's feedback in this thread Which is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making since A. I'm not part of the community. and B. none of my arguments are related to their community.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.12 23:58:41 - [1112] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? jesus christ you are comparing eve ganks to sexual assault i thought i was a sociopath but holy shit
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:00:06 - [1113] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: But to be fair you are complaining about wanting to have your cake and eat it to. this is basically the summation of the incursion community's feedback in this thread Which is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making since A. I'm not part of the community. and B. none of my arguments are related to their community. never said you were it is merely a little summation on the thread as a whole
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:00:27 - [1114] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: actually ccp rushed through jump fatigue on short notice and gave the csm 0-12 hours (depending on the TZ of the particular csmhaver) to actually think about it before they drove the ol' clown car onto eveo for initial feedback if you were even remotely engaged in this community you'd know that but i guess that is asking too much Which only happened because of that document that a vast majority of the null sec alliances leaders signed and sent to CCP. Put another way, why would CCP react so quickly all of a sudden to a problem that's been in existence since cap ships were brought in game... oh right.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:02:10 - [1115] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Which only happened because of that document that a vast majority of the null sec alliances leaders signed and sent to CCP. Put another way, why would CCP react so quickly all of a sudden to a problem that's been in existence since cap ships were brought in game... oh right. this is not the case you'd know that if you were even remotely engaged with the community
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:02:14 - [1116] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: jesus christ you are comparing eve ganks to sexual assault i thought i was a sociopath but holy shit Nope. I was pointing out how poorly constructed your argument that its the victims fault that they got killed. I'm sorry that simple concepts are so hard for you to follow.
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:03:12 - [1117] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: actually ccp rushed through jump fatigue on short notice and gave the csm 0-12 hours (depending on the TZ of the particular csmhaver) to actually think about it before they drove the ol' clown car onto eveo for initial feedback if you were even remotely engaged in this community you'd know that but i guess that is asking too much Which only happened because of that document that a vast majority of the null sec alliances leaders signed and sent to CCP. Put another way, why would CCP react so quickly all of a sudden to a problem that's been in existence since cap ships were brought in game... oh right. CCP actually posted about the upcoming changes shortly after that signed article was actually published. If you think that CCP actually moved more quickly because of that signed article and it in any way affected their decision making, then you're in for a pretty awful surprise.
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:03:41 - [1118] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Which only happened because of that document that a vast majority of the null sec alliances leaders signed and sent to CCP. Put another way, why would CCP react so quickly all of a sudden to a problem that's been in existence since cap ships were brought in game... oh right. this is not the case you'd know that if you were even remotely engaged with the community Care to put your statement on the line and actually back it up with a researched timeline of events or are you going to continue being lazy?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:05:21 - [1119] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: jesus christ you are comparing eve ganks to sexual assault i thought i was a sociopath but holy shit Nope. I was pointing out how poorly constructed your argument that its the victims fault that they got killed. I'm sorry that simple concepts are so hard for you to follow. no you literally compared being ganked in a video game to sexual assault this is a thing you did
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:06:02 - [1120] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: If you think that CCP actually moved more quickly because of that signed article and it in any way affected their decision making, then you're in for a pretty awful surprise. I'll give you that its a possibility that it didn't. But given how things played out it is not an implausible conclusion to come to given the circumstances.

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:07:04 - [1121] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Which only happened because of that document that a vast majority of the null sec alliances leaders signed and sent to CCP. Put another way, why would CCP react so quickly all of a sudden to a problem that's been in existence since cap ships were brought in game... oh right. this is not the case you'd know that if you were even remotely engaged with the community Care to put your statement on the line and actually back it up with a researched timeline of events or are you going to continue being lazy? a scant week or less elapsed between the statement, one that ccp probably didn't even read, and the fatigue change being published to eve-o they've also been talking about force projection nerfs for months prior to the paper in question
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:07:30 - [1122] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: no you literally compared being ganked in a video game to sexual assault this is a thing you did No what I literally did was compare your argument of victim blaming to a real life situation that happens on a regular basis to show you how stupid it was. Its not my fault that you have poor reading comprehension.
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:08:16 - [1123] - Quote http://themittani.com/news/null-deal-statement-sovereign-00 Here is the article that was posted. Which part of that pertains to anything related to jump fatigue?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:09:19 - [1124] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: no you literally compared being ganked in a video game to sexual assault this is a thing you did No what I literally did was compare your argument of victim blaming to a real life situation that happens on a regular basis to show you how stupid it was. Its not my fault that you have poor reading comprehension. you used sexual assault in comparison to an action in a video game no amount of justification you can bleed from your word hole is going to change that
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:10:51 - [1125] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Care to put your statement on the line and actually back it up with a researched timeline of events or are you going to continue being lazy? a scant week or less elapsed between the statement, one that ccp probably didn't even read, and the fatigue change being published to eve-o they've also been talking about force projection nerfs for months prior to the paper in question[/quote] Well you are right about one thing, they have been talking about changes to force projection for some time (I still remember Fozie trying to double the cost of isotopes and how everyone on the forums pointed out that was a bad idea). That being said, what they hand't shown in those prior months was a real willingness to make big changes to their game that would make a lot of the customers unhappy and do so in a very short time frame.
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 194	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:13:11 - [1126] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: (I still remember Fozie trying to double the cost of isotopes and how everyone on the forums pointed out that was a bad idea). Do you have a link to this? I want to see this and how did I miss this thread :(
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:13:43 - [1127] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: you used sexual assault in comparison to an action in a video game no amount of justification you can bleed from your word hole is going to change that Except. That's not what I actually did. For your statement to be true. I would have had to have said ganking is just like a sexual assault. When what I actually said was blaming the victim for their fit or cargo and saying its their fault is similar to others blaming the victim of a sexual assault for the way they dress. No amount of repeating your nonsense will it make it anymore true.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:15:04 - [1128] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: [quote=Promiscuous Female] When what I actually said was blaming the victim for their fit or cargo and saying its their fault is similar to others blaming the victim of a sexual assault for the way they dress. keep on backpedaling
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:20:18 - [1129] - Quote Mr Omniblivion wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: (I still remember Fozie trying to double the cost of isotopes and how everyone on the forums pointed out that was a bad idea). Do you have a link to this? I want to see this and how did I miss this thread :( I had to dig DEEP to find this thread. But I finally found it. Just FYI I stay on top of all dev posts by checking the dev posts daily to see what they say. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=340420 Though I meant to type double the usage of isotopes when used to jump ships.
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:21:10 - [1130] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: [quote=Promiscuous Female] When what I actually said was blaming the victim for their fit or cargo and saying its their fault is similar to others blaming the victim of a sexual assault for the way they dress. keep on backpedaling Keep on using words without knowing their meaning.

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:21:27 - [1131] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? holy lawl being ganked is just like being sexually assaulted, a thing eve online poster valterra craven actually just argued was not expecting that
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:23:13 - [1132] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? holy lawl being ganked is just like being sexually assaulted, a thing eve online poster valterra craven actually just argued was not expecting that Shame thats not what I actually did...
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:24:18 - [1133] - Quote morally reprehensible monster a goon is calling you a morally reprehensible monster
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 998	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:25:55 - [1134] - Quote Yeah, not gonna lie GÇö-áthat is a sad display. There's gotta be a better way to win an internet argument than to try to drag sexual assault into it. That sort of thing should not even be in your playbook. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:26:17 - [1135] - Quote someone who loses their ship in eve online, a pvp internet spaceship game based around the losing of spaceships, is a victim, just like a sexual assault victim so many victims
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:28:20 - [1136] - Quote when i deployed by x's incorrectly and lost the game of tic-tac-toe i became a victim, and my opponent is to blame for victimizing me trying to argue i deserved to lose because of my poor strategy in losing a game is exactly like blaming sexual assault victims for their assault how dare you sir
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:28:27 - [1137] - Quote ladies and gentlemen, the tumblr generation
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:32:37 - [1138] - Quote Querns wrote: There's gotta be a better way to win an internet argument than to try to drag sexual assault into it. That sort of thing should not even be in your playbook. If there is a better to win that particular point, then please by all means share. I'd love to hear it. I won't hold my breath waiting for it though.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:35:06 - [1139] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: There's gotta be a better way to win an internet argument than to try to drag sexual assault into it. That sort of thing should not even be in your playbook. If there is a better to win that particular point, then please by all means share. I'd love to hear it. I won't hold my breath waiting for it though. perhaps if the only way you see to win an argument is to insinuate your opponents are rapists, you should consider it a sign your argument is a bad one and you should admit you were wrong or you could equate losing a ship in a video game to being sexually assaulted, that's good too, no downsides there
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:38:12 - [1140] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: perhaps if the only way you see to win an argument is to insinuate your opponents are rapists, you should consider it a sign your argument is a bad one and you should admit you were wrong Well if i had actually insinuated that my opponent was a rapist then I would consider my argument a bad one. But considering that's not even remotely close to what I did, means I don't.

EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:40:18 - [1141] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: perhaps if the only way you see to win an argument is to insinuate your opponents are rapists, you should consider it a sign your argument is a bad one and you should admit you were wrong Well if i had actually insinuated that my opponent was a rapist then I would consider my argument a bad one. But considering that's not even remotely close to what I did, means I don't. is this another situation where you have forgotten the thing you posted like we had a few pages ago what you posted is right here in black and white you're not going to be able to pretend you didn't
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:42:01 - [1142] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: is this another situation where you have forgotten the thing you posted like we had a few pages ago what you posted is right here in black and white you're not going to be able to pretend you didn't Nope, I actually re-read the statement several times within the last 5 minutes just to ensure that what I'm being accused of didn't actually happen and every way that I look at it, what you accused me of is not possible.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 00:54:19 - [1143] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: is this another situation where you have forgotten the thing you posted like we had a few pages ago what you posted is right here in black and white you're not going to be able to pretend you didn't Nope, I actually re-read the statement several times within the last 5 minutes just to ensure that what I'm being accused of didn't actually happen and every way that I look at it, what you accused me of is not possible. perhaps you should read it a few more times then and then once you get why your post was so offensive, then go read your post about "well i had to do it, it was the only way to win an argument over internet spaceships" you also have failed to wrestle with how offensive your comparison of the loser of an internet spaceship pvp encounter in a game based on having losers of internet spaceship pvp encounters to victims of sexual assault that has been pointed out repeatedly perhaps you should mull that over as well, while i contemplate how awful a person i am because i victim-blamed when i told my brother that he lost a game of chess because he kept walking his important pieces into my pawns i didn't have to kill his queen, it is truly wrong to tell him he is to blame for losing his queen. he is the victim here.
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 5621	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:01:56 - [1144] - Quote What the hell happened to this thread? The Paradox
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:13:31 - [1145] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: What the hell happened to this thread? Valterra Crave mistakenly revealed his power level basically goonswarm is Claire Mccaskill and he is Todd Akin
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:14:02 - [1146] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: perhaps you should read it a few more times then and then once you get why your post was so offensive, then go read your post about "well i had to do it, it was the only way to win an argument over internet spaceships" you also have failed to wrestle with how offensive your comparison of the loser of an internet spaceship pvp encounter in a game based on having losers of internet spaceship pvp encounters to victims of sexual assault that has been pointed out repeatedly perhaps you should mull that over as well, while i contemplate how awful a person i am because i victim-blamed when i told my brother that he lost a game of chess because he kept walking his important pieces into my pawns i didn't have to kill his queen, it is truly wrong to tell him he is to blame for losing his queen. he is the victim here. Done. Now, I completely understand why you are offended by my argument. I'm not saying saying the case I made wasn't extreme. But it was extreme on purpose. The argument that many gankers have made that its the victims fault that they got killed is as equally offensive an extreme to me. I know of no other example that is not as equally extreme that would convey how vile the argument that the victim is at fault for anything is. As to your other point, I haven't failed to wrestle with anything, because I wasn't comparing the loser of a spaceship game to a sexual assault victim. For the record I in no way shape or form think they are even remotely the same thing. What I did do was point out the distinction that if that line of thought were carried out (which it often is with grave consequences in real life) that it also applies to other situations that are vile and reprehensible and in neither case are they valid lines of thought. I'd also like to point out that all of your examples to date are pretty disingenuous. For starters the participants of both tic tac toe and chess are playing under the guise that there will be a winner and a loser. On the other hand a person playing in hi sec is under the guise that his game time should be allowed to be spent playing the game in a solo manner if he so chooses. Its already been pointed out that fitting for tank in some situations is irrelevant. (I've got a kill mail proving this of a fully tanked mining barge on one of my characters that sill got ganked when TEST was all butt hurt they got kicked out of Null sec and decided to poop on other people who didn't care one way or another) Code is a perfect example of how you fit being completely irrelevant to the fact of whether they kill you or not. In either case the person getting ganked has zero choice in the matter with the one exception of not playing the game.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:14:57 - [1147] - Quote if it's a legitimate gank then the freighter has ways to shut that whole process down
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:17:06 - [1148] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Done. Now, I completely understand why you are offended by my argument. I'm not saying saying the case I made wasn't extreme. But it was extreme on purpose. The argument that many gankers have made that its the victims fault that they got killed is as equally offensive an extreme to me. I know of no other example that is not as equally extreme that would convey how vile the argument that the victim is at fault for anything is. this guy seriously believes this
Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:17:19 - [1149] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: he is Todd Akin What's wrong with Todd Akin?
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 268	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:20:47 - [1150] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: What the hell happened to this thread? Goons came...thread trolled. NT

Valterra Craven 356	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:21:20 - [1151] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: if it's a legitimate gank then the freighter has ways to shut that whole process down Oh? Please enlighten me as to the process that a freighter can be completely invulnerable to a gank?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:22:35 - [1152] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Done. Now, I completely understand why you are offended by my argument. I'm not saying saying the case I made wasn't extreme. But it was extreme on purpose. The argument that many gankers have made that its the victims fault that they got killed is as equally offensive an extreme to me. I know of no other example that is not as equally extreme that would convey how vile the argument that the victim is at fault for anything is. so after this thought and contemplation you have chosen after all this time to double-down on that the loser of a gank in eve online, a pvp game specifically designed to allow ganking as legitimate gameplay, is a victim and saying they are responsible for their loss is as offensive as saying as the victim of a sexual assault is responsible for their sexual assault really that's what you decided to do, after all this thought and furiously decrying that you were minimizing sexual assault or comparing gankers to sexual assaulters Valterra Craven wrote: I'd also like to point out that all of your examples to date are pretty disingenuous. For starters the participants of both tic tac toe and chess are playing under the guise that there will be a winner and a loser. On the other hand a person playing in hi sec is under the guise that his game time should be allowed to be spent playing the game in a solo manner if he so chooses. so the gankee becomes a victim because he had a completely wrong view of the rules of the game despite devs specifically saying that he is wrong i see tell me, when you lose in a game to a strategy that you did not anticipate but is well-known to better players do you consider yourself a civtim
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 494	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:23:36 - [1153] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: if it's a legitimate gank then the freighter has ways to shut that whole process down Oh? Please enlighten me as to the process that a freighter can be completely invulnerable to a gank? it is a reference to american politics re: your position vis a vis sexual assault and ganks
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:24:51 - [1154] - Quote i thought that my titan was invincible because it was expensive, then i piloted it around unfit and then pl killed it i am a victim and don't you dare tell me it's my fault for flying a titan around solo without a fit or supporting fleet because I DIDN'T KNOW they could do that
Zalmun GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:31:19 - [1155] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: if it's a legitimate gank then the freighter has ways to shut that whole process down
Gallowmere Rorschach Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 822	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:31:49 - [1156] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? You do realize that comparing Eve mechanics to real life tragedies, makes people think you are a total ******* moron, right?
Capt Starfox Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team 777	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:32:00 - [1157] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? IRL crime != Eve Online pixel starship space explosion crime. But, I fear you may not be smart enough to get it. Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aryndel Vyst GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 807	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:32:48 - [1158] - Quote If you didn't want to get ganked Weaselior, then you shouldn't have fit your titan so sexily. It was basically asking for it.
HarlyQ Amok. Goonswarm Federation 31	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:34:59 - [1159] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? So sexual assault you have to be penetrated last time I checked all these pixels can not be penetrated so your comparison works.
Zuzmaw Universalis Imperium The Bastion 21	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:36:01 - [1160] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? Oh, so we're saying sexual assault vs. losing a fictional ship in a fictional world on a voluntary basis, is an argument? "Show us on the freighter where the ganker touched you."

FOl2TY8 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 97	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:37:34 - [1161] - Quote Ganking a freighter is more like abortion because it's murder. *literal murder
Lykouleon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1467	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:38:03 - [1162] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? Yeah, lets make light of something that has permanent psychological effects upon a person (not to mention also the physical toll, social stigma, etc etc) by comparing a real-life tragedy to an act of pvp in a video game. In a video game. A video game. Video. Game. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:38:16 - [1163] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? Hiding behind **** victims because you're afraid of getting ganked in a video game. That's a whole new low.
atrum dux SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:39:44 - [1164] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? The only thing better than space communism is space feminism. I know no one will hear me screaming in space while I'm stare raped, but hey... I for one welcome our new matriarchs.
Mirkali Maricadie GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:40:58 - [1165] - Quote Ganking being compared to sexual assault? You read it here first folks... this is the beginning of... GANKERGATE
Kiryen O'Bannon Veritas Theory Fidelas Constans 168	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:41:11 - [1166] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? So, if someone leaves their laptop on their car seat and it gets stolen from their car, it's "victim blaming" to tell them not to leave valuables on their car seat in plain view? Or to lock their car door? No, it isn't. It isn't victim blaming to tell someone that; it does not in any way excuse the thief. Telling someone how to avoid having their freighter ganked does not in any way change the fact that the gankers are high-sec criminals (the role they have chosen in the sandbox; not as in "breaking the game rules"). And telling a ** victim they shouldn't go home drunk with a guy they just met is not blaming them if they do so and get raped - being a naive idiot does not make it ok to you. Pretty much no one actually thinks short skirts invite **. Anyone that thinks other people seriously think this has no business forming opinions unsupervised.
Powers Sa 1379	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:42:54 - [1167] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
FOl2TY8 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 97	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:45:06 - [1168] - Quote Actually it's about ethics in video game journalism
Tilde Keys RedHat Enterprises 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:48:08 - [1169] - Quote Valterra Craven - I just got done reading this entire thread starting with your comment. I to saw it as a comparison to someone who s sexually assaulted. Granted that's not how you meant it to be perceived, nor do you think it could be perceived that way. How ever it was. shrugs Sorry mate...
Dagoth Fett Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:48:37 - [1170] - Quote Forums poster Valterra Craven is actually defending their stance that video game PvP is in any way, shape, or form comparable to sexual assault on another living, breathing person. This is it. This is the new low. This is the new low of a forum that had a real-life neonazi openly posting white supremacist screeds. Good job, Valterra Craven. This is what you will be remembered for.

Zalmun GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:50:21 - [1171] - Quote EVE is real. At least if you fly a freighter.
Aryndel Vyst GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 807	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:50:44 - [1172] - Quote FOl2TY8 wrote: Actually it's about ethics in video game journalism
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 498	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:52:04 - [1173] - Quote but hey please continue with your point
Paranoid Loyd 2584	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:54:18 - [1174] - Quote Well this has gotten more entertaining, completely off topic but entertaining. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Sub Starasque Kite Co. Space Trucking Brave Collective 1	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:58:49 - [1175] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? The unbelievable stupidity of this comparison has managed to draw out my second post on these forums in as many years. If you feel like you can equate someone's loss of pixels and space money in a video game to sexual assault you are beyond hope. Disgusting and desperate for attention.
Miner Hottie Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 58	Posted - 2014.11.13 01:59:17 - [1176] - Quote Valterra Craven, just stop and think very carefully about the analogy you are trying to make: The best IRL comparison to freighter ganking is the Somali Pirates capturing freighters, yachts and the like who are traveling through the Gulf of Aden to ransom their cargo, crew and/or loot the goodies on those ships. Any other comparison, like ****/sexual assault is inaccurate and wrong. Also, victim blaming is dumb on so many levels I won't even go there. However, playing Eve, a game known to encourage non-consensual PVP means taking steps to manage your risk is sensible and prudent. You consent to those risks when you undock. No one makes you undock or even play this terrible game. Note, the worst that happens in Eve is your ships is blown up (like someone blowing up your car or favorite speed boat) and the parts and cargo stolen (like the Somali pirates do) and then you are podded (there are no real world comparatives to that which I can think of that do it justice) any and all real world analogies need to work within this framework. It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Schwa Nuts GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 82	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:03:50 - [1177] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: the ganker is not at fault for the poor choices of the target, who hath stuffed the coffers to the chock with filthy lucre You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? Go ahead. Call CONCORD. They can't un-gank you.
Bevici Roden The Maythorn 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:12:54 - [1178] - Quote I like the bowhead. I am unsure if the added ehp buff was needed.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 12	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:19:01 - [1179] - Quote She used an analogy. And I think it was a good one. The goons on this thread - in addition to turning the OP into a circus of self-righteous & irrational vituperative defense of hi-sec ganking (also well known in MMO gaming as griefing) - refuse to even accept the validity of the analogy made here: that we have a classic case of the abuser or griefer blaming the victim for their own abusive behavior. You know - the Goons seem to think it's some kind of achievement to put together what? 10 - 20 destroyers and take down a lone defenseless freighter in hi-sec. You know what I think it is? A bunch of under-achievers who seem to think taking down defenseless ships in hi-sec is high up in the skill category in Eve. Hell, if any of these guys were in an actual PvP fight - I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between their butts and black holes in space.
Thomas Hurt Future Ventures 339	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:19:15 - [1180] - Quote So the 'Bowhead' is going to give 'Tugjobs'? Jesus Christ, CCP...

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 498	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:20:52 - [1181] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Hell, if any of these guys were in an actual PvP fight - I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between their butts and black holes in space. confirming this is why we own half the conquerable nullsec in the game
Thomas Hurt Future Ventures 339	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:20:56 - [1182] - Quote I am also chuckling quite heartily at the Goon Knuckleheads & Trolls who fail time & again to defend Highsec ganking. It shouldn't surprise me that people who have regularly established themselves as Sociopaths & Antisocials would be ok with an activity that is the online equivalent of battery.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 12	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:26:00 - [1183] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: Hell, if any of these guys were in an actual PvP fight - I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between their butts and black holes in space. confirming this is why we own half the conquerable nullsec in the game When was the last time Goons won an Alliance tournament? Anyone know?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 501	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:26:24 - [1184] - Quote Thomas Hurt wrote: I am also chuckling quite heartily at the Goon Knuckleheads & Trolls who fail time & again to defend Highsec ganking. It shouldn't surprise me that people who have regularly established themselves as Sociopaths & Antisocials would be ok with an activity that is the online equivalent of battery. i dunno if you'd call it failure with the ol' one two i just gave the prime anti-ganking cheerleader in this thread but hey we are operating with the same folks who conflate highsec ganks with sexual assault so yeah feel free to recycle that argument with a slightly more palatable crime, i'm sure comparing video game actions with battery is going to work much better
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 501	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:27:24 - [1185] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: Hell, if any of these guys were in an actual PvP fight - I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between their butts and black holes in space. confirming this is why we own half the conquerable nullsec in the game When was the last time Goons won an Alliance tournament? Anyone know? when was the last time goons ran a team in the AT because it sure wasn't the last one lmbo
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 501	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:28:09 - [1186] - Quote personally I think highsec ganking is directly equivalent to jaywalking
Bertucio Chandra Labs 12	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:29:29 - [1187] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Thomas Hurt wrote: I am also chuckling quite heartily at the Goon Knuckleheads & Trolls who fail time & again to defend Highsec ganking. It shouldn't surprise me that people who have regularly established themselves as Sociopaths & Antisocials would be ok with an activity that is the online equivalent of battery. i dunno if you'd call it failure with the ol' one two i just gave the prime anti-ganking cheerleader in this thread but hey we are operating with the same folks who conflate highsec ganks with sexual assault so yeah feel free to recycle that argument with a slightly more palatable crime, i'm sure comparing video game actions with battery is going to work much better Sorry - you're the one who conflated her original statement out of all proportion. She used an analogy and she specifically said it wasn't the same exactly. But you continue to conflate. So why should any of us here take any of what you say with a grain of salt? In fact, since when should any of us like people who gank defenseless ships in hi-sec? Since when should gankers in hi-sec be considered to have some kind of mark of honor or courage? Instead of being a bunch of under-achieving Eve wusses?
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:30:45 - [1188] - Quote itt people who believe eve online is a solo game offer their opinions on who the best pvpers in eve online are, something they believe is not allowed in eve online
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:34:27 - [1189] - Quote we would trade all of our conquered regions and the towering pyramids of skulls we have left in our wake just for a kind word about our pvp prowress from bertucio
Bertucio Chandra Labs 12	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:35:28 - [1190] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: itt people who believe eve online is a solo game offer their opinions on who the best pvpers in eve online are, something they believe is not allowed in eve online Uh - there are quite a few solo players in Eve. And even more players who like to switch between solo play and group play. But we got the Goons who want everyone to have a fleet of ships every time they fly their freighter in hi-sec. Because - it's the victims fault that they fly freighters in hi-sec. Goon logic.

Bertucio Chandra Labs 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:38:58 - [1191] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: we would trade all of our conquered regions and the towering pyramids of skulls we have left in our wake just for a kind word about our pvp prowress from bertucio I'm still trying to remember when the Goons last won an alliance tournament - nothing comes to mind ...
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 502	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:40:59 - [1192] - Quote Bertucio wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: itt people who believe eve online is a solo game offer their opinions on who the best pvpers in eve online are, something they believe is not allowed in eve online Uh - there are quite a few solo players in Eve. And even more players who like to switch between solo play and group play. But we got the Goons who want everyone to have a fleet of ships every time they fly their freighter in hi-sec. Because - it's the victims fault that they fly freighters in hi-sec. Goon logic. it damn well is the freighter's fault for hauling an ill-advised amount in their cargohold freighter pilots have to make the same decisions everyone else in the game makes when deciding what level of wealth to parade around in eve being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 339	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:43:43 - [1193] - Quote the mongol hordes did not have ONE person win a jousting tournament, buncha scrubs
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 502	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:43:44 - [1194] - Quote Bertucio wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: we would trade all of our conquered regions and the towering pyramids of skulls we have left in our wake just for a kind word about our pvp prowress from bertucio I'm still trying to remember when the Goons last won an alliance tournament - nothing comes to mind ... i mean obviously it's never, quit being that douche that dances around an issue while begging someone else to disprove a fact you obviously know is false, it is unbecoming hell we didn't even enter a team in the last one, the one before that we lost horribly, and the one before THAT our CEO sent the application fee to the wrong damn alliance but it is adorable that our obvious, coruscating pvp prowess, proven by the our names on the map and the countless dead alliances in our wake, is meaningless by your narrow, myopic view of how things are from your highsec hugbox
Valterra Craven 357	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:44:19 - [1195] - Quote Miner Hottie wrote: Valterra Craven, just stop and think very carefully about the analogy you are trying to make: The best IRL comparison to freighter ganking is the Somali Pirates capturing freighters, yachts and the like who are traveling through the Gulf of Aden to ransom their cargo, crew and/or loot the goodies on those ships. Any other comparison, like **/sexual assault is inaccurate and wrong. I have thought very carefully about this. I think very carefully about a lot of things. The problem with your analogy is that it fails on many levels. Somali Pirates operate in open uncontrolled waters were there are few deterrents and very limited if not non existent police and or military response teams. (Though the US navy has respond to a few of their attempts) The best place your analogy would work in Eve would be Low Sec. This discussion is not about low or null sec piracy. The best analogy of a freighter gank to the real world would be to compare an 18 wheeler or armored truck being attacked in broad daylight in the middle of Dallas. A place that has a police force that is very heavily armed and also patrols quite readily. You will note that I also said in posts after my original comment that A. I don't believe that sexual assault in any way shape or form relates to ganking and B. that is not the comparison I made. Miner Hottie wrote: Also, victim blaming is dumb on so many levels I won't even go there. We agree. Despite whatever example people come up with, referring back to the laptop in the car as one of them, it is not the victims fault that they are a victim. Because in the end, while it is possible to mitigate risk, risk is never eliminated. Under those circumstances if a person is intent on stealing something, then no amount of mitigation is going to prevent that from happening. A victim can not chose, nor dictate the actions of others, and therefore can not be held responsible for them. Miner Hottie wrote:** However, playing Eve, a game known to encourage non-consensual PVP means taking steps to manage your risk is sensible and prudent. You consent to those risks when you undock. No one makes you undock or even play this terrible game. Note, the worst that happens in Eve is your ships is blown up (like someone blowing up your car or favorite speed boat) and the parts and cargo stolen (like the Somali pirates do) and then you are podded (there are no real world comparatives to that which I can think of that do it justice) any and all real world analogies need to work within this framework. I 100% agree with you. Which is why all of my analogies work in exactly the way you described.
captain foivos State War Academy Caldari State 259	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:45:05 - [1196] - Quote when given the choice between fitting tank and fitting more cargo into the hold, capsuleers choose cargo and because they choose wrong, every time, now CCP is taking that choice away
Bertucio Chandra Labs 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:48:05 - [1197] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: itt people who believe eve online is a solo game offer their opinions on who the best pvpers in eve online are, something they believe is not allowed in eve online Uh - there are quite a few solo players in Eve. And even more players who like to switch between solo play and group play. But we got the Goons who want everyone to have a fleet of ships every time they fly their freighter in hi-sec. Because - it's the victims fault that they fly freighters in hi-sec. Goon logic. it damn well is the freighter's fault for hauling an ill-advised amount in their cargohold freighter pilots have to make the same decisions everyone else in the game makes when deciding what level of wealth to parade around in eve being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game Yeah - you really had to work hard to blow that freighter up. You had to have all those destroyers and you all had to shoot at once, and one of you even had to bump that freighter. Yeah - that was really challenging and hard for you to do. Especially in hi-sec. Risk versus Reward! Definitely you're putting out for your reward!! Hey man - if Goons haven't won the Alliance Tournament - you really deserve too! Maybe they'll allow freighters in the tournament!
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 339	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:49:29 - [1198] - Quote i went all-in on a poker hand when i had an eight high how dare you say me losing was my fault, I AM A VICTIM you didn't have to call when you had four aces this is victim-blaming
Valterra Craven 357	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:49:40 - [1199] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game Funny, because I agree with you. I 100% think ganking should be allowed. I 100% think you are well within your right to commit ganks for whatever reason you or anyone else for that matter chooses to do so. The problem comes into play when you want to argue that your actions should not have equal and opposite consequences, or that somehow the gamer on the other end of the internet is responsible for the choices you make.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 502	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:51:04 - [1200] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: it damn well is the freighter's fault for hauling an ill-advised amount in their cargohold freighter pilots have to make the same decisions everyone else in the game makes when deciding what level of wealth to parade around in eve being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game Yeah - you really had to work hard to blow that freighter up. You had to have all those destroyers and you all had to shoot at once, and one of you even had to bump that freighter. Yeah - that was really challenging and hard for you to do. Especially in hi-sec. Risk versus Reward! Definitely you're putting out for your reward!! i find your pernicious refusal to accept that we don't use destroyers to gank freighters to be adorable look up the kills, every goddamn one of them in the last month or two has been with taloses but hey keep on keepin on inside your hugbox there

Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 02:57:36 - [1201] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game Funny, because I agree with you. I 100% think ganking should be allowed. I 100% think you are well within your right to commit ganks for whatever reason you or anyone else for that matter chooses to do so. The problem comes into play when you want to argue that your actions should not have equal and opposite consequences, or that somehow the gamer on the other end of the internet is somehow responsible for the choices you make. Actually - I think hi-sec should be gank proof, unless someone war-decs you. The ganking going on in Uedama right now is just another kind of griefing IMO. But that's just my opinion, and I know you and others don't agree with me. I really have found it misguided that there seems to be this ironclad motto in Eve that gankers should have free reign anywhere in the game. I think it narrows the game quite a bit. Really - to open up the game to all kinds of players you should allow for different areas (as in most MMOs) where different play styles and game playing can be encouraged. This is a space simulation - so you got an unlimited canvas to create an almost unlimited amount of different mechanics, environments, ships, deployments etc. To make the game only fun so a certain alliance can grief players who just are out missioning or doing incursioning etc in hi-sec - an area designated in Eve as suppose to be pretty safe - I think does a disservice to what I suspect is a pretty large base of players who enjoy Eve without having to deal with the gankers or even PvP. What's limiting here is the mindset and insistence that all areas of Eve must absolutely be played like you're in nul-sec. It's a counter-productive view of Eve and limiting. I hope the future development of Eve takes this narrow view into account- and broadens its player base by allowing all sorts of gameplay in the sandbox - providing different areas for gameplay - and not making Eve into one huge force projection for one alliance that wants to dictate everything in the game and thereby ruining the gameplay for many.
Zalmun GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:03:54 - [1202] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? You seriously compared ganking PVP in a video game to sexual assault. Seriously. That's like comparing someone hitting someone with a dodgeball while they weren't looking to sexual assault. Get help.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:06:44 - [1203] - Quote Zalmun wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? You seriously compared ganking PVP in a video game to sexual assault. Seriously. That's like comparing someone hitting someone with a dodgeball while they weren't looking to sexual assault. Get help. Seriously - do you not know what an analogy is?
Valterra Craven 357	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:07:48 - [1204] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Actually - I think hi-sec should be gank proof, unless someone war-decs you. The ganking going on in Uedama right now is just another kind of griefing IMO. But that's just my opinion, and I know you and others don't agree with me. I really have found it misguided that there seems to be this ironclad motto in Eve that gankers should have free reign anywhere in the game. I think it narrows the game quite a bit. Really - to open up the game to all kinds of players you should allow for different areas (as in most MMOs) where different play styles and game playing can be encouraged. This is a space simulation - so you got an unlimited canvas to create an almost unlimited amount of different mechanics, environments, ships, deployments etc. To make the game only fun so a certain alliance can grief players who just are out missioning or doing incursioning etc in hi-sec - an area designated in Eve as suppose to be pretty safe - I think does a disservice to what I suspect is a pretty large base of players who enjoy Eve without having to deal with the gankers or even PvP. What's limiting here is the mindset and insistence that all areas of Eve must absolutely be played like you're in nul-sec. It's a counter-productive view of Eve and limiting. I hope the future development of Eve takes this narrow view into account- and broadens its player base by allowing all sorts of gameplay in the sandbox - providing different areas for gameplay - and not making Eve into one huge force projection for one alliance that wants to dictate everything in the game and thereby ruining the gameplay for many. I fully support your right to have and voice that opinion, which is the difference between me and the majority of goons. Having an opposing opinion is not tantamount to blasphemy unlike what the antics of most of them would lead you to believe. Personally I find that there is risk everywhere in Eve thrilling. But to be honest, what's funny is that given the current way players play the game is that if you are in stable alliance that is properly setup that 0.0 is far less risky than empire. I've lost far more to ganks in empire than I've even come close to losing in null sec. Which is odd given the motto with greater risk comes great rewards. Now I'm not saying that all areas of Eve should be played the same. What I am saying is that activities should be properly balanced against each other. And given all of the disadvantages the defender is under compared to the attacker as the ganker, I feel that this balance needs another pass. The problem is that most of the people on the other side would rather result to spewing drivel and nonsense rather than showing/proving why they believe that this mechanic is perfectly fine the way it is.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 503	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:08:32 - [1205] - Quote Bertucio wrote: To make the game only fun so a certain alliance can grief players who just are out missioning or doing incursioning etc in hi-sec - an area designated in Eve as suppose to be pretty safe - I think does a disservice to what I suspect is a pretty large base of players who enjoy Eve without having to deal with the gankers or even PvP. since when was ganking only allowed by one alliance you can go out with a thrasher or tornado and go introduce someone's autism chariot to the scrap heap right now it doesn't take organizational identity to do it, just a desire to reach out and touch your fellow man also if you want to avoid pvp, i recommend a different game because eve just isn't the game you want this isn't my alliance tag talking or me talking, this is how the game is designed why bother putting in a complicated police system when you could simply disallow firing upon another player in highsec
Valterra Craven 357	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:09:49 - [1206] - Quote Zalmun wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: You are correct, the ganker is not responsible for that. What they are responsible for is pulling the trigger. Or are you telling me that victim blaming suddenly became a valid argument and that you believe such things like women are responsible for sexual assault because they didn't dress appropriately? You seriously compared ganking PVP in a video game to sexual assault. Seriously. That's like comparing someone hitting someone with a dodgeball while they weren't looking to sexual assault. Get help. No. I did not. The fact that you believe so doesn't make it true. What I did was point out how stupid it is to blame the actions of others on the person receiving those actions. It really is that simple.
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 51	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:10:56 - [1207] - Quote I was told jump drives & bridges were the source of space ebola I now realize the last several pages of this thread are indeed ground zero
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 503	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:11:16 - [1208] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: But to be honest, what's funny is that given the current way players play the game is that if you are in stable alliance that is properly setup that 0.0 is far less risky than empire. I've lost far more to ganks in empire than I've even come close to losing in null sec. Which is odd given the motto with greater risk comes great rewards. oh boy here comes this ol' playbook entry am i the only person getting deja vu here let's make a checklist shall we [x] nullsec safer than highsec [ ] intel channels [ ] jump bridges [ ] moon goo [ ] titan bridging [ ] supercapitals
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 81	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:12:54 - [1209] - Quote Would all of you debating ganking please go do so in a thread about ganking? The people who are here to discuss the Bowhead would like their thread back. If you agree with me, report this post citing the entire thread being derailed for several pages.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 503	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:13:03 - [1210] - Quote the real joke is that I am wasting my time with a person who literally compared being ganked to sexual assault in any capacity whatsoever but far be it for me to imply that my time has any actual value

Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:22:24 - [1211] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Bertucio wrote: Actually - I think hi-sec should be gank proof, unless someone war-decs you. The ganking going on in Uedama right now is just another kind of griefing IMO. But that's just my opinion, and I know you and others don't agree with me. I really have found it misguided that there seems to be this ironclad motto in Eve that gankers should have free reign anywhere in the game. I think it narrows the game quite a bit. Really - to open up the game to all kinds of players you should allow for different areas (as in most MMOs) where different play styles and game playing can be encouraged. This is a space simulation - so you got an unlimited canvas to create an almost unlimited amount of different mechanics, environments, ships, deployments etc. To make the game only fun so a certain alliance can grief players who just are out missioning or doing incursioning etc in hi-sec - an area designated in Eve as suppose to be pretty safe - I think does a disservice to what I suspect is a pretty large base of players who enjoy Eve without having to deal with the gankers or even PvP. What's limiting here is the mindset and insistence that all areas of Eve must absolutely be played like you're in nul-sec. It's a counter-productive view of Eve and limiting. I hope the future development of Eve takes this narrow view into account- and broadens its player base by allowing all sorts of gameplay in the sandbox - providing different areas for gameplay - and not making Eve into one huge force projection for one alliance that wants to dictate everything in the game and thereby ruining the gameplay for many. I fully support your right to have and voice that opinion, which is the difference between me and the majority of goons. Having an opposing opinion is not tantamount to blasphemy unlike what the antics of most of them would lead you to believe. Personally I find that there is risk everywhere in Eve thrilling. But to be honest, what's funny is that given the current way players play the game is that if you are in stable alliance that is properly setup that 0.0 is far less risky than empire. I've lost far more to ganks in empire than I've even come close to losing in null sec. Which is odd given the motto with greater risk comes great rewards. Now I'm not saying that all areas of Eve should be played the same. What I am saying is that activities should be properly balanced against each other. And given all of the disadvantages the defender is under compared to the attacker as the ganker, I feel that this balance needs another pass. The problem is that most of the people on the other side would rather result to spewing drivel and nonsense rather than showing/proving why they believe that this mechanic is perfectly fine the way it is. Well said! It is a bit of a paradox that you might be safer in nul-sec these days then hi-sec. But a very good point you make. Yes - I really do get the feeling that there is this almost fervent irrational defense taking place by mostly Goon players - without any willingness to admit that there might be valid points being made regarding the current level of defenselessness of hi-sec haulers to hi-sec gankers. The posters (and discussion) reminds me quite a bit of the same screaming that took place when it was announced the "force projection" was going to be reduced. In fact, the screaming reached epic proportions of repeated - "I'm going to cancel all 12 of my veteran accounts" etc. Although this isn't so bad - you do get the feeling that these large alliance players have more time on their hands than is productive, and are most willing to express their absolute view points on forums without any recognition or rationality in opposing view points. But then again - it is just a forum for a game, and part of what makes MMOs interesting is the forum debates and freedom to express a view. But often, it is just a few players and not the entire player base that is represented. Often a few power players would be my guess. And also what would be my guess - is that there are a lot of Eve players out there that play both solo and in groups, and that this insistent argument being made here that Eve players should not be playing solo - or that they can't be doing both - is just a kind of willful ignorance to other styles of gameplay. But getting back to the OP by Rise: look I think the main reason for the new tug ship is to allow hi-sec missioners and Incursion players to have a method of moving more ships at once in hi-sec, without spending a few hours moving one ship at a time from one location to another. A mobile platform in hi-sec. And if Rise and other Devs don't look at the current ganking mechanics taking place - especially the ganking that's been going on by the Goons in Uedama this last month or two - in which they have succesfully been taking down freighters with cheap dessies - if Rise doesn't look into this and analyze the Risk vs Reward here - and also the targeted role of the tug - which WILL be a major target of gankers obviously - then the release of the ship and its role may be nothing more than a new Gank Pinata ship that no one with half a brain is going to want to put their ships in. Hell - why not have a ship that is ridiculously impervious to ganks in hi-sec? There really isn't one in Eve right? Then you got a ship that makes everyone happy except the gankers. Sad for the gankers - but good for the rest of the players - which probably outnumber the gankers by quite a bit. ps: I think your posts are reasonable and well thought out. Don't let the Goon trolling get to you.
Tilde Keys RedHat Enterprises 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:22:28 - [1212] - Quote I'm still laughing at the person who thinks all the Goons do is gank in destroyers all around highsec
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:27:10 - [1213] - Quote Tilde Keys wrote: I'm still laughing at the person who thinks all the Goons do is gank in destroyers all around highsec Yeah - that's so funny! I can't sit down I'm laughing so hard!
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 51	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:28:02 - [1214] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: the real joke is that I am wasting my time with a person who literally compared being ganked to sexual assault in any capacity whatsoever but far be it for me to imply that my time has any actual value don't feel bad m8 we all are eve players here o7.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 504	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:28:12 - [1215] - Quote literally arguing for an invincible eve ship
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:29:55 - [1216] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: literally arguing for an invincible eve ship Invincible in hi-sec. Yep. heh
Tilde Keys RedHat Enterprises 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:30:37 - [1217] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Tilde Keys wrote: I'm still laughing at the person who thinks all the Goons do is gank in destroyers all around highsec Yeah - that's so funny! Seriously, if you haven't laughed and half the posts in this thread, there is something wrong with you. While misguided and trolltastic at times, it has to be one of the more amusing reads in a while...
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 504	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:31:39 - [1218] - Quote itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique
Zuzmaw Universalis Imperium The Bastion 24	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:32:31 - [1219] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: being in highsec doesn't grant you special purchase from this ironclad fact of life in Eve: Online, a spaceship game Funny, because I agree with you. I 100% think ganking should be allowed. I 100% think you are well within your right to commit ganks for whatever reason you or anyone else for that matter chooses to do so. The problem comes into play when you want to argue that your actions should not have equal and opposite consequences, or that somehow the gamer on the other end of the internet is responsible for the choices you make. So now you're telling us that ** should be allowed '100%' and that it is '100% well within' our rights to ** somebody?
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:33:20 - [1220] - Quote Tilde Keys wrote: Bertucio wrote: Tilde Keys wrote: I'm still laughing at the person who thinks all the Goons do is gank in destroyers all around highsec Yeah - that's so funny! Seriously, if you haven't laughed and half the posts in this thread, there is something wrong with you. While misguided and trolltastic at times, it has to be one of the more amusing reads in a while... Seriously. Seriously!

Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:35:39 - [1221] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique What makes eve online beautiful and unique is different for different people and different types of gameplay. Stop trying to make the rest of us play only the game you want to play.
Tilde Keys RedHat Enterprises 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:38:16 - [1222] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Tilde Keys wrote: Bertucio wrote: Tilde Keys wrote: I'm still laughing at the person who thinks all the Goons do is gank in destroyers all around highsec Yeah - that's so funny! Seriously, if you haven't laughed and half the posts in this thread, there is something wrong with you. While misguided and trolltastic at times, it has to be one of the more amusing reads in a while... Seriously. Seriously! Why so serious?
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:40:18 - [1223] - Quote Tilde Keys wrote: Bertucio wrote: Tilde Keys wrote: Bertucio wrote: Tilde Keys wrote: I'm still laughing at the person who thinks all the Goons do is gank in destroyers all around highsec Yeah - that's so funny! Seriously, if you haven't laughed and half the posts in this thread, there is something wrong with you. While misguided and trolltastic at times, it has to be one of the more amusing reads in a while... Seriously. Seriously! Why so serious? Because something is seriously wrong with me. Seriously.
Valterra Craven 358	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:45:04 - [1224] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique Yes I do find it quite interesting just how far you will go to not actually make a real argument and how many words you misapply to situations that don't exist.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 504	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:46:25 - [1225] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique What makes eve online beautiful and unique is different for different people and different types of gameplay. Stop trying to make the rest of us play only the game you want to play. that you think that we are somehow transforming eve into anything is your primary error eve has always been this way, long before a single goon stepped foot onto its soil pretending it's never been this way sets you up for some serious issues down the road
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:51:34 - [1226] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique What makes eve online beautiful and unique is different for different people and different types of gameplay. Stop trying to make the rest of us play only the game you want to play. that you think that we are somehow transforming eve into anything is your primary error eve has always been this way, long before a single goon stepped foot onto its soil pretending it's never been this way sets you up for some serious issues down the road You're arguing that since something has been in Eve for a long time it should stay? Sorry - not only is that weak sauce, it also ignores the fact that destroyer dynamics have changed in Eve AND that there has never been a tugboat (which really is a ferry not a tugboat) in Eve. Why not think different? Heck, why not evolve Eve instead of insisting it remain the same?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 82	Posted - 2014.11.13 03:55:26 - [1227] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Bertucio wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique What makes eve online beautiful and unique is different for different people and different types of gameplay. Stop trying to make the rest of us play only the game you want to play. that you think that we are somehow transforming eve into anything is your primary error eve has always been this way, long before a single goon stepped foot onto its soil pretending it's never been this way sets you up for some serious issues down the road You're arguing that since something has been in Eve for a long time it should stay? Sorry - not only is that weak sauce, it also ignores the fact that destroyer dynamics have changed in Eve AND that there has never been a tugboat (which really is a ferry not a tugboat) in Eve. Why not think different? Heck, why not evolve Eve instead of insisting it remain the same? Just yesterday, CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie did an interview for CrossingZebras in which they explicitly state as a development team they are abandoning the logic of keeping things the same just because they've always been that way. They are now evaluating mechanics on their own merit in regards to how the add to the EVE Experience as a whole. Just because something has always been, is no longer a valid argument.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 504	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:10:13 - [1228] - Quote none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 196	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:20:07 - [1229] - Quote Bertucio wrote: She used an analogy. And I think it was a good one. The goons on this thread - in addition to turning the OP into a circus of self-righteous & irrational vituperative defense of hi-sec ganking (also well known in MMO gaming as griefing) - refuse to even accept the validity of the analogy made here: that we have a classic case of the abuser or griefer blaming the victim for their own abusive behavior. You know - the Goons seem to think it's some kind of achievement to put together what? 10 - 20 destroyers and take down a lone defenseless freighter in hi-sec. You know what I think it is? A bunch of under-achievers who seem to think taking down defenseless ships in hi-sec is high up in the skill category in Eve. Hell, if any of these guys were in an actual PvP fight - I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference between their butts and black holes in space. Yes. We are victim blaming. This is a video game. A video game that's built around the premise that these things do happen. It's part of the game. You accept it when you play it. You accept that you're responsible for your own safety. This is not at all analogous to sexual assault in real life. You can't choose whether to "play it" or not. You don't accept the possibility of being raped as a condition of going about your daily life. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:21:17 - [1230] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Not how I see Eve - other than that has been able to make it notorious for a long time (but not because of the ganking, but because of the inside job with spies). You know what sets Eve apart from the rest? It currently is the only high quality space MMO available that doesn't session it's players - and provides a realism that no other space MMO does right now. That may change (and almost did) if CCP let's the ball slip and doesn't stay focused on evolving the game and keeping up with the latest and greatest in MMOs. I've been pretty impressed with the last year of development - CCP has really stepped up to the plate regarding their development approach and changes they've begun to make to the game. There is a lot of promise - especially what CCP Seagull was hinting at the last fanfest and at Vegas. I mean - you got an entire Universe just waiting to be explored. The kinds of ships - planets - systems can be endless if CCP dreams big. I think the game has only scratched the surface. The kind of player owned starbases has languished for years - what if they really start mixing that up - making it so players can really build different kinds of starbases and structures in space? What if you can start creating your own areas of space with your own player built gates? What if planetary production is expanded - interaction with planets becomes more pronounced. What if new tier technologies are introduced? What if a new kind of space is introduced besides W-space? What if What if What ifs are endless. Let's not just limit Eve to Ganker's R-Us in space. It's space - and it's full of stars.

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 270	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:24:05 - [1231] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet? The only people getting messed with are the folks getting suicide ganked in highsec by the same Goons OVER AND OVER AND OVER. That's not sandbox - that's just stupid.
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:27:50 - [1232] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet? The only people getting messed with are the folks getting suicide ganked in highsec by the same Goons OVER AND OVER AND OVER. That's not sandbox - that's just stupid. IDK Ithere are daily fleets to save dumb goons doing dumb things in dumb supercaps that need saving because they are dumb. the content is out there if you look for it.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:32:41 - [1233] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet? have you tried shooting them we lost a titan this month oddly enough also [x] supercaps
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:32:44 - [1234] - Quote GOB the Magician wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet? The only people getting messed with are the folks getting suicide ganked in highsec by the same Goons OVER AND OVER AND OVER. That's not sandbox - that's just stupid. IDK Ithere are daily fleets to save dumb goons doing dumb things in dumb supercaps that need saving because they are dumb. the content is out there if you look for it. Wrong...there is literally no way to materially harm the goon supercap fleet. No one is "suicide ganking" Goon titans in Uedama. They are impervious to harm. Fundamentally, the Goons have made nullsec mindnumbingly boring...to the point where the only content they have left is suicide ganking helpless folks in highsec. Now they are screeching because this new hauler will be tougher to gank. Go back to nullsec and create some actual content there...stop spending all your time trying to bother folks in highsec.
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:39:52 - [1235] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet? The only people getting messed with are the folks getting suicide ganked in highsec by the same Goons OVER AND OVER AND OVER. That's not sandbox - that's just stupid. IDK Ithere are daily fleets to save dumb goons doing dumb things in dumb supercaps that need saving because they are dumb. the content is out there if you look for it. Wrong...there is literally no way to materially harm the goon supercap fleet. No one is "suicide ganking" Goon titans in Uedama. They are impervious to harm. Fundamentally, the Goons have made nullsec mindnumbingly boring...to the point where the only content they have left is suicide ganking helpless folks in highsec. Now they are screeching because this new hauler will be tougher to gank. Go back to nullsec and create some actual content there...stop spending all your time trying to bother folks in highsec. well, you're delusional. good luck with your vision of eve. lucky CCP sees otherwise, at least for now.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:42:19 - [1236] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: none of that really changes the fact that eve's raison d'+¬tre is that there is no perfect safety, that anyone that has a mind to it can mess with you Except that isn't really true is it? How can I mess with the Goons supercap fleet? The only people getting messed with are the folks getting suicide ganked in highsec by the same Goons OVER AND OVER AND OVER. That's not sandbox - that's just stupid. IDK Ithere are daily fleets to save dumb goons doing dumb things in dumb supercaps that need saving because they are dumb. the content is out there if you look for it. Wrong...there is literally no way to materially harm the goon supercap fleet. No one is "suicide ganking" Goon titans in Uedama. They are impervious to harm. Fundamentally, the Goons have made nullsec mindnumbingly boring...to the point where the only content they have left is suicide ganking helpless folks in highsec. Now they are screeching because this new hauler will be tougher to gank. Go back to nullsec and create some actual content there...stop spending all your time trying to bother folks in highsec. here's that ingratiating position of surrender again that i love so much the idea that our assets are completely untouchable by default and no thought is spared towards any avenue of causing us harm validates basically everything we do that and the adorable views on how things work outside the highsec hugbox
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:48:05 - [1237] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: here's that ingratiating position of surrender again that i love so much the idea that our assets are completely untouchable by default and no thought is spared towards any avenue of causing us harm validates basically everything we do that and the adorable views on how things work outside the highsec hugbox Could care less about your nullsec boredom. Amused by your whining about how hard it will be to kill this new highsec hauler. Maybe if you hadn't created a giant blue donut in null you might have better things to do than gank haulers in highsec for tears. Time to stop recruitment scamming noobs, and start trying to actually accomplish something in null....but let's be serious, you guys are far too unmotivated to do that anymore. Disband time, maybe?
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:53:29 - [1238] - Quote There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:55:29 - [1239] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: here's that ingratiating position of surrender again that i love so much the idea that our assets are completely untouchable by default and no thought is spared towards any avenue of causing us harm validates basically everything we do that and the adorable views on how things work outside the highsec hugbox Could care less about your nullsec boredom. Amused by your whining about how hard it will be to kill this new highsec hauler. Maybe if you hadn't created a giant blue donut in null you might have better things to do than gank haulers in highsec for tears. Time to stop recruitment scamming noobs, and start trying to actually accomplish something in null....but let's be serious, you guys are far too unmotivated to do that anymore. Disband time, maybe? ah yes a stream of invectives completely unrelated to my post
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:57:32 - [1240] - Quote GOB the Magician wrote: There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc. And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides?

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 04:58:54 - [1241] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc. And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides? please tell us more about how we operate
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:04:16 - [1242] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc. And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides? please tell us more about how we operate Call it - 30% - spent running Goonwaffe recruitment scams 30% - AFK ratting / AFK mining 10% - suicide ganking in highsec 29% - cursing each other out on coms 1% - actually doing (lame) PvP in null. Miss anything?
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:05:22 - [1243] - Quote to be fair though you did make me miss adding some items to my checklist [x] blue donut [x] crying
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:05:27 - [1244] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc. And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides? I'm not one to break breaking news, but space dudes ganking other space dudes isn't anything new. goons or otherwise. People on all sides are expressing concern that CCP is introducing a potentially un-gankable ship and you're taking it to an extreme. I'm not sure why you bring up PL but both Laz & Elise were on an eve stream together last night in the same fleet pvping outnumbered like champs . If your faith is in PL, S2N, NC. & that rental empire that has 3/4 of space you should probably find a new god. At least gons live in & defend their space.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:07:54 - [1245] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc. And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides? please tell us more about how we operate Call it - 30% - spent running Goonwaffe recruitment scams 30% - AFK ratting / AFK mining 10% - suicide ganking in highsec 29% - cursing each other out on coms 1% - actually doing (lame) PvP in null. Miss anything? a clue as to what you talk about
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:10:12 - [1246] - Quote GOB the Magician wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: GOB the Magician wrote: There's a lot of dudes telling us we're bored while we fly around in space doing things. Who's actually bored? I'm pretty sure it isn't the evil gons or the cfc. And yet despite your vast nullsec holdings (much reduced recently, but still) a whole bunch of you spend your time here crying and whining that a new hauler will actually have a decent tank and stand a chance of surviving a gank attempt. Seems like a staggering level of boredom for a big nullsec powerblock. Don't see any PL folks here crying. Maybe it's time to switch sides? I'm not one to break breaking news, but space dudes ganking other space dudes isn't anything new. goons or otherwise. People on all sides are expressing concern that CCP is introducing a potentially un-gankable ship and you're taking it to an extreme. I'm not sure why you bring up PL but both Laz & Elise were on an eve stream together last night in the same fleet pvping outnumbered like champs . If your faith is in PL, S2N, NC. & that rental empire you should probably find a new god. A - it's not ungankable...either bring more numbers or use a better doctrine B - and if it was ungankable...so what? My incursion travel fit battleship + cloak + mwd is effectively ungankable...so what? No one promised you that you can gank ships. I can't kill Goon titans...the game goes on. Find other things to do. C - PL is not here crying about the new ship....they PLAY THE GAME instead of crying about it...go try that. That gives them a big edge over Goons in my book....they also don't spend their time suicide ganking haulers in camped 0.5 systems....which is pretty lame to begin with. And the main "concerns" expressed all seem to be from CODE and Goons....and its more crying than concerns.
GOB the Magician Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:13:10 - [1247] - Quote Congrats on exposing yourself as an obvious PL alt. no one else could be this delusional, surely.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:15:40 - [1248] - Quote GOB the Magician wrote: No one else could be this delusional, surely. Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:15:58 - [1249] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: crying says the guy who is complaining about highsec ganking really the word "crying" is hella played out, it practically means "posting" at this point
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:18:59 - [1250] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: crying says the guy who is complaining about highsec ganking really the word "crying" is hella played out, it practically means "posting" at this point Agreed that "crying" is an overused word here....but not sure how else to describe the biggest nullsec powerbloc in the game coming onto to the eve forums to vent that it will be harder for them to kill haulers in highsec. I mean, come on, get help. You seriously have no more productive activity than ganking freighters in highsec? How pathetic and boring can nullsec be already?

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:25:11 - [1251] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: crying says the guy who is complaining about highsec ganking really the word "crying" is hella played out, it practically means "posting" at this point Agreed that "crying" is an overused word here....but not sure how else to describe the biggest nullsec powerbloc in the game coming onto to the eve forums to vent that it will be harder for them to kill haulers in highsec. I mean, come on, get help. You seriously have no more productive activity than ganking freighters in highsec? How pathetic and boring can nullsec be already? confirming that it takes the full 11931 members of my alliance to gank highsec freighters trying to pull the "boring and pathetic" angle is pretty fruitless given that we are both posting on eve-o
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 1	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:28:06 - [1252] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: itt: slowly peeling the layers of cognitive dissonance and the occasional tumblr-borne worldview away to expose the harsh reality that makes eve: online beautiful and unique as a member of cognitive dissonance i enjoy making people drool but that is another point and not one to be made here. i think the bowhead is looking good just think since it is a freighter the structure should be about 85-90000 so it falls about in the middle of the other 4 freighters. give it about the average of S/A/H of the other 4 freighters and i think people will stop complaining as much about gank-ability.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 272	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:32:21 - [1253] - Quote Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Promiscuous Female wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: crying says the guy who is complaining about highsec ganking really the word "crying" is hella played out, it practically means "posting" at this point Agreed that "crying" is an overused word here....but not sure how else to describe the biggest nullsec powerbloc in the game coming onto to the eve forums to vent that it will be harder for them to kill haulers in highsec. I mean, come on, get help. You seriously have no more productive activity than ganking freighters in highsec? How pathetic and boring can nullsec be already? confirming that it takes the full 11931 members of my alliance to gank highsec freighters trying to pull the "boring and pathetic" angle is pretty fruitless given that we are both posting on eve-o I'm not part of a major nullsec power block. I've never suicide ganked anyone. And I'm perfectly happy with the new ship design, though I would of course love more tank and enough agility to make it untrappable by bumping.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 1	Posted - 2014.11.13 05:46:28 - [1254] - Quote so if we are basing this ship on freighters then i would assume even with the rig and mid slots structure 85-90000 hp armor 30-35000 hp shields 30-35000 hp i see this as decent or even at the bottom of the freighters structure 65000 hp armor 15000 hp shields 14000 hp would be understandable
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3475	Posted - 2014.11.13 06:04:15 - [1255] - Quote Closed for a bit of fall cleaning. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 07:27:14 - [1256] - Quote I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:12:41 - [1257] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing. Welcome to every single topic on anything to do with high sec. All of the useful feedback on this new ship has been given, now that the high sec grr ganking crowd has found the thead nothing useful will come from this thread anymore. 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.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1670	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:13:08 - [1258] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Closed for a bit of fall cleaning. My thermometer would like to have a word with you...
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:17:07 - [1259] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing. Welcome to every single topic on anything to do with high sec. All of the useful feedback on this new ship has been given, now that the high sec grr ganking crowd has found the thead nothing useful will come from this thread anymore. 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. Doesnt matter what either of us do. I would love to have just one new ship thread in which I could actually have a real debate on how we can use the ship and explore all of its possibilities without people diving in and demanding daft things like being able to transport tens of billions in perfect safety. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1869	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:17:20 - [1260] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing. 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 Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9

Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:19:59 - [1261] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Fruckton Haulalot wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta. There are different ships in an HQ incursion fleet. Depending on whom you fly with there will be snipers, dps, logi, and the drone bunny. Yes some of them will be pirate hulls (nightmare, mach, vindi) but you can also see the occasional hyperion, rokh, TFI. etc. Unless you are talking multiboxers you are very apt to see a mix of ships and styles and if you wan the best chance of being called up you will have an assortment handy so you can step into any role. So you bring a couple of BS's and maybe a cruiser or two. This is why I asked for this ship and why I am trying to follow this thread (aside from the debate societies additions) So . . . the basic stats. Is it big enough? Does it fullfill the stated role? Is the tank sufficient? I am NOT asking if it shoudl have jumpdrive, doomsday, hammer4 fittings. Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'. m the three areas of point here... is it big enouhg... being able to carrier 2 or 3 battleships is so very much big enough because at present you can not carry that many full fit without jumping through alot of hoops and double wrapping... Does it fill the role... yes it can but only if the last part is tank sufficient... currently no... the tank sufficient to protect the 10 billion to 15 billion worth of cargo ... is wrather pathetic. A well fit tanked orca carrying far less priced cargo can tank with skills, mods, rigs a little over 450,000 ehp and still be very usefull in its roles.... The Bowhead being bigger and designed to carry more expensive cargo should in enturn be tanker then the orca.... Shoot even the worst of the normal frieghters are tanker than the BOWhead at this point. We are hitting 600k ehp in this thing. It is also not designed to have a tank for a 10 billion isk cargo and never will be, you fit that at your own risk. as stated by devs and the CSM as well as most of the folks who have been working on this thing from the start... it was idea driven for incursioners... and highsec players.... the constant push for gankers/pvpers to be able to kill it in high sec is just gankers/pirates and griefers wanting to make sure they can still get the tears and or pinyatas they enjoy doing now.. This ship again as stated by the devs and the CSMs and many others was and is being brought to light to help highsec and incursioners get around and enjoy their aspect to the game... You want more PVP... or meat to grind in your low/null grief areas fine push for it in some other thread.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:28:01 - [1262] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing. 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 for ganking you never try to alpha something this big. Talos use DPS to take down targets before concord can respond just like cats. As far as tank goes you can hit 600k ehp without boosts. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:32:42 - [1263] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I read what was there, you missed very little. I'm woefully aware, I've been studiously trudging through it all to stay current. Mike Azariah wrote: 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. I agree it needs more tank to support it's likely and best suited usasge case. I also feel very strongly that while providing a solution for the very real demand for a way to haul 2 faction BS's + 2 Logi's with a relative sense of safety given the greed inducing nature of the cargo there DOES need to be opportunity to overstuff. Regretfully, given the scale of value on the incursion runners cargo vs the shear amount of ships you can stuff in it of a smaller scale and the impact on force projection does present a very difficult balance situation. I think what they did for the DST's was a creative solution as opposed to simply slapping on more HP. They addressed the potential for conflict with mechanics that could make that anticipated conflict interesting. CCP, PLEASE! make this ship an interesting chess piece on the game board. GIve it a MJD, or a way to short term hunker down and endure a gank. Give it someting like the marauders, or a rorqual, or give it an overheat bonus, or give it a small fuel bay and a shield simiilar to a P.O.S.. SOMETHING that's more interesting than achieve X amount of DPS and the bowhead loses. By simply defining a max HP for the ship you make it very easy to spreadsheet the outcome. By providing more MEANINGFUL variables to the situation you increase the quality of the conflict by making the outcome less predictable. As I recall, with the jump fatigue changes, CCP is (or was) on board with developing content they can't fully predict the outcome of because if CCP can fully predict it, so can everyone else. I would love to see that logic come to this ship as well. Mike Azariah wrote: 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 All good questions M!
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 8	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:36:23 - [1264] - Quote 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.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:45:17 - [1265] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: 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... I can get behind this logic. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: an ammo bay would be nice... or increase the cargo up to 10k I agree it would be nice, but it feels incredibly unnecessary given you can store ammo inside of ships inside the SMA. If you need more space for ammo, put a small industrial in your hold with ammo in it and VOILA! Fruckton Haulalot wrote: high slots... three high slots that could run command modules 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... People that can fly this should already be able to fly an orca which is better suited for this purpose anyways. While it would be fun to have on it, I don't feel it serves a purpose for the goals of this ship nor do i feel the goals for this ship would benefit from a shift in this direction. Fruckton Haulalot wrote: should it be in any way offensive combat capable... 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. It would be fun to have it more like a neutered high sec carier than a niche freighter, I don't have high hopes that CCP would be that awesome to us :p
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:45:53 - [1266] - Quote I have to say i also agree with the fella saying give this ship something new or niche.... to bring something new to the chess board..... somthing that would both give it a little more protection and also make it more than a math equation for gankers to figre out how to kill it before concord shows up... that idea there that it could use POS fuel or somthing to boost its sheild extremely high for as long as it has fuel to burn.. or somthing....
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:49:48 - [1267] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: 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. No high slots, you add them then we will fit a cloak and use them as mobile depots for fleet actions. Tank is perfectly fine, it is ment to cover transporting three t2 fitted t1 battleships not multi billion fitted pirate battleships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:51:15 - [1268] - Quote 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.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1868	Posted - 2014.11.13 08:52:32 - [1269] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: baltec1 wrote: Fruckton Haulalot wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta. There are different ships in an HQ incursion fleet. Depending on whom you fly with there will be snipers, dps, logi, and the drone bunny. Yes some of them will be pirate hulls (nightmare, mach, vindi) but you can also see the occasional hyperion, rokh, TFI. etc. Unless you are talking multiboxers you are very apt to see a mix of ships and styles and if you wan the best chance of being called up you will have an assortment handy so you can step into any role. So you bring a couple of BS's and maybe a cruiser or two. This is why I asked for this ship and why I am trying to follow this thread (aside from the debate societies additions) So . . . the basic stats. Is it big enough? Does it fullfill the stated role? Is the tank sufficient? I am NOT asking if it shoudl have jumpdrive, doomsday, hammer4 fittings. Just is it balanced enough that it is not 'safe against all' nor 'a paper bag with a screen door'. m the three areas of point here... is it big enouhg... being able to carrier 2 or 3 battleships is so very much big enough because at present you can not carry that many full fit without jumping through alot of hoops and double wrapping... Does it fill the role... yes it can but only if the last part is tank sufficient... currently no... the tank sufficient to protect the 10 billion to 15 billion worth of cargo ... is wrather pathetic. A well fit tanked orca carrying far less priced cargo can tank with skills, mods, rigs a little over 450,000 ehp and still be very usefull in its roles.... The Bowhead being bigger and designed to carry more expensive cargo should in enturn be tanker then the orca.... Shoot even the worst of the normal frieghters are tanker than the BOWhead at this point. We are hitting 600k ehp in this thing. It is also not designed to have a tank for a 10 billion isk cargo and never will be, you fit that at your own risk. as stated by devs and the CSM as well as most of the folks who have been working on this thing from the start... it was idea driven for incursioners... and highsec players.... the constant push for gankers/pvpers to be able to kill it in high sec is just gankers/pirates and griefers wanting to make sure they can still get the tears and or pinyatas they enjoy doing now.. This ship again as stated by the devs and the CSMs and many others was and is being brought to light to help highsec and incursioners get around and enjoy their aspect to the game... You want more PVP... or meat to grind in your low/null grief areas fine push for it in some other thread. And incursioners do not need to move 10 bil isk on it. If they have brains. No 3 BS hulls with rigs will cost ahtt uch. You move your damm super expensive modules in INTERCEPTOR or Blockade runner (that are both very fast and take 6-7 min to go fro mone staging to the next one) "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Masao Kurata Z List 137	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:07:45 - [1270] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: 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. Okay, I didn't include boosts because I know that people would dismiss something that required not being solo (such as webbing it) but I'll do the quite painful maths (ha, eft, if only... well you could use a rifter or something then multiply by the factors of raw hull, armor, shield hp... y'know I'll do that this time, why not? It should help if you doubt my actual maths) again with fleet boosts, with the same fit I posted earlier (a bit under 300M in rigs, about 130M in a couple of deadspace hardeners, two 5% implants): One command ship with bonused shield link and unbonused armor (all V with siege or navy mind link), no heat: 607k Same but with heat: 700k A second command ship for the bonus to armor links adds 5k. This is absolutely insane and beyond all reason to gank. I am not sure there has ever been a suicide gank of a ship with 700k EHP in highsec. If you seriously think the base HP needs anything but nerfs from the current position, you have no concept of the reality of suicide ganking, speaking of which... Quote: 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? I'm glad you can admit that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Each talos gets 7 volleys in a fully prepared 0.5 system, 5 volleys in an unprepared 0.5 system, 5 in a prepared 0.6 system or 4 in an unprepared 0.6 system.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13871	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:11:31 - [1271] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: 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. It simply doesn't need more tank. 3x t2 fitted battleships works out as roughly a billion isk. To gank a well fitted bowhead with talos would cost a good deal more than 1 bil. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 160	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:15:20 - [1272] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: 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 it were alpha, I would be stockpiling our people with Tornadoes.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1871	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:20:23 - [1273] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: I'm glad you can admit that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Each talos gets 7 volleys in a fully prepared 0.5 system, 5 volleys in an unprepared 0.5 system, 5 in a prepared 0.6 system or 4 in an unprepared 0.6 system. I try to learn and to do that I have to be willing to admit where I do and do not know things. Only time I was in a gank fleet it was to NOT shoot in hopes their calculations would be off enough that they would all die without target destruction. 700k+ eh? wow m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 161	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:25:37 - [1274] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Only time I was in a gank fleet it was to NOT shoot in hopes their calculations would be off enough that they would all die without target destruction. And here I thought I might actually like you.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 09:49:03 - [1275] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: And here I thought I might actually like you. You do realize you're saying that to the guy bringing you a shiney new loot pinata for christmas right?
Dave Stark 7151	Posted - 2014.11.13 10:03:30 - [1276] - Quote CCP, please don't change a thing about this ship. I've placed a large sum of isk as a wager that you're not going to change a thing about this ship before it goes live.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 196	Posted - 2014.11.13 10:05:38 - [1277] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And here I thought I might actually like you. You do realize you're saying that to the guy bringing you a shiney new loot pinata for christmas right? So Mike works for CCP now? Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 10:10:37 - [1278] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And here I thought I might actually like you. You do realize you're saying that to the guy bringing you a shiney new loot pinata for christmas right? So Mike works for CCP now? Sure he does. He helps facilitate communication between the playerbase and the devs and consults on concepts being developed.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 394	Posted - 2014.11.13 10:18:26 - [1279] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: I'm grateful to have the troll stench gone from the thread, but going from 63 pages down to 45 means 29% of the entire contents of this thread after only a few days was entirely useless. That's more than just a little depressing. Welcome to every single topic on anything to do with high sec. All of the useful feedback on this new ship has been given, now that the high sec entitalment crowd has found the thead nothing useful will come from this thread anymore. Honestly supprised it wasn't more removed, or even locked for a time. If I may be blunt, most and I mean most not some, of this thread has been utter dookie. That said, it's actually kind of entertaining watching people bicker over this thing, only for everyone and their mother making every attempt to one-up the other with "Shut-up, I know better than you" lines. CCP, this ship is fine as is. Rest assured that if you release the Bowhead without further adjustment, you will have at least one happy customer. Some people will fly it, some won't, some of them will die in a ball of terrible fire...in space of all places...we all will still be here. You guys couldn't screw this up if you tried, at least with me (I'm just happy that this ship is finally getting released), unless you remove this from Rhea's soon-to-be patch notes.
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1261	Posted - 2014.11.13 10:38:00 - [1280] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: That's about right. And CCP has repeatedly increased the risk of failure/loss Eve is hard deal with it, just like the rest of us have to deal with the constant whining from both gankers and victims. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

Julie Oppenheimer State Protectorate Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 11:54:01 - [1281] - Quote Just throwing this out there: allow it to fit the Target Spectrum Breaker (and maybe remove a little tank).
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 11:58:12 - [1282] - Quote Julie Oppenheimer wrote: Just throwing this out there: allow it to fit the Target Spectrum Breaker (and maybe remove a little tank). The problem with that as a strategy is that the ship is designed for high sec. In high sec, You're either stuck not using it due to your safety being on, or you instantly destroy your sec status AND get concorded after firing it off on a crowded gate.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:00:08 - [1283] - Quote Manic Velocity wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the cargo of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships? Just one I suspect - like any other of the smaller capital ships..... We do now have our packaged capital ship through high sec hauler.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:01:22 - [1284] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Manic Velocity wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the cargo of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships? Just one I suspect - like any other of the smaller capital ships..... We do now have our packaged capital ship through high sec hauler. You can't put packaged ships in an SMA.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:19:56 - [1285] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Marcus Tedric wrote: Manic Velocity wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION: Will we be able to repackage multiple Bowheads and place them in the cargo of another Bowhead, in effect making this Bowhead a... ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships? Just one I suspect - like any other of the smaller capital ships..... We do now have our packaged capital ship through high sec hauler. You can't put packaged ships in an SMA. Hmmm - you can at a POS (it's been a while mind you) - that's how you then assemble them. I thought that was the difference between an SMB (Orca, Carrier, etc) and an SMA? Happy to be corrected - it has been a while since I have.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:23:57 - [1286] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Hmmm - you can at a POS (it's been a while mind you) - that's how you then assemble them. I thought that was the difference between an SMB (Orca, Carrier, etc) and an SMA? Happy to be corrected - it has been a while since I have. 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13872	Posted - 2014.11.13 12:32:32 - [1287] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Marcus Tedric wrote: Hmmm - you can at a POS (it's been a while mind you) - that's how you then assemble them. I thought that was the difference between an SMB (Orca, Carrier, etc) and an SMA? Happy to be corrected - it has been a while since I have. 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? I would assume you can at the very least eject a ship from the hold. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5493	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:07:29 - [1288] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Warr Akini wrote: And here I thought I might actually like you. You do realize you're saying that to the guy bringing you a shiney new loot pinata for christmas right? So Mike works for CCP now? Sure he does. He helps facilitate communication between the playerbase and the devs and consults on concepts being developed. If he still thinks this thing needs more EHP, he won't be getting my vote for the next term. His views aren't in line with mine on when it comes to ship balance. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Stefan Veldspar Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:09:07 - [1289] - Quote Breaking News Leaked image of Bowhead: http://i.imgur.com/qjDG8Xp.jpg
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1989	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:14:51 - [1290] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: the constant push for gankers/pvpers to be able to kill it in high sec is just gankers/pirates and griefers wanting to make sure they can still get the tears and or pinyatas they enjoy doing now... ...You want more PVP... or meat to grind in your low/null grief areas fine push for it in some other thread. And those of us who like to compete within hi-sec. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"

War Kitten Panda McLegion 5493	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:17:26 - [1291] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Every single ship in EVE works better when used in a group. Also a bit disingenuous. A freighter can't physically hold more cargo when its used with a group. A velator can't do more dps when its in a group. A raven can't hold more torpedoes when its in a group. Better is relative. A freighter can align faster and be safer in a group. A velator CAN do more dps in a group due to fleet bonuses. A raven also performs better in a group due to fleet bonuses. Better can fit more than your narrowly defined criteria. You're the one being disingenuous with those silly arguments. sorry no fleet bonus for dps. also doesnt increase ammo holding ability. Brainfart there - sorry. I was thinking EHP. Which in the long run extends DPS a bit, but doesn't increase it. A Raven could hold more torpedos with cargo expanders, but then a good group would hopefully discourage that kind of silly idea. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:28:31 - [1292] - Quote Maybe what really needs to happen here is a rebalance of reinforced bulkheads. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Reinforced_Bulkhead for reference. Tech II 25% is a big jump from the 15-19% of meta 1-4, considering these aren't stacking penalized. That could be cut back a bit. Maybe the penalty should also be reduced warp speed too. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Masao Kurata Z List 137	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:35:51 - [1293] - Quote If percentage hull HP increase became a penalised stat that would certainly fix a lot of the imbalances introduced by transverse bulkheads.
Xindi Kraid Priano Trans-Stellar State Services Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 810	Posted - 2014.11.13 13:45:25 - [1294] - Quote You people talk about suicide ganking like ever freighter gets blown up the first time it undocks.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 14:15:49 - [1295] - Quote Xindi Kraid wrote: You people talk about suicide ganking like ever freighter gets blown up the first time it undocks. I know, right? I've flown a freighter into lowsec and all over hisec. I've flown a JF in several areas of null. I've never lost either, despite jumping through Uedama and Niarja with both on several occasions. I plan to own a bowhead too - especially if it gets stupid-high EHP. It's not hard folks, nor is it common that ganks happen to pilots that are flying smartly.* * - except during Burn Jita - then all bets are off :) I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Valterra Craven 358	Posted - 2014.11.13 14:37:35 - [1296] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Maybe what really needs to happen here is a rebalance of reinforced bulkheads. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Reinforced_Bulkhead for reference. Tech II 25% is a big jump from the 15-19% of meta 1-4, considering these aren't stacking penalized. That could be cut back a bit. Maybe the penalty should also be reduced warp speed too. IMO bulkheads are already over penalized. Think of it this way, what if you actually had to make trade offs when you fit tank on your PVP ship (aka the mods had a dps reduction added). This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 14:51:55 - [1297] - Quote Sort of sad that CCP has gone from HTFU to censoring a thread that was mildly (IMO) acerbic. Times have changed. But what hasn't changed is gankers blaming their victims- and Goons managing to put up such a stink about how cheap dessies blowing up multi-billion+ freighters in Uedama is RISK vs REWARD equivalent - when we all know it isn't. The Bowhead will likely just be released with not much of a fix at all. Oh well - so much for trying to make Eve a better game for all - not just Goons. Too bad I don't have easy access to CCP devs.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 14:54:40 - [1298] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: 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. Why do you think it could stand a bit more tank? Not that I wouldn't love it to have more HP myself, but do you have specific reasons and data to back this opinion up? My primary problem with this line of argument is that (god help me) I actually agree with fozzie and rise, balancing a ships EHP against this scenario is not the way to do it. I know there was a lot of up roar in the command ship thread when none of the other command ships got a damnation like bonus to raw HP. They didn't cave to anyone there, so why should this ship be any different? If ganking is the reason that you want more HP, then there are better ways to address the profitability of ganking than just throwing raw HP around. Mike Azariah wrote: 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. Again, why is this relevant? This is not a combat ship, and transport ships are not really designed around fleet/gang warfare, nor should they be. Mike Azariah wrote: 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. The ship in no way shape or form needs a drone bay, its not like freighters get a drone bay. This is one of those bad ideas that needs to die in a fire. Mike Azariah wrote: 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? I think gankers themselves are being a bit disingenuous with their answer to this question. I think a good bit of the reason they use taloses over dessies in this case is that it takes far few people to gank a freighter with taloses than it does with dessies. That's just my two cents. Now what could this ship use? A sensical skill tree. The devs really need to look at how the cap indy ships skills are geared vs other cap ships. The prereqs are in all the wrong places. More warp speed. Why should this ship be slower than every other cap indy ship? (Especially one that does have fighting capability like the roq) It needs to have a very small ammo bay. Especially if this ship is geared toward incursion runners. (3-5k range) It needs just enough to be able to resupply the ships it just dropped off but not enough that they can run without resupply for months. Think about how remote most incursions are and how expensive ammo can get that remotely vs how many long jumps it would take to get ammo. Now keep in mind when I move ships I pack their hold full of all the mods they would need to refit to and everything else being ammo. Even 500m3s of ammo isn't all that much in an incursion and that's assuming you can even hold that much. Now for the interesting bit of fix: It needs to not be scanable. On the flip side to this it needs to always drop the ships. This would make it a true "pinata". You break it but you never know what you are going to get. Could be empty, could have a bunch of frigates etc. My reasoning for this is that assembled ships are a completely different ball game than packed ones. Think about it. I would assume that packed ships have been in some state disassembled (think a raven with the wings taken off so it fits in a nice box). Assembled ships on the other hand are fully combat ready. Meaning that even if a ship around them was destroyed they'd still have hull and armor to protect them from that explosion. I think this would be a far better way to address the ganking than anything thus far provided here.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 161	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:01:40 - [1299] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: 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? I think gankers themselves are being a bit disingenuous with their answer to this question. I think a good bit of the reason they use taloses over dessies in this case is that it takes far few people to gank a freighter with taloses than it does with dessies. Thats just my two cents. I'll have to ask you to retract that claim of disingenuity (not a word)? I see three responses to Mike, mine being one of them, and although the answer you were looking for (Talos = more DPS = less need for manpower) was not directly stated to him, it is both obvious and I'm fairly certain I mentioned the painstaking nature of gathering craploads of manpower in Catalysts to gank something big earlier in this thread. Don't go throwing mud, please. Your idea of 100% drop rate is for sure interesting, though.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:02:43 - [1300] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: .................... It needs to have a very small ammo bay. Especially if this ship is geared toward incursion runners. ............ It has a cargo bay of about that size. I t can also carry haulers just chock full of ammo. Valterra Craven wrote: .......................... On the flip side to this it needs to always drop the ships. This would make it a true "pinata". ................... If it is indeed a Ship Maint Array - then it should drop just like POS SMAs do. TBC by CCP. The thing about carriage of ships that seems to be missing (by at least p23....) is that Freighters can already carry fitted and rigged Frigates and Cruisers (even a couple of battleships) - lots of them! Me, I'd go for the new skills affecting SMA size by 20% per level - and the SMA starting at 1.0m m3.

War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:03:29 - [1301] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: Maybe what really needs to happen here is a rebalance of reinforced bulkheads. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Reinforced_Bulkhead for reference. Tech II 25% is a big jump from the 15-19% of meta 1-4, considering these aren't stacking penalized. That could be cut back a bit. Maybe the penalty should also be reduced warp speed too. IMO bulkheads are already over penalized. Think of it this way, what if you actually had to make trade offs when you fit tank on your PVP ship (aka the mods had a dps reduction added). This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold. Fair point - they do hit freighters pretty hard there, but not other ships that can benefit from the boost in structure - like the Bowhead or combat ships. Maybe that penalty should be to warp speed instead of cargo capacity. Personally I have yet to fit a freighter of any kind for tank... if you're having to tank damage, you've done it wrong already with a non-combat ship. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:07:57 - [1302] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: It has a cargo bay of about that size. I t can also carry haulers just chock full of ammo. Fair enough, my mistake for not looking at the stats closely enough. Though I don't think people moving ships around are going to have enough room to fit a hauler full of ammo, I do think a 4k cargo bay is perfect. Marcus Tedric wrote: The thing about carriage of ships that seems to be missing (by at least p23....) is that Freighters can already carry fitted and rigged Frigates and Cruisers (even a couple of battleships) - lots of them! I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried recently but I remember trying some time this year and getting a weird error about ships not being able to go in cargo that are assembled..
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:11:20 - [1303] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Xindi Kraid wrote: You people talk about suicide ganking like ever freighter gets blown up the first time it undocks. I know, right? I've flown a freighter into lowsec and all over hisec. I've flown a JF in several areas of null. I've never lost either, despite jumping through Uedama and Niarja with both on several occasions. I plan to own a bowhead too - especially if it gets stupid-high EHP. It's not hard folks, nor is it common that ganks happen to pilots that are flying smartly.* * - except during Burn Jita - then all bets are off :) I've been flying through Uedama the last few months almost regularly every day - usually in a Viator, which by the way, is pretty impervious to the gankfest going on (so apparently Eve isn't all about just making every ship gankable). It's been like a wreck junkyard in there (especially on the weekends) - of mostly destroyer hulls and single freighter hulls. You say it isn't hard "folks". Well tell that to the folks who've had their freighters ganked these last few months by a bunch of cheap dessies - that cost about 20% - 25% of what their freighter cost. You tell me who is taking the big risks here - in an area of the game that is SUPPOSE to be relatively safe for moving goods around. If the intent of hi-sec is not suppose to be safe - then why is there a hi-sec at all? Why not make the game all nul-sec where as you claim everyone can fly in their freighters and be perfectly safe like you can?
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:11:27 - [1304] - Quote Warr Akini wrote: I'll have to ask you to retract that claim of disingenuity (not a word)? I see three responses to Mike, mine being one of them, and although the answer you were looking for (Talos = more DPS = less need for manpower) was not directly stated to him, it is both obvious and I'm fairly certain I mentioned the painstaking nature of gathering craploads of manpower in Catalysts to gank something big earlier in this thread. Don't go throwing mud, please. Your idea of 100% drop rate is for sure interesting, though. Request denied. I was referring to this post: baltec1 wrote: for ganking you never try to alpha something this big. Talos use DPS to take down targets before concord can respond just like cats. As far as tank goes you can hit 600k ehp without boosts. I don't think it did a good enough job of stating the full picture clearly. Therefore I added what I thought was important.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:11:56 - [1305] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: .................. I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried recently but I remember trying some time this year and getting a weird error about ships not being able to go in cargo that are assembled.. Simply use contracts. I 'moved' when returning to EVE recently - all my smaller ships went by contract, whether I moved them myself (freighter-loads), or got others to help.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:17:32 - [1306] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Simply use contracts. I 'moved' when returning to EVE recently - all my smaller ships went by contract, whether I moved them myself (freighter-loads), or got others to help. AH! That's good to know. Guess you really can teach a vet new tricks. Still I wish work arounds like this weren't needed and that you could just drop an assembled ship into a cargo hold.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:21:54 - [1307] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: .......................... AH! That's good to know. Guess you really can teach a vet new tricks. ....................... Said the lady just a little 'younger' than me. I think you've been a lot 'busier' than me, mind you.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 105	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:30:31 - [1308] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: I'm glad you can admit that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Each talos gets 7 volleys in a fully prepared 0.5 system, 5 volleys in an unprepared 0.5 system, 5 in a prepared 0.6 system or 4 in an unprepared 0.6 system. I try to learn and to do that I have to be willing to admit where I do and do not know things. Only time I was in a gank fleet it was to NOT shoot in hopes their calculations would be off enough that they would all die without target destruction. 700k+ eh? wow m requires a minimum of 2 ships so not that crazy. Also not solo, gankers are always saying work in a group so you don't get ganked this would be that group work.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 205	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:32:47 - [1309] - Quote Bertucio wrote: I've been flying through Uedama the last few months almost regularly every day - usually in a Viator, which by the way, is pretty impervious to the gankfest going on (so apparently Eve isn't all about just making every ship gankable). It's been like a wreck junkyard in there (especially on the weekends) - of mostly destroyer hulls and single freighter hulls. You say it isn't hard "folks". Well tell that to the folks who've had their freighters ganked these last few months by a bunch of cheap dessies - that cost about 20% - 25% of what their freighter cost. You tell me who is taking the big risks here - in an area of the game that is SUPPOSE to be relatively safe for moving goods around. If the intent of hi-sec is not suppose to be safe - then why is there a hi-sec at all? Why not make the game all nul-sec where as you claim everyone can fly in their freighters and be perfectly safe like you can? My alt is a freighter pilot. A free lancer pilot in fact. I also fly through there all the time. I never get ganked. A few attempts only. The trick is to not be AFK. Fitting tank to a freighter. now that you can, is great. If i have more than 1B i fit bulkheads, and go easy on anything that hurts my tank. Sure your not bullet proof, but you make it expensive for the gankers. They try easier, stupider targets instead. As for this new ship... Well i can't really see that any tank will be enough to stop ganking. But lets not get stupid with tank.... Of course this whole discussion is moot if carriers are going to be allowed in highsec as has been suggested. Why move anything with anything less than a carrier? I mean really... gank that! Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:35:00 - [1310] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: I'll have to ask you to retract that claim of disingenuity (not a word)? I see three responses to Mike, mine being one of them, and although the answer you were looking for (Talos = more DPS = less need for manpower) was not directly stated to him, it is both obvious and I'm fairly certain I mentioned the painstaking nature of gathering craploads of manpower in Catalysts to gank something big earlier in this thread. Don't go throwing mud, please. Request denied. I was referring to this post: baltec1 wrote: for ganking you never try to alpha something this big. Talos use DPS to take down targets before concord can respond just like cats. As far as tank goes you can hit 600k ehp without boosts. I don't think it did a good enough job of stating the full picture clearly. Therefore I added what I thought was important. The original question was directly about Taloses from Mike Azariah - there was nothing disingenuous about his reply about the Talos. You're just being argumentative. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:37:43 - [1311] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Now for the interesting bit of fix: It needs to not be scanable. Maybe. Valterra Craven wrote: On the flip side to this it needs to always drop the ships. This would make it a true "pinata". This would defeat it's own purpose as a "Pinata". No one would ever fly it. This feels like you put no effort into thinking your suggestion through at all.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13874	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:37:54 - [1312] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: I'll have to ask you to retract that claim of disingenuity (not a word)? I see three responses to Mike, mine being one of them, and although the answer you were looking for (Talos = more DPS = less need for manpower) was not directly stated to him, it is both obvious and I'm fairly certain I mentioned the painstaking nature of gathering craploads of manpower in Catalysts to gank something big earlier in this thread. Don't go throwing mud, please. Request denied. I was referring to this post: baltec1 wrote: for ganking you never try to alpha something this big. Talos use DPS to take down targets before concord can respond just like cats. As far as tank goes you can hit 600k ehp without boosts. I don't think it did a good enough job of stating the full picture clearly. Therefore I added what I thought was important. Nothing I said was disingenous. He thought talos were use as alpha boats. Please dont try to start pointless arguments. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:40:57 - [1313] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried recently but I remember trying some time this year and getting a weird error about ships not being able to go in cargo that are assembled.. He's referring to the horribly broken exploit of using courier contracts to package up fitted and rigged ships that can then be carried in a freighter. Now that we have a dedicated high sec ship mover + Plenty of options in low/null, this needs to be addressed.
Mina Sebiestar Mactabilis Simplex Cursus 755	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:41:15 - [1314] - Quote Looks good so far i would mention that au speed is lacking would bump that up a bit if i could.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:45:08 - [1315] - Quote War Kitten wrote: The original question was directly about Taloses and alpha from Mike Azariah - there was nothing disingenuous about his reply about the Talos. You're just being argumentative. Well its matter of phrasing really. He said "when taloses" are used. I read the question as why are you using taloses vs dessies. The "when" part implies there are more options available to do the same job and they are using taloses over something cheaper. In that case why aren't you using the cheaper method, and the likely answer is man power. I'm not being argumentative. I think that's an important part of ganking math because it means you can gank a ship with far fewer people thereby making it easier to get a group together to gank in the first place.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:46:25 - [1316] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: ............... He's referring to the horribly broken exploit of using courier contracts to package up fitted and rigged ships that cna then be carried in a freighter. Now that we have a dedicated high sec ship mover + Plenty of options in low/null, this needs to be addressed. Goodness, I must note that this is not something I've regularly done....nor is this something to really pursue here..... But why on earth do you refer to this as either "horribly broken" or even as an "exploit"? What difference is an EVE Freighter to any cargo carrying ship on planet earth, even it's fitted to carry containers?
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:49:26 - [1317] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: This would defeat it's own purpose as a "Pinata". No one would ever fly it. This feels like you put no effort into thinking your suggestion through at all. Why would no one fly it? Do you have anything to support this argument?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:54:40 - [1318] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Goodness, I must note that this is not something I've regularly done....nor is this something to really pursue here..... But why on earth do you refer to this as either "horribly broken" or even as an "exploit"? What difference is an EVE Freighter to any cargo carrying ship on planet earth, even it's fitted to carry containers? I feel a little silly needed to explain this but I'll explain it to you anyways. It's by design that you can't just put assembled ships into any of the existing ships. It was intentional and specific. Players using alts would create a courier contract containing their assembled and rigged ship, and then trade it back to themselves so they could then carry the ship in a manner that by design they're not supposed to be able to, and also avoid the risk of having their freighter pilot simply steal it from them by hauling it themselves. They're taking advantage of a loophole created by shortsighted design. It's likely it was never addressed because it was the only method of moving rigged ships through high sec. Now that they're changing that, it's a good time to address this loophole the same way they addressed compressing Minerals into modules and shipping them, then, melting them back down.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:57:24 - [1319] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried recently but I remember trying some time this year and getting a weird error about ships not being able to go in cargo that are assembled.. He's referring to the horribly broken exploit of using courier contracts to package up fitted and rigged ships that can then be carried in a freighter. Now that we have a dedicated high sec ship mover + Plenty of options in low/null, this needs to be addressed. If that was an exploit, you should be reported for discussing it on the forums. Seeing as how it is not an exploit, then you're just misguided or wrong or possibly trolling. Bad troll, no cookie for you. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:58:19 - [1320] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: This would defeat it's own purpose as a "Pinata". No one would ever fly it. This feels like you put no effort into thinking your suggestion through at all. Why would no one fly it? Do you have anything to support this argument? Knowing that every single ship in your hull would become glorious loot for gankers would ensure that ganking of Bowheads would be a regular and normal thing if nothing more than just for the fun and tears of it. It would also skyrocket the required EHP to be a sane ship to fly around with or WITHOUT cargo. I really hope I'm right and you're just trolling because the alternative would be kind of pity inducing.

Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2014.11.13 15:59:31 - [1321] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Bad troll, no cookie for you. Something comes to mind about a pot and a kettle.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:01:35 - [1322] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: It's by design that you can't just put assembled ships into any of the existing ships. It was intentional and specific. Players using alts would create a courier contract containing their assembled and rigged ship, and then trade it back to themselves so they could then carry the ship in a manner that by design they're not supposed to be able to, and also avoid the risk of having their freighter pilot simply steal it from them by hauling it themselves. They're taking advantage of a loophole created by shortsighted design. It's likely it was never addressed because it was the only method of moving rigged ships through high sec. Now that they're changing that, it's a good time to address this loophole the same way they addressed compressing Minerals into modules and shipping them, then, melting them back down. Oh? You suddenly speak for CCP now? I was under the impression this was always an issue of coding wouldn't allow it given the way the DB worked. I've never heard that it was an intentional thing done on purpose.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:02:49 - [1323] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: ...................... I feel a little silly needed to explain this but I'll explain it to you anyways. Well, I'll thank you for bothering and ignore the sarcasm. Anonymous Forumposter wrote: It's by design that you can't just put assembled ships into any of the existing ships. ............. As opposed to carrying assembled ships in Orca's, Rorquals, Carriers & Titans..... I honestly don't see the issue - carrying small ships inside great big cargoholds? 'Not by design' - and therefore not addressed when Freighter holds were recently increased in size and packaged capitals were too..... But thank you, you obviously have a 'buzzing bee' about it, but I'm afraid I don't see why.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:04:34 - [1324] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Knowing that every single ship in your hull would become glorious loot for gankers would ensure that ganking of Bowheads would be a regular and normal thing if nothing more than just for the fun and tears of it. It would also skyrocket the required EHP to be a sane ship to fly around with or WITHOUT cargo. I really hope I'm right and you're just trolling because the alternative would be kind of pity inducing. Why would it? The problem is that you assume that gankers can gank into infinity, when the reality is that if A. they don't make money at it they have to stop, or B people pay them to do so (aka Code), but even Code's resources are not limitless. Personally I think you are vastly over stating the problem, because I'm honestly not trolling. Freighter ganking is already a normal and regular thing, but again just because it happens every day doesn't mean that every single freighter is ganked every day...
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:05:07 - [1325] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: The original question was directly about Taloses and alpha from Mike Azariah - there was nothing disingenuous about his reply about the Talos. You're just being argumentative. Well its matter of phrasing really. He said "when taloses" are used. I read the question as why are you using taloses vs dessies. The "when" part implies there are more options available to do the same job and they are using taloses over something cheaper. In that case why aren't you using the cheaper method, and the likely answer is man power. I'm not being argumentative. I think that's an important part of ganking math because it means you can gank a ship with far fewer people thereby making it easier to get a group together to gank in the first place. You're still being argumentative - the question was about using taloses, not why. Your nitpick about catalysts is obvious - of course you use the cheapest alternative if you have the manpower. If you don't, you scale up. No one has tried to hide that or played dumb about it, which is more or less what you need to be doing to be disingenuous. Or to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:07:25 - [1326] - Quote Delt0r Garsk wrote: Bertucio wrote: I've been flying through Uedama the last few months almost regularly every day - usually in a Viator, which by the way, is pretty impervious to the gankfest going on (so apparently Eve isn't all about just making every ship gankable). It's been like a wreck junkyard in there (especially on the weekends) - of mostly destroyer hulls and single freighter hulls. You say it isn't hard "folks". Well tell that to the folks who've had their freighters ganked these last few months by a bunch of cheap dessies - that cost about 20% - 25% of what their freighter cost. You tell me who is taking the big risks here - in an area of the game that is SUPPOSE to be relatively safe for moving goods around. If the intent of hi-sec is not suppose to be safe - then why is there a hi-sec at all? Why not make the game all nul-sec where as you claim everyone can fly in their freighters and be perfectly safe like you can? My alt is a freighter pilot. A free lancer pilot in fact. I also fly through there all the time. I never get ganked. A few attempts only. The trick is to not be AFK. Fitting tank to a freighter. now that you can, is great. If i have more than 1B i fit bulkheads, and go easy on anything that hurts my tank. Sure your not bullet proof, but you make it expensive for the gankers. They try easier, stupider targets instead. As for this new ship... Well i can't really see that any tank will be enough to stop ganking. But lets not get stupid with tank.... Of course this whole discussion is moot if carriers are going to be allowed in highsec as has been suggested. Why move anything with anything less than a carrier? I mean really... gank that! In my opinion, hi-sec should be a safer place than it is now - even for pilots that are not too careful with their fits. If people want PvP then there is an area of Eve where they can do it. Not every player in Eve should have PvP forced upon them whenever they log on. To me the Eve universe should be broad enough and a big enough sandbox where all kinds of activities in space can go on - not narrowed to a game where only the Big Alliances get to do whatever they want to whomever they want in Eve. I mean that's how I see hi-sec, a place that should be pretty safe from the griefers, gankers and PvP'rs - and in my opinion, that was the original intent of hi-sec - to make it a relatively safe place in Eve. That being said - I also understand that my opinion in not in the majority right now. That apparently the game design focus is to allow ganking to continue in hi-sec as a regular activity (whereas if it were removed, then the PvP activity in my opinion would migrate elsewhere in the game). That being the case - I still think that the Risk vs. Reward needs to be re-evaluated. If ganking is going to go on, then sure, a few dessies being able to take down a cheap hauler should be acceptable. But a bunch of cheap dessies - say 20 at 10mil each (that is 200 mil) taking down a multi-billion ISK freighter? That to me is not equivalent - the freighter pilot ends up taking all the risk and losing a lot more here. What I am arguing for here - and I think most players who have suggested the Bowhead be buffed more are arguing - is that it needs to be harder for the gankers to gank something that is big and expensive like a freighter - the cost to gank should be at least equal to the hull being destroyed. That is not what is happening right now in Uedama and other hi-sec systems in Eve. As for poor piloting and fitting - yes there is no remedy for that. Although, look - you're always going to have new players being introduced to an MMO - and almost every MMO I've played have certain regions that are considered "safe" - as I believe hi-sec was originally intended to be. And I think it serves the game a good purpose. It does the game good both economically and sandbox wise for there to be a designated area - that is protected under "civilized" behavior, where players are not FORCED to play a given way. I imagine also many players prefer to be able to choose on what days they want to play in a group, PvP or play solo. Many players I've known in Eve over the years have had alts that do their industry work in hi-sec - because it's SAFE. But they also PvP in faction warfare or nul-sec with alts. They want to enjoy the game both solo & group. Not necessarily have the game dominated by a bunch of bloated Alliances who have turned the game into a slow crawl of a few way too powerful players.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:09:18 - [1327] - Quote War Kitten wrote: You're still being argumentative - the question was about using taloses, not why. Your nitpick about catalysts is obvious - of course you use the cheapest alternative if you have the manpower. If you don't, you scale up. No one has tried to hide that or played dumb about it, which is more or less what you need to be doing to be disingenuous. Or to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." Oh, if the answer was so obvious and he had all of the information at his disposal, why was he asking the question in the first place? Information is power and giving him a more complete picture is not being argumentative for the sake of it.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:13:28 - [1328] - Quote Whilst it's not 100%-related to the information about the ship itself..... Is it worth laying the 'gankiness' of it aside completely? For I believe I am right in saying that it is all but impossible to make a ship ungankable? - Get gank fleet together - bump ship off gate - shoot ship, cause lots of damage - continue to bump ship away - wait out timer, get in new ship - return to item 3 and continue loop until killed Is that wrong? However, curiously, given the Bowhead's attributes - if fitted with a Large (perhaps even Capital - also not yet confirmed by CCP) Hull Repairer - how much hull could be repaired in between gank-shoots? And/or, potentially, shield/armour equivalents.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 14	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:16:50 - [1329] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Whilst it's not 100%-related to the information about the ship itself..... Is it worth laying the 'gankiness' of it aside completely? For I believe I am right in saying that it is all but impossible to make a ship ungankable? - Get gank fleet together - bump ship off gate - shoot ship, cause lots of damage - continue to bump ship away - wait out timer, get in new ship - return to item 3 and continue loop until killed Is that wrong? However, curiously, given the Bowhead's attributes - if fitted with a Large (perhaps even Capital - also not yet confirmed by CCP) Hull Repairer - how much hull could be repaired in between gank-shoots? And/or, potentially, shield/armour equivalents. Perhaps a better question to ask is what is the intent of hi-sec? To allow the Risk vs Reward design concept in Eve to be abrogated by a group of cheap destroyers taking down a very expensive freighter hull?
Runiba Toll Row Row Fight the Power Test Alliance Please Ignore 3	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:24:59 - [1330] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Bertucio wrote: Dave Stark wrote: said the carebears who've spent the whole thread saying "ccp we need more ehp!". yes, that's right, wanting more ehp on one of the tankiest ships in high sec. gg. Yeah I'd like to see some gankers in Uedama take some real risk for a change - like spend a billion ISK to take down a billion ISK freighter. Oh yeah - crickets. I thought so. isk is not a balancing factor. and nor will it ever be, because that's ********. also if you don't want to get ganked, don't go through uedama, and don't auto pilot, and don't make basic errors like most people who get ganked in obvious choke point systems. is not uedama a pipe? unavoidable if you are going from say jita to dodixie? how does one avoid uedama? more on topic, is it not a more reasonable solution to use a jump clone and fly one bs to the destination incursion, and then jc back to the other bs and move that one? since a bs is about twice as fast as this white elephant thing (bow thingy) does it not make more sense to not put all your eggs in a single styrofoam eggbox? and for the third bs you can use a third jump clone, and by that time, it will likely be at the next incursion or very close to it. Personally i don't see any value in this new ship other than disposing of ships you are tired with and getting back nothing in return.

Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:35:09 - [1331] - Quote Bertucio wrote: [ Perhaps a better question to ask is what is the intent of hi-sec? To allow the Risk vs Reward design concept in Eve to be abrogated by a group of cheap destroyers taking down a very expensive freighter hull? Speaking as someone who has spent most of his career in High Sec (where 'high' I have always understood to mean, firstly, 'higher' and 'safer' and not 'completely safe') - mainly due to time/committment, but also because I treat EVE as a PvP-business game, given that in EVE you cannot die it's just business, and Low/Null just wasn't good business. Then I remember the time before freighters and why they were introduced - to carry station eggs. No new pilot in EVE should be piloting freighters, because they are relatively expensive. By the time they can fly them and, effectively, 'exploit' (in the sense of use) all that space, then will have lots of money. Why? Because they need to be able to afford to lose it. Why has CODE come into being? Because people in NPC corps can remain almost completely safe, no matter how they behave (many of them badly enough that I would like some method of blowing them up myself and I'm such a peaceable chap!). CODE probably also build freighters. It's just good business.
Julie Oppenheimer State Protectorate Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:41:46 - [1332] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Julie Oppenheimer wrote: Just throwing this out there: allow it to fit the Target Spectrum Breaker (and maybe remove a little tank). The problem with that as a strategy is that the ship is designed for high sec. In high sec, You're either stuck not using it due to your safety being on, or you instantly destroy your sec status AND get concorded after firing it off on a crowded gate. As far as I am aware, the Target Spectrum Breaker doesn't cause any sort of suspect or criminal flags. If this was changed with the new Crimewatch mechanics, I'd like to know.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:44:04 - [1333] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Bertucio wrote: [ Perhaps a better question to ask is what is the intent of hi-sec? To allow the Risk vs Reward design concept in Eve to be abrogated by a group of cheap destroyers taking down a very expensive freighter hull? Speaking as someone who has spent most of his career in High Sec (where 'high' I have always understood to mean, firstly, 'higher' and 'safer' and not 'completely safe') - mainly due to time/committment, but also because I treat EVE as a PvP-business game, given that in EVE you cannot die it's just business, and Low/Null just wasn't good business. Then I remember the time before freighters and why they were introduced - to carry station eggs. No new pilot in EVE should be piloting freighters, because they are relatively expensive. By the time they can fly them and, effectively, 'exploit' (in the sense of use) all that space, then will have lots of money. Why? Because they need to be able to afford to lose it. Why has CODE come into being? Because people in NPC corps can remain almost completely safe, no matter how they behave (many of them badly enough that I would like some method of blowing them up myself and I'm such a peaceable chap!). CODE probably also build freighters. It's just good business. tbh I have no idea what CODE is - but I've been away from the game for a year. But apparently it appears it's a group of players in EVE that is on a mission to make hi-sec a less safe place. Which honestly, is really nothing new in Eve. We used to have the yearly "Hulkageddons" etc. that cost the denigrated "carebears" quite a bit of time and ISK. But you're right - a new player in a freighter is almost an oxymoron. If you're going to fly something that big and expensive, you ought to google a bit and find out what is a good fit etc. On the other hand, it still doesn't seem to equate to me that 250mil in destroyers can take down a 1.4bil freighter in hi-sec. And that Bowhead, which is going to be relatively expensive as well - will also be susceptible to an unfair Risk vs. Reward equation. The Bowhead is going to be a big target for the current set of gankers and "CODE" - whoever these guys are. It also is going to be playing a specific hauling role in the game - that has been much requested by Eve players for many years. It just seems a bit ridiculous to me to release it and have it so easily susceptible to being ganked by cheap dessies. And look - that's what is going on - I see it nearly every day in Uedama which IS a choke point between Dodixie and Jita. I think all the requests for a tugboat over the years by Eve players did not include that the boat should be easily gankable in hi-sec. At least this is what I suspect.
Pokket Sez Danneskjold Repossessions. 3	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:57:30 - [1334] - Quote FYI - So last night I witness a freighter gang bang and the poor fella lost 1b+freighter by 8 Battlecruisers and 1 destroyer (WTF1). I had to pickup something 5 systems away and on the way back some 15 minutes later the wreck was still there, untouched (WTF2), guarded by a single harpy (WTF3). Some things just don't make sense ... Why leave it there? ** & Giggles? Yes, &Giggles 1:Freighter 0 (not that he can done anything different or prevent it) Same night 1j away from that system I spotted a Machariel sitting on the gate at 0 - yes that is right, he proceed bumping the first freighter he saw, another poor fella pilot away from the gate and I stood there watching them ... (and I was like "Thank God, I fly a cheapy hauler) Why doing it? & Giggles? Yes, Yes, **&Giggles 2:Freighter 0 (not that he can done anything different or prevent it) Moral of the story: Don't buy or fly Freighters or Orca, Bowhead or Whales of any kind.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 16:58:33 - [1335] - Quote Bertucio wrote: ................... - but I've been away from the game for a year. ................. an unfair Risk vs. Reward equation. ........................ It just seems a bit ridiculous to me to release it and have it so easily susceptible to being ganked by cheap dessies. And look - that's what is going on - I see it nearly every day in Uedama which IS a choke point between Dodixie and Jita. I've been away for 2.5 years - and yes, I remember the 'Hulkageddons'. I too still want to travel to Jita on occasion. Nothing has changed for the gankers actually, but Freighters got Low Slots and Orca's got TB rigs and DSTs got large Fleet Hangers, and mining ships got tanks - so I would argue that EVE has actually gotten harder for gankers. So I will simply note that, if you don't want to take the risk of using a freighter, then don't. But I will also note that for there to actually be any reward worth having then there must have been loss/risk somewhere. It's only fair that if you want to take advantage of the potential reward then you have to take some risk too. It is, indeed, completely possible to wish to still enjoy EVE without, almost, engaging in any form of PvP - just fly missions (like so many other MMOs, that's all 'going after mobs' is). But then you won't really be playing EVE.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:12:17 - [1336] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Bertucio wrote: ................... - but I've been away from the game for a year. ................. an unfair Risk vs. Reward equation. ........................ It just seems a bit ridiculous to me to release it and have it so easily susceptible to being ganked by cheap dessies. And look - that's what is going on - I see it nearly every day in Uedama which IS a choke point between Dodixie and Jita. I've been away for 2.5 years - and yes, I remember the 'Hulkageddons'. I too still want to travel to Jita on occasion. Nothing has changed for the gankers actually, but Freighters got Low Slots and Orca's got TB rigs and DSTs got large Fleet Hangers, and mining ships got tanks - so I would argue that EVE has actually gotten harder for gankers. So I will simply note that, if you don't want to take the risk of using a freighter, then don't. But I will also note that for there to actually be any reward worth having then there must have been loss/risk somewhere. It's only fair that if you want to take advantage of the potential reward then you have to take some risk too. It is, indeed, completely possible to wish to still enjoy EVE without, almost, engaging in any form of PvP - just fly missions (like so many other MMOs, that's all 'going after mobs' is). But then you won't really be playing EVE. The destroyers have also been "beefed" up. And there has never been a tugboat. Although many things in Eve have remained the same, many things have changed. And that IMO is a good thing. I think the tugboat will be very popular - as long as it isn't easily gankable in hi-sec. And that is a good thing too. And flying missions - lots of Eve players do it for many reasons, maybe as a way to make an income to pay for their PvP alt activity in faction warfare. Maybe to get the unique Blueprints offered in the loyalty stores. Maybe to brush up on your Eve playing activity if you've been away for a few years. heh. But in any case, I think missioning is a part of EVE and I wouldn't discount it altogether. I agree PvP is more interesting and exciting (if it's balanced ... I flew through Minnie/Amarr faction space a few days ago and boy have the Amarr taken over there) and what makes Eve a grand MMO is the PvP play. But I think it is also a mistake to restrict EVE and force everyone to live in virtual space as a PvP'r - especially for players new to the game who might want to enjoy the safety of hi-sec and be able to move their ships around in a tugboat that isn't easily susceptible to a large alliance that has nothing better to do (apparently) then to gank defenseless ships in hi-sec.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:20:11 - [1337] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: You're still being argumentative - the question was about using taloses, not why. Your nitpick about catalysts is obvious - of course you use the cheapest alternative if you have the manpower. If you don't, you scale up. No one has tried to hide that or played dumb about it, which is more or less what you need to be doing to be disingenuous. Or to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." Oh, if the answer was so obvious and he had all of the information at his disposal, why was he asking the question in the first place? Information is power and giving him a more complete picture is not being argumentative for the sake of it. Fair enough - maybe he didn't know that Catalysts were cheaper and less dps than a Talos. I hope CSM representatives have at least that much knowledge of the game though. But I wasn't referring to that argument; you were still being argumentative about whether or not you were correct in calling Baltec disingenuous and not backing down from that stance, despite the pettiness of it. And for whatever its worth, and to get the discussion back on track - I like your idea of 100% drop from the SMB. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:20:22 - [1338] - Quote Bertucio wrote: .......................- especially for players new to the game who might want to enjoy the safety of hi-sec and be able to move their ships around in a tugboat that isn't easily susceptible to a large alliance that has nothing better to do (apparently) then to gank defenseless ships in hi-sec. The underlining is mine. New(er) players will not be flying Bowheads.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:28:00 - [1339] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Bertucio wrote: .......................- especially for players new to the game who might want to enjoy the safety of hi-sec and be able to move their ships around in a tugboat that isn't easily susceptible to a large alliance that has nothing better to do (apparently) then to gank defenseless ships in hi-sec. The underlining is mine. New(er) players will not be flying Bowheads. You seem quite sure of yourself. Actually any new player joining a missioning / incursion corp, probably will be. But again - you're sort of implying indirectly here that it's the "victims" fault that they are getting ganked in hi-sec. That I also disagree with. To make the assumption that all ships and freighters that have been ganked in Uedama have been only players who don't know how to fly a freighter correctly etc. is a weak argument at best IMO.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:39:16 - [1340] - Quote For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this... CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from. If, as you say, hisec was intended to be safe, why would CCP have gone to the trouble to specifically leave in the possibility of criminal flagging and criminal activity in hisec? Crimewatch is a huge drain on CPU resources - it would be much more efficient to just make hisec safe and pvp-free and remove all that extra code (I'm not digging up the source for that, but it's been mentioned in a few dev replies that hardware performs better in large nullsec battles than in lowsec simply because crimewatch doesn't have to run in nullsec). So with all that understanding, why would you think hisec was intended to be pvp-free? Eve is not like other MMOs where you have happy sunshine pve land, safe from all aggression. That's not ever been the intention or inspiration of Eve Online. Ultima Online was was one of the inspirations - a game where criminal activity and pvp is possible pretty much anywhere in the game. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

War Kitten Panda McLegion 5494	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:42:45 - [1341] - Quote Bertucio wrote: But again - you're sort of implying indirectly here that it's the "victims" fault that they are getting ganked in hi-sec. That I also disagree with. To make the assumption that all ships and freighters that have been ganked in Uedama have been only players who don't know how to fly a freighter correctly etc. is a weak argument at best IMO. That is a morality question between players. Eve is a game of interaction between players. The rules of the game don't dictate morality - that is up to the players. The rules of the game just need to give everyone enough tools to try and accomplish what they want to do. It is up to the player to use the tools at his disposal. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Warr Akini Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 161	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:53:51 - [1342] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Whilst it's not 100%-related to the information about the ship itself..... Is it worth laying the 'gankiness' of it aside completely? For I believe I am right in saying that it is all but impossible to make a ship ungankable? - Get gank fleet together - bump ship off gate - shoot ship, cause lots of damage - continue to bump ship away - wait out timer, get in new ship - return to item 3 and continue loop until killed Is that wrong? However, curiously, given the Bowhead's attributes - if fitted with a Large (perhaps even Capital - also not yet confirmed by CCP) Hull Repairer - how much hull could be repaired in between gank-shoots? And/or, potentially, shield/armour equivalents. There are oh so very many things that can go wrong when you have 15 minutes + travel time of not being able to gank a guy between waves, much less more than two waves. Mainly logistics tend to show up to ruin your fun. It's also very stressful and usually not worth your time/effort.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1275	Posted - 2014.11.13 17:55:18 - [1343] - Quote What gets lost in the "should high sec be safe or not" side discussion is that the question is what, exactly, this ship is for, and who it's aimed at. Given the huge price spread between, say, an EVE Uni fit vanilla Dominix and a T2-rigged Nightmare, the spread of viable[1] tanking numbers for the ship is quite large. If the design goal is to carry fully-fitted incursion ships as they currently exist, that pushes the tank number up; if the design goal is to carry 3 T1 hulls and the assumption is that of course you'll take any shiny fittings separately in a fast cloaky ship, then the tanking number goes down--but so does the difference between the Bowhead and an ordinary freighter. My #1 complaint with the ship so far is that it preserves the miserable ratio between ORE ships and their skills. Do we really need another one-ship skill? [1] by which I mean, between "useless tin can" and "ungankable brick." Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Masao Kurata Z List 138	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:08:12 - [1344] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold. It's not their use on freighters that concerns me, it's ships whose primary cargo hold is of little importance such as combat ships (affects how many cap charges you can carry, that's all), deep space transports (fleet bay is unaffected), orcas (fleet bay, smb, ore bay) and now the bowhead. There is no tradeoff there at all, it's just free tank.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 13	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:23:52 - [1345] - Quote Bertucio wrote: ................ You seem quite sure of yourself. Actually any new player joining a missioning / incursion corp, probably will be. Well, reasonably confident - a player who starts in a frigate and takes the time to learn a bit about EVE (which is only sensible) will have spent some considerable time doing that missioning (whether or not he joins with others straightaway) and saving up for ships. By the time he might need/want a Bowhead that means he should have earned at least 3b. That, I believe, takes him beyond the definition of 'new'. Bertucio wrote: ................But again - you're sort of implying indirectly here that it's the "victims" fault that they are getting ganked in hi-sec. That I also disagree with. To make the assumption that all ships and freighters that have been ganked in Uedama have been only players who don't know how to fly a freighter correctly etc. is a weak argument at best IMO. Hmmm, 'fault' - perhaps, but not exactly. Nor any comment on whether they 'know' how to fly a freighter. But by choosing to fly a freighter (unless they themselves are doing it for 'fun') they, I am assuming, have done it to 'profit' by it. By choosing to enter EVE's wider market, they are choosing to engage with other players - in other words, PvP. PvP is not a narrow 'shooting stuff' definition/phrase. It is about engaging with other players in an MMO and competing with them. They are flying a freighter for a reason (caveat as noted) - that reason is choosing PvP.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:37:32 - [1346] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold. It's not their use on freighters that concerns me, it's ships whose primary cargo hold is of little importance such as combat ships (affects how many cap charges you can carry, that's all), deep space transports (fleet bay is unaffected), orcas (fleet bay, smb, ore bay) and now the bowhead. There is no tradeoff there at all, it's just free tank. Well really the only case people should realistically be using them is on freighters, and orcas. That being said, don't knock that cargo loss on the orca. This is honestly a problem CCP created by pigeon holing these ships with such large amounts of hull rather than shield and armor and giving them slot layouts that are most conducive to haul tanking. You don't hull tank combat ships for a reason, getting resist on hull without a suitcase is none existent. Same goes for deep space transports, that whole class has proper slots and proper HP in their respective niches. So while you can hull tank both its completely inefficient way to get your HP up. Given prior convention of ORE ships I honestly believe that the HP and the slot layout needs to be adjusted to make it a shield tanking ship (much like a roq).
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:41:27 - [1347] - Quote War Kitten wrote: For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this... CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from. Given the nature of the beast I'm not sure that you can factually make this claim. I'm not per se saying you are wrong, just that I don't believe their is enough evidence to make that claim. I see plenty of bait blinky yellows around minnie systems that have lots of traffic in it. All crimewatch has done is condition people not to be stupid enough to shoot those blinky players given the way the mechanics of assistance are so foolishly laid out.
Masao Kurata Z List 138	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:47:21 - [1348] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: This is basically what bulk heads do for freighters, they give you more tank at a penalty of your primary stat: cargo hold. It's not their use on freighters that concerns me, it's ships whose primary cargo hold is of little importance such as combat ships (affects how many cap charges you can carry, that's all), deep space transports (fleet bay is unaffected), orcas (fleet bay, smb, ore bay) and now the bowhead. There is no tradeoff there at all, it's just free tank. Well really the only case people should realistically be using them is on freighters, and orcas. That being said, don't knock that cargo loss on the orca. I'll knock it all I like, all your special bays including the general purpose fleet bay are entirely unaffected and the main cargo bay is irrelevant to many uses for the orca. Quote: You don't hull tank combat ships for a reason, getting resist on hull without a suitcase is none existent. Um, obviously you fit a damage control. Everyone does that anyway, it's just that good. As for nobody hull tanking combat ships, haven't you seen any solo brutix fits lately? I just looked up navy brutix losses on zkill and the most recent two were both hull tanked.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:56:01 - [1349] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Um, obviously you fit a damage control. Everyone does that anyway, it's just that good. As for nobody hull tanking combat ships, haven't you seen any solo brutix fits lately? I just looked up navy brutix losses on zkill and the most recent two were both hull tanked. K, now go look up all the combat ship kills and compare those to the amount of kills that were hull tanked. They probably died for a reason.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1871	Posted - 2014.11.13 18:58:27 - [1350] - Quote Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP shield/armor/hull 10750/6900/46000 orca 21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead 90000/30000/250000 rorqual 14000/40000/110000 obelisk It depends on how you look at it and where you think it fits in the spectrum of ships, I suppose. If it fits capital rigs then I would assume that it will have the structure to hold them and then the hull needs some thickening. If it is a distant cousin of the Orca then I would say the cap rigs are inappropriate. Some of you have compared it to the Rorqual (poor things really need to be looked to) but it is no where near it in tank. So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9

War Kitten Panda McLegion 5497	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:02:12 - [1351] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this... CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from. Given the nature of the beast I'm not sure that you can factually make this claim. I'm not per se saying you are wrong, just that I don't believe their is enough evidence to make that claim. I see plenty of bait blinky yellows around minnie systems that have lots of traffic in it. All crimewatch has done is condition people not to be stupid enough to shoot those blinky players given the way the mechanics of assistance are so foolishly laid out. The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse. If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Masao Kurata Z List 138	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:03:17 - [1352] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP And as far as I can tell you didn't answer. Base HP is irrelevant, what you get when it's fitted matters. If Rorquals were allowed into highsec, none would ever die except to amazing stupidity, and I don't mean bad fits. All the highsec restricted ships are completely imbalanced for highsec rules of engagement and have nothing to do with discussion of the bowhead.
Rodric O'Connor Latter Day Saints 3	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:12:07 - [1353] - Quote 1. i think it needs to look like a flying dry dock 2. whats the skills to build the ship and what the cost of the BPO and what dose it need to build it 3. will you seed it for the first week or so 4. how many will be going pop in the first 10 minuets of the ship going on the jita market lol
Cyndrogen Angels Of Life 633	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:17:36 - [1354] - Quote Freighter? BLEH! Not interested AT ALL in this big lug... Give us T3 modular battleships to deal with incursions. I don't want to carry ships in a ship, just subsystems. Vindi / Basi T3 equivalent, then I might be interested. Waste to see this being developed.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 86	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:20:56 - [1355] - Quote Cyndrogen wrote: Freighter? BLEH! Not interested AT ALL in this big lug... Give us T3 modular battleships to deal with incursions. I don't want to carry ships in a ship, just subsystems. Vindi / Basi T3 equivalent, then I might be interested. Waste to see this being developed. TIL ("Today I Learned"): If it doesn't fit Cyndrogen's exact specifications it's a waste of time. Quick CCP, HIre this man before someone else does! What's that? You're not interested CCP? Oh, I understand.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1277	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:24:39 - [1356] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP shield/armor/hull 10750/6900/46000 orca 21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead 90000/30000/250000 rorqual 14000/40000/110000 obelisk Not really useful without considering low + mid slots, fitting room, and rigs, not to mention baseline cost. The fact that 1/2 to 2/3 of an Orca's tank is a Damage Control II matters given its pitiful slot allotment. The fact that a freighter can't even fit a Damage Control I significantly reduces the potential tank it gets from all that hull. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:36:01 - [1357] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca m I think this is a poor line of thought. Freighters as a whole need to be re-thought and redone to be more like haulers. Aka they should have their own niche tanks (shield or armor) and not hull. I don't think CCP really did a good job with the stats of them when they were redone with slots and a more holistic approach needs to be taken to the class. Keep in mind that if they were redone it would be possible to tank them via shield or armor if you only give it enough fitting for resits mods etc and not cap size repair mods. That should keep them in balance. That being said, Both the orca and roq do need a lot of looking at. But given that I think the orca is the closest cousin to the bowhead and the orca is wrongly setup as a hull tanked ship as well, things start to get complicated. So I guess my point is A. why try to compare this ship to other known broken ships and B. why not just try to do it right the first time? I still think that the bowhead should be re-balanced to have a shield tank with an appropriate slot layout.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 19:39:20 - [1358] - Quote War Kitten wrote: The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse. If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now. Frankly I think it seems more central to your argument than you are making it out to be. But other than that and "kill rights", I still don't think you have any real data to back up your point. I've seen no decrease in hi sec ganking/high sec griefing activity despite all the changes over the past year or two.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 248	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:02:21 - [1359] - Quote Orchid Fury wrote: you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. This is so misguided a statement that it's not even wrong. You can absolutely take precautions against a gank. Red Frog has a whole portion of their website devoted to them. These precautions may, however, require you to change the way you fit and fly your ships, or involve effort on your part to get friends to assist you. It's like getting away from a marauding bear. You don't have to outrun the bear - you just have to outrun the guy next to you. Ganking is much the same. You don't have to be ungankable - you just need to be a less attractive target than the other bazillion freighters moving around. It's not exactly hard. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Mina Sebiestar Mactabilis Simplex Cursus 756	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:04:58 - [1360] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP shield/armor/hull 10750/6900/46000 orca 21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead 90000/30000/250000 rorqual 14000/40000/110000 obelisk It depends on how you look at it and where you think it fits in the spectrum of ships, I suppose. If it fits capital rigs then I would assume that it will have the structure to hold them and then the hull needs some thickening. If it is a distant cousin of the Orca then I would say the cap rigs are inappropriate. Some of you have compared it to the Rorqual (poor things really need to be looked to) but it is no where near it in tank. So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca m I think due to mass and sheer volume of ships it is designed to cary over orca it should have better structural integrity. How much cant guess pure capital no it doesnt cary that much.

Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 248	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:09:43 - [1361] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Harvey James wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Warr Akini wrote: Again, try not to assume too much about the ganker mindset. I haven't really been involved in this whole ganking debate, honestly because it shouldn't be part of this thread. But I'd like to add my two cents at this point just because people don't have to assume anything about your mindset or motivations for this "mechanic" to be insanely stupid to begin with. And before I get started on why, no I don't believe hi-sec space should be 100% safe. That being said, the fact that people can repeatedly kill ships in hi sec over and over again is stupid. Think of it this way. Criminals today usually get second and third chances, but at some point, the legal systems realizes a person is a lost cause and removes them civilization. In this case you can repair your sec an unlimited number of times. How does that make sense? What needs to happen is that the system needs to be modified so that hi sec gankers after a certain amount of ganks get un-repairable sec status so as to make it very risky for them to move around empire. This allows people to engage in the activity on a limited basis with actual true consequences for their actions should they try to make it a full time career. 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. You just killed eve for families/students ect who share a computer and anyone who pvps in low sec plus anyone who accidentaly shoots things in high sec thinking its low sec and people who wish to give up their life of crime. Meanwhile the people who are neg ten all the time anyway are not impacted. Please take these terrible ideas ~~to another thread~~out back and shoot them. FYP Baltec. Hope you don't mind. DON'T GANK ME BRO! A bitter vet trying to start anew.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5497	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:16:05 - [1362] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse. If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now. Frankly I think it seems more central to your argument than you are making it out to be. But other than that and "kill rights", I still don't think you have any real data to back up your point. I've seen no decrease in hi sec ganking/high sec griefing activity despite all the changes over the past year or two. You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time.... CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it. - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5497	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:18:58 - [1363] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Orchid Fury wrote: you can not effectivly take precautions against a gank. This is so misguided a statement that it's not even wrong. You can absolutely take precautions against a gank. Red Frog has a whole portion of their website devoted to them. These precautions may, however, require you to change the way you fit and fly your ships, or involve effort on your part to get friends to assist you. You said the E word. People don't like the E word. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Valterra Craven 359	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:23:10 - [1364] - Quote War Kitten wrote: You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time.... CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it. - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again. Sigh Why is it so hard to be civil to others when trying to make a point? As to your point, I've already stated numerous times that I don't believe high sec should be completely safe and I don't think criminality should be completely removed from the game. What I have said is that the balance for this activity is STILL not there and in my opinion needs work. So considering that I already agreed with the point you're trying to make and that I made it long before you even posted this response, it appears that you are the one that is arguing for the sake of it.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:24:52 - [1365] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse. If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now. Frankly I think it seems more central to your argument than you are making it out to be. But other than that and "kill rights", I still don't think you have any real data to back up your point. I've seen no decrease in hi sec ganking/high sec griefing activity despite all the changes over the past year or two. You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time.... CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it. - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again. This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more target opportunity for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 249	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:41:53 - [1366] - Quote Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. My question for you would be - why is it so hard to find a like minded group of people all travelling in the same direction to provide support and scouting? People in nullsec do this all the time - they're called fleets. They manage to move freighters full to bursting of minerals and station/i-hub mods in an area where black ops roam like cows on the prarie and they generally manage to get to the end of the trip in one piece. If only there was a way to bring some of this space magic to highsec. Oh, yeah, it's not magic. It's called pulling your head out of your ass and working together to acheive a common goal. The incursion community especially already has the infrastructure and pilots to make this kind of fleet through highsec a reality - you can pull together long to make shedloads of ISK, but to be expected to help out when moving day comes and you act like someone just kicked your favorite puppy. I guarantee you that the Incursion corps that start making the most ISK will be the ones that make this a reality - they will move their entire operation in an organized single fleet and be up and running long before their less willing to adapt competitors. FFS people. If you want to be antisocial in a social game, that's fine - but failing to use the available tools to solve your problem is not CCP's problem to fix. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 20:52:31 - [1367] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. My question for you would be - why is it so hard to find a like minded group of people all travelling in the same direction to provide support and scouting? People in nullsec do this all the time - they're called fleets. They manage to move freighters full to bursting of minerals and station/i-hub mods in an area where black ops roam like cows on the prarie and they generally manage to get to the end of the trip in one piece. If only there was a way to bring some of this space magic to highsec. Oh, yeah, it's not magic. It's called pulling your head out of your ass and working together to acheive a common goal. The incursion community especially already has the infrastructure and pilots to make this kind of fleet through highsec a reality - you can pull together long to make shedloads of ISK, but to be expected to help out when moving day comes and you act like someone just kicked your favorite puppy. I guarantee you that the Incursion corps that start making the most ISK will be the ones that make this a reality - they will move their entire operation in an organized single fleet and be up and running long before their less willing to adapt competitors. FFS people. If you want to be antisocial in a social game, that's fine - but failing to use the available tools to solve your problem is not CCP's problem to fix. Why invariably is the gankers answer to players who want to fly solo a hauler in hi-sec - that no, sorry you shouldn't play solo? How many times does one have to repeat that 1) there are quite a few players in Eve that play solo and enjoy playing solo 2) that Eve should allow for all types of players in the sandbox - not just group play and not just game mechanics that cater to gankers who like to prey upon defenseless easy victim ships? ps: By the way I have played Eve both in groups and solo. I like both. Sue me.
Masao Kurata Z List 138	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:09:53 - [1368] - Quote Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. And if nobody makes any mistakes. And if there is no interference reducing the effective firepower of the fleet. And if you ignore the huge red circle of death on your star map from the activity of such a large, well trained gank fleet.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 251	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:17:08 - [1369] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Why invariably is the gankers answer to players who want to fly solo a hauler in hi-sec - that no, sorry you shouldn't play solo? How many times does one have to repeat that 1) there are quite a few players in Eve that play solo and enjoy playing solo 2) that Eve should allow for all types of play in the sandbox (it's a big universe) - not just group play and not just game mechanics that cater to gankers who like to prey upon defenseless easy victims? ps: By the way I have played Eve both in groups and solo. I like both. Sue me. Do you know what a single suicide ganker can kill all by himself with no help at all? Not much. One catalyst versus a freighter - even a crappily tanked one? Yeah, that's never gonna happen - so the actuality of it is that, in a strictly solo environment, the ganker has a significant disadvantage. The issue is, of course, that a group, even a disorganized one, will always be more effective at a given task in Eve than a solo person. PvP? Yep, the group wins, unless they're just utterly hopeless, or it's some weird scenario (stealth bomber versus a group of noob ships comes to mind for some reason). PvE? In general, yes, though the way most PvE payouts are done limits the size of the group, effectively. Mining? Definitely - any group is better than a solo player in terms of total yield. Hauling? Sure - a group can provide scouts and webbing support. You can absolutely play solo - by all means, feel free. But you don't get to be more effective than a group of people unless you also have a group of people. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:20:52 - [1370] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. Counting the wrecks I saw in Uedama, I suspect the number of destroyers needed is actually smaller. But even assuming what you say is the bare minimum - 35 destroyers, which being wildly conservative here - cost 10mil a piece - that's 350mil to take down a 1bill+ freighter that you probably have already scanned and know exactly what's in the cargo hold - and would attack unless you knew the loot would be worth it. A freighter by the way that is flying solo in hi-sec, that is pretty much defenseless other than CONCORD which you as gankers have well timed, so you know exactly what you need to take the freighter down and loot it. So for the cost of 350mil - you get at least a 200% profit and probably even more. You also destroy 300% what you spent in hull damage to your victim. So not only do you make a huge profit from your ganking, you also cause a lot more ISK damage to your victim - who like most freighter pilots in hi-sec fly solo - because they assume they are safe with CONCORD - or they assume 35 cheap dessies shouldn't be able to take down a freighter in hi-sec because hi-sec is suppose to be relatively safe (unless someone has wardecc'd you). Currently I think the RISK vs REWARD for gankers in hi-sec (not low-sec or nul-sec) is imbalanced. Gankers should have to put out more and sacrifice more if they want to gank in hi-sec. If gankers want to take down a 1bil freighter in hi-sec, then they ought to be willing to sacrifice 1bil in ship hulls to do it. After all - that's exactly what their victims are losing and have been losing like no tomorrow in Uedama and elsewhere.

Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 251	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:24:28 - [1371] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. Counting the wrecks I saw in Uedama, I suspect the number of destroyers needed is actually smaller. But even assuming what you say is the bare minimum - 35 destroyers, which being wildly conservative here - cost 10mil a piece - that's 350mil to take down a 1bill+ freighter that you probably have already scanned and know exactly what's in the cargo hold - and would attack unless you knew the loot would be worth it. A freighter by the way that is flying solo in hi-sec, that is pretty much defenseless other than CONCORD which you as gankers have well timed, so you know exactly what you need to take the freighter down and loot it. So for the cost of 350mil - you get at least a 200% profit and probably even more. You also destroy 300% what you spent in hull damage to your victim. So not only do you make a huge profit from your ganking, you also cause a lot more ISK damage to your victim - who like most freighter pilots in hi-sec fly solo - because they assume they are safe with CONCORD - or they assume 35 cheap dessies shouldn't be able to take down a freighter in hi-sec because hi-sec is suppose to be relatively safe (unless someone has wardecc'd you). Currently I think the RISK vs REWARD for gankers in hi-sec (not low-sec or nul-sec) is imbalanced. Gankers should have to put out more and sacrifice more if they want to gank in hi-sec. If gankers want to take down a 1bil freighter in hi-sec, then they ought to be willing to sacrifice 1bil in ship hulls to do it. After all - that's exactly what their victims are losing and have been losing like no tomorrow in Uedama and elsewhere. And with a 100,000 ISK frigate, you could have webbed that freighter into warp before the gankers even got a target lock. You can beat a group of 35 well organized people with 2 slightly organized people and the cost of a cheaply fit frigate. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:24:40 - [1372] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Bertucio wrote: Why invariably is the gankers answer to players who want to fly solo a hauler in hi-sec - that no, sorry you shouldn't play solo? How many times does one have to repeat that 1) there are quite a few players in Eve that play solo and enjoy playing solo 2) that Eve should allow for all types of play in the sandbox (it's a big universe) - not just group play and not just game mechanics that cater to gankers who like to prey upon defenseless easy victims? ps: By the way I have played Eve both in groups and solo. I like both. Sue me. Do you know what a single suicide ganker can kill all by himself with no help at all? Not much. One catalyst versus a freighter - even a crappily tanked one? Yeah, that's never gonna happen - so the actuality of it is that, in a strictly solo environment, the ganker has a significant disadvantage. The issue is, of course, that a group, even a disorganized one, will always be more effective at a given task in Eve than a solo person. PvP? Yep, the group wins, unless they're just utterly hopeless, or it's some weird scenario (stealth bomber versus a group of noob ships comes to mind for some reason). PvE? In general, yes, though the way most PvE payouts are done limits the size of the group, effectively. Mining? Definitely - any group is better than a solo player in terms of total yield. Hauling? Sure - a group can provide scouts and webbing support. You can absolutely play solo - by all means, feel free. But you don't get to be more effective than a group of people unless you also have a group of people. Sure - I agree with you on all your points. But my point is - is that right now in EVE - I suspect that a good number of players not only fly their ships solo in hi-sec (and mission solo) but also haul their stuff solo in hi-sec. And that you are limiting their game play if you insist that they should fly this new Bowhead ship in a fleet. Unless that really is the design intent of the ship - that it shouldn't be flown solo - but only in groups. Then fine. I think that will limit the utility of the ship for many Eve players - since you're forcing solo players in hi-sec to play in a way that they currently don't play in this sandbox called Eve. Is it just me, or is there some kind of prejudice against solo players? What the heck is wrong with wanting to be a solo industrialist in Eve? Or having an alt that is a solo Industrialist? Am I the only one that has an alt that does this? I doubt it very much tbh.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:26:59 - [1373] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Bertucio wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. Counting the wrecks I saw in Uedama, I suspect the number of destroyers needed is actually smaller. But even assuming what you say is the bare minimum - 35 destroyers, which being wildly conservative here - cost 10mil a piece - that's 350mil to take down a 1bill+ freighter that you probably have already scanned and know exactly what's in the cargo hold - and would attack unless you knew the loot would be worth it. A freighter by the way that is flying solo in hi-sec, that is pretty much defenseless other than CONCORD which you as gankers have well timed, so you know exactly what you need to take the freighter down and loot it. So for the cost of 350mil - you get at least a 200% profit and probably even more. You also destroy 300% what you spent in hull damage to your victim. So not only do you make a huge profit from your ganking, you also cause a lot more ISK damage to your victim - who like most freighter pilots in hi-sec fly solo - because they assume they are safe with CONCORD - or they assume 35 cheap dessies shouldn't be able to take down a freighter in hi-sec because hi-sec is suppose to be relatively safe (unless someone has wardecc'd you). Currently I think the RISK vs REWARD for gankers in hi-sec (not low-sec or nul-sec) is imbalanced. Gankers should have to put out more and sacrifice more if they want to gank in hi-sec. If gankers want to take down a 1bil freighter in hi-sec, then they ought to be willing to sacrifice 1bil in ship hulls to do it. After all - that's exactly what their victims are losing and have been losing like no tomorrow in Uedama and elsewhere. And with a 100,000 ISK frigate, you could have webbed that freighter into warp before the gankers even got a target lock. You can beat a group of 35 well organized people with 2 slightly organized people and the cost of a cheaply fit frigate. Sure you can. But so you're saying that anyone who flies a Bowhead now should fly with someone else? Is that really the design intent of the ship? That you MUST fly with someone else? Frankly, I don't think this is what many players had in mind when they asked for the tugboat... i.e. every time they took it out they have to have to "web" it out of warp just to avoid a bunch of gankers in Uedama who want to force PvP play upon hi-sec players.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 251	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:28:17 - [1374] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Is it just me, or is there some kind of prejudice against solo players? What the heck is wrong with wanting to be a solo industrialist in Eve? Or having an alt that is a solo Industrialist? Am I the only one that has an alt that does this? I doubt it very much tbh. There's nothing wrong with it. But your expectations are out of whack if you reasonably expect your solo toon to be more effective at competing than a group. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:30:49 - [1375] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Bertucio wrote: Is it just me, or is there some kind of prejudice against solo players? What the heck is wrong with wanting to be a solo industrialist in Eve? Or having an alt that is a solo Industrialist? Am I the only one that has an alt that does this? I doubt it very much tbh. There's nothing wrong with it. But your expectations are out of whack if you reasonably expect your solo toon to be more effective at competing than a group. That's your wording - my expectations are out of whack. I think a lot of players expectations in hi-sec is to be able to fly their haulers solo. Including their freighters. At least that is the reality right now. If you're arguing that reality should change and everyone should now fly with some partner - well, I doubt that is going to be happening anytime soon. People will simply avoid the Bowhead - at least those who fly in hi-sec for safety, and will go back to single ship transport. Less risk - less susceptibility to gankers. It's to bad - because I think a lot of players in hi-sec were looking forward to the tugboat. But what is out of whack is this expectation that a lot of Eve players will team up to fly it.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1282	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:37:24 - [1376] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 1) there are quite a few players in Eve that play solo and enjoy playing solo I play "solo" most of the time and I have never been ganked in a hauler (Orca on down) in high-sec because it is laughably easy to avoid it (and I don't fly a freighter because I a) don't need it and never will, and b) don't bother with a second account): pick the right ship for the job, tank it and fit it as needed (don't forget about "align" and "cloak" tanks!), stay at the keyboard, warp to 0, bring friends as needed, don't haul overly expensive stuff in it, etc... I play the game, I don't put things on autopilot and expect it to get there in one piece because this is a game all about player interaction, and anyone can ruin your day at a moment's notice if you don't actually play. Bertucio wrote: If you're arguing that reality should change and everyone should now fly with some partner - well, I doubt that is going to be happening anytime soon. People will simply avoid the Bowhead - at least those who fly in hi-sec for safety, and will go back to single ship transport. Less risk - less susceptibility to gankers. As always, it is up to the player to make choices on how and when something is to be flown. That's the great thing about this game, even flying "solo" you can and will affect other's actions (in this case, to gank something else). The entitlement here from people who want everything delivered to them on a silver platter with no effort or having some expectation that other people cannot affect them in a free-market PvP game is just disgusting. This thing has midslots and oodles of fitting options, plus plenty of inherent tank. I don't see any problems with it, although I'll bow to the CSM rep here and agree that it could use a bit more tank, but it's pretty solid as-is. Can it MWD align? CCP has no sense of humour.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 1	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:50:31 - [1377] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Someone asked why I think the Bowhead could stand a shade more EHP shield/armor/hull 10750/6900/46000 orca 21000 / 11000 / 39500 bowhead 90000/30000/250000 rorqual 14000/40000/110000 obelisk It depends on how you look at it and where you think it fits in the spectrum of ships, I suppose. If it fits capital rigs then I would assume that it will have the structure to hold them and then the hull needs some thickening. If it is a distant cousin of the Orca then I would say the cap rigs are inappropriate. Some of you have compared it to the Rorqual (poor things really need to be looked to) but it is no where near it in tank. So I ask, who is the Bowhead closest to and how does its tank/structure compare with theirs? If it is flying as a capital level freighter then it should be tanked accordingly. If it is not then change the rigs and we can discuss it vis a vis the Orca m it was stated at one point that the bowhead was a capital class ship, so i agree that it should be tanked like one. the problems we come to are: 1. if it is a freighter then i agree that the hp S/A/H should be treated as such. 2. if it is a capital then it should be able to be tanked as such. 3. EHP and raw hp are 2 different things and people should stop talking about ehp ( oh i have this much EHP) but you shoot me in one of the low resists and your EHP does not mean squat.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 21:51:56 - [1378] - Quote Some Rando wrote: As always, it is up to the player to make choices on how and when something is to be flown. That's the great thing about this game, even flying "solo" you can and will affect other's actions (in this case, to gank something else). The entitlement here from people who want everything delivered to them on a silver platter with no effort or having some expectation that other people cannot affect them in a free-market PvP game is just disgusting. This thing has midslots and oodles of fitting options, plus plenty of inherent tank. I don't see any problems with it, although I'll bow to the CSM rep here and agree that it could use a bit more tank, but it's pretty solid as-is. Can it MWD align? Actually it's the gankers here that have been arguing for "entitlement" i.e. their entitlement to use a bunch of cheap dessies to take down a Billion+ freighter and its goods. You don't see any problems but many of us do i.e. it's pretty straightforward these days to take down a freighter in Uedama by a group of cheap dessies. In fact, there's not much of a challenge taking down a defenseless ship in hi-sec, and I often wonder if the griefers have anything more challenging in life to do. But hey, not my cup of tea. On a side note: you can't lift yourself up with your own bootstraps if you don't have any boots.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1282	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:05:17 - [1379] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Actually it's the gankers here that have been arguing for "entitlement" i.e. their entitlement to use a bunch of cheap dessies to take down a Billion+ freighter and its goods. So basically what you're saying is that if I fit a 1 billion ISK module to my frigate it should be unkillable without someone bringing 1 billion ISK worth of other ships? That's ridiculous, and why cost should never be a major balancing factor. EVE isn't a pay-to-win game. CCP has no sense of humour.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:10:45 - [1380] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Bertucio wrote: Actually it's the gankers here that have been arguing for "entitlement" i.e. their entitlement to use a bunch of cheap dessies to take down a Billion+ freighter and its goods. So basically what you're saying is that if I fit a 1 billion ISK module to my frigate it should be unkillable without someone bringing 1 billion ISK worth of other ships? That's ridiculous, and why cost should never be a major balancing factor. EVE isn't a pay-to-win game. 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. That gankers shouldn't be entitled to take it down unless they also risk what the freighter pilot is risking - a billion ISK. I don't think it's ridiculous. I think it's reasonable. RISK vs REWARD. Right now gankers want to risk a lot less than the Industrialist flying a freighter. The Industrialist has already put much effort and TIME to build his freighter and use it for shipping. While how much time and ISK does it take for 20 so cheap dessy gankers to take that ship down? There is no design equivalency right now. The gankers feel they are entitled because of some kind of motto that in EVE, everyone should be forced to group up or PvP - so entitled gankers have nothing to whine about.

Masao Kurata Z List 139	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:11:32 - [1381] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. Counting the wrecks I saw in Uedama ...is irrelevant. We're talking about a tanked bowhead, not a freighter. As to the rest of your points, no you do not have the right to play solo without other players interfering in your gameplay. If you want a single player space trading simulator, there are a number out there, EVE isn't one. Might is right here.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:16:38 - [1382] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. Counting the wrecks I saw in Uedama ...is irrelevant. We're talking about a tanked bowhead, not a freighter. As to the rest of your points, no you do not have the right to play solo without other players interfering in your gameplay. If you want a single player space trading simulator, there are a number out there, EVE isn't one. Might is right here. Irrelevant? Bowhead is suppose to be some kind freighter level ship. It is going to be a capital ship at the least. Perhaps not an expensive freighter but nevertheless somewhere between 700mil to 1bil is my guess. Maybe Orca level. How you find that irrelevant is beyond my ken. Hey - It's not just me who flies solo and does solo stuff in Eve. If you think I'm some kind of anomaly player in hi-sec i.e. there are not a lot of solo missioners or people who haul their stuff solo or would want to use a ship hauling tugboat solo - then tbh, you're better off believing in Never Never Land - because there are lots of Eve players who do play solo and enjoy it.
Masao Kurata Z List 139	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:17:37 - [1383] - Quote It's irrelevant because the bowheap's peak EHP is much higher than any T1 freighter.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:19:22 - [1384] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: It's irrelevant because the bowheap's peak EHP is much higher than any T1 freighter. .... Irrelevant, since you know as well as I that the current cheap dessy paradigm in Uedama will still be able to take the Bow down - risking a lot less ISK than it's actually worth.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1282	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:20:45 - [1385] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 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. That gankers shouldn't be entitled to take it down unless they also risk what the freighter pilot is risking - a billion ISK. Let me get this straight, if I undock a shuttle with 30 PLEX in it, the amount of ships needed to kill my shuttle should be equivalent to the current value of 30 PLEX? Is that your reasoning? CCP has no sense of humour.
Bertucio Chandra Labs 15	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:26:01 - [1386] - Quote Some Rando wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. That gankers shouldn't be entitled to take it down unless they also risk what the freighter pilot is risking - a billion ISK. Let me get this straight, if I undock a shuttle with 30 PLEX in it, the amount of ships needed to kill my shuttle should be equivalent to the current value of 30 PLEX? Is that your reasoning? Let me get this straight, shipping 30 PLEX is the same as a slow freighter flying through Uedama? Because if you're arguing that 30 PLEX is the same as a freighter trying to transport stuff through Uedama is the same then your argument is irrelevant. The two are not the same.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1282	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:46:04 - [1387] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Let me get this straight, shipping 30 PLEX is the same as a slow freighter flying through Uedama? If you weren't hauling expensive stuff in that freighter your chances of being a target would go down astronomically because ganking costs time and ISK, same as the freighter. If it takes 35 dudes in Catalysts (minimum) to take down a (well-tanked) Bowhead the manpower cost is quite high; you need a guy to scan Bowheads looking for a good profit, you need a guy to bump, you need 35 dudes all sitting around waiting on a moment's notice to undock and bring down righteous fury on the careless carebear, ~~you need a guy in a freighter to scoop the loot (that's a major risk) or~~ multiple guys to hop in those ships (still a major risk), you need alts to bring in ganking gear, you need market alts to sell the goods,, etc... The time in person-hours required to take down a Bowhead with destroyers is substantial if you want to be profitable. If you're doing it "for lulz" you still need financing and logistics, which might come from donations (in CODE.'s case) which involves the toil of many other people. A ton of effort goes into a successful gank. Your argument about the effort of and cost to a single player is irrelevant compared to the organization required for ganking. Bertucio wrote: Because if you're arguing that shipping 30 PLEX is the same as a freighter trying to transport stuff through Uedama then your argument is irrelevant. The two are not the same. Your argument amounts to cost being the balancing factor, so they are the same thing. Is not the sweat of my brow equal in worth to yours? CCP has no sense of humour.
Masao Kurata Z List 140	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:46:45 - [1388] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: It's irrelevant because the bowheap's peak EHP is much higher than any T1 freighter. .... Irrelevant, since you know as well as I that the current cheap dessy paradigm in Uedama will still be able to take the Bow down - risking a lot less ISK than it's actually worth. If one pilot could fly a large number of ships by remote you would have something resembling a point, as it is you do not.
Masao Kurata Z List 140	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:47:50 - [1389] - Quote Some Rando wrote: If it takes 35 dudes in Catalysts (minimum) to take down a freighter A well tanked bowhead which isn't AFK, not a freighter, and that's if using destroyers.
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1282	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:52:47 - [1390] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: A well tanked bowhead which isn't AFK, not a freighter, and that's if using destroyers. Thank you for the correction. CCP has no sense of humour.

Fruckton Haulalot Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2014.11.13 22:54:56 - [1391] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: It's irrelevant because the bowheap's peak EHP is much higher than any T1 freighter. .... Irrelevant, since you know as well as I that the current cheap dessy paradigm in Uedama will still be able to take the Bow down - risking a lot less ISK than it's actually worth. If one pilot could fly a large number of ships by remote you would have something resembling a point, as it is you do not. you sire are mistaken... there are several players who fly multiple ships aka accounts... there are nurmerous players who feild 10 to 20 accounts at a time ... there are a few... who can and do feild 40 or more accounts at a time for ganking.
Masao Kurata Z List 140	Posted - 2014.11.13 23:01:19 - [1392] - Quote Fruckton Haulalot wrote: you sire are mistaken... I'm not royalty but thanks. Quote: there are several players who fly multiple ships aka accounts... I said pilot, not player. That said I am wholly opposed to isboxer and think it's shameful that CCP haven't strictly forbidden its use. Quote: there are nurmerous players who feild 10 to 20 accounts at a time ... there are a few... who can and do feild 40 or more accounts at a time for ganking. Well if anyone's multiboxing 40 gankers by himself, which I have seen no evidence of, he must be incredibly lazy because he sure isn't ganking much.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13889	Posted - 2014.11.13 23:41:52 - [1393] - Quote Bertucio wrote: 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. . There is a megathron in EVE worth around 5-10 trillion isk. Using your logic, this ship should have a tank greater than a fleet of titans. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 3	Posted - 2014.11.13 23:49:53 - [1394] - Quote Could we come back on the subject aka the ship himself and let the suicide ganking discussion for another time ... -What about the new skill , it doesn't seem right to me to introduce a third skill affecting ORE ship line . -Introduction of an Ore bay ? -Bonus to warp speed for the hull ? 10 % per level ? -Removal of the jump fatigue bonus ? -BP and ship available trought concord LP ? -A little more space in the SMA at lvl 4 of the skill to carry 3 different type of pirate BS + a logi ? -Cpu is a bit short for fitting 2 invul t2+ a mwd meta 4
Masao Kurata Z List 140	Posted - 2014.11.14 00:15:17 - [1395] - Quote A warp speed per level bonus would be nice, though probably not necessary. The agility bonus is definitely unnecessary, its original agility was fine considering that it benefits from advanced spaceship command. The only change that needs to be made is reverting the stats back to version 1.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 105	Posted - 2014.11.14 00:15:37 - [1396] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. . There is a megathron in EVE worth around 5-10 trillion isk. Using your logic, this ship should have a tank greater than a fleet of titans. maybe only compare hull value and not mods
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13889	Posted - 2014.11.14 00:20:16 - [1397] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. . There is a megathron in EVE worth around 5-10 trillion isk. Using your logic, this ship should have a tank greater than a fleet of titans. maybe only compare hull value and not mods That is the hull. The mods only come to a paltry few hundred billion. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
KatanTharkay V I R I I Ineluctable. 48	Posted - 2014.11.14 00:47:32 - [1398] - Quote Can it get a high slot and fleet hangars, pretty please?
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 273	Posted - 2014.11.14 00:52:14 - [1399] - Quote The reality is that the only group in highsec that actually needs to move 3 battleships around at once is incursion runners, and most of them with either have vindi+mach+nm or vindi+nm+scimi+basi, Either way the hull value alone is getting close to 2 bil....and lots of highsec players will be sticking their expensive mods in as well, so we could easily be looking at 10 bil+ inside. I'm just hoping we don't start seeing these blowing up the same way we see jump freighters blowing up. Personally I'm gonna wait a couple of months to see the ganking level before I even consider flying this.
Rexxorr Zero Corp Tax3 73	Posted - 2014.11.14 00:54:43 - [1400] - Quote I 'am a mission runnner. This new ship has potential. What I would like to see is a trade off , tank vs ship carrying ability. The ability to carry four battleships at the expence of tank, or the ability to fit a large tank while only able to carry two or three battleships. Give it the ability to use a MJD , to reward active piloting. As it stands atm, I would hesitate to transport maruaders or priate battleships using the Bowhead.

Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 105	Posted - 2014.11.14 01:28:04 - [1401] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. . There is a megathron in EVE worth around 5-10 trillion isk. Using your logic, this ship should have a tank greater than a fleet of titans. maybe only compare hull value and not mods That is the hull. The mods only come to a paltry few hundred billion. build cost then
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1671	Posted - 2014.11.14 01:56:05 - [1402] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. . There is a megathron in EVE worth around 5-10 trillion isk. Using your logic, this ship should have a tank greater than a fleet of titans. maybe only compare hull value and not mods That is the hull. The mods only come to a paltry few hundred billion. build cost then It still comes down to the idea that the more money you throw at it the safer it should be.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 196	Posted - 2014.11.14 02:51:58 - [1403] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bertucio wrote: 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. . There is a megathron in EVE worth around 5-10 trillion isk. Using your logic, this ship should have a tank greater than a fleet of titans. maybe only compare hull value and not mods That is the hull. The mods only come to a paltry few hundred billion. build cost then Fine day to pick cherries... Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
captain foivos State War Academy Caldari State 259	Posted - 2014.11.14 03:01:54 - [1404] - Quote hey guys let's balance ship hulls on cost --CCP titan development team, 2005
Bertucio Chandra Labs 29	Posted - 2014.11.14 03:52:12 - [1405] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Could we come back on the subject aka the ship himself and let the suicide ganking discussion for another time ... -What about the new skill , it doesn't seem right to me to introduce a third skill affecting ORE ship line . -Introduction of an Ore bay ? -Bonus to warp speed for the hull ? 10 % per level ? -Removal of the jump fatigue bonus ? -BP and ship available trought concord LP ? -A little more space in the SMA at lvl 4 of the skill to carry 3 different type of pirate BS + a logi ? -Cpu is a bit short for fitting 2 invul t2+ a mwd meta 4 -The ship should be in the Interbus line -Note the role of the ship an Ore bay -Warp speed for a tugboat? Doesn't seem realistic and comparable to other T1 freighters or Orca. -Removal of jump fatigue bonus (just another way of nul-sec alliances trying to cheat on the power projection nerfs) -That will sure limit availability and won't add much to regular Industrialist players in Eve. So no. -Yeah I think 3 BS's seems a bit little and the 1st comments on this thread were to buff the SMA -Why more CPU? Since suicide ganking we shouldn't discuss and now is not even an issue. I agree with one of the earlier posters: I'm going to wait for this puppy since it seems pretty clear to me now that it's going to be released with not much more buff to it - basically because of the bias in Eve and ingrained entitlement of gankers (also known as griefers) to have a free roam in hi-sec. But then that's always the case when new stuff is put out - it is usually only about a half a year or year later of abuse that CCP finally get around to addressing the problem and it gets fixed. But hey that's Eve! As for me - I'm outta here!
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1693	Posted - 2014.11.14 04:37:10 - [1406] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The reality is that the only group in highsec that actually needs to move 3 battleships around at once is incursion runners, and most of them with either have vindi+mach+nm or vindi+nm+scimi+basi, Either way the hull value alone is getting close to 2 bil....and lots of highsec players will be sticking their expensive mods in as well, so we could easily be looking at 10 bil+ inside. I'm just hoping we don't start seeing these blowing up the same way we see jump freighters blowing up. Personally I'm gonna wait a couple of months to see the ganking level before I even consider flying this. As I said a number of pages back, if players stick 10 bil of Modules in this also expect to get Ganked. Based on current EHP numbers the bare hulls 'shouldn't' be worth ganking by a standard ABC gank, and are close in break even for a Catalyst gank which at about 50-60 needed is starting to get to the point they will be bumping each other out of effective range for small blasters possibly. It certainly shouldn't have it's EHP nerfed though or it becomes an auto profit for any real use that it would actually see in highsec, rather than this mythical pilot needing to move multiple T1 hulls who can't simply package them. And more fitting options would be nice. It would be interesting to see indy ships actually given plenty of fitting & slots to use. After all if someone wants to use it as bait with smart bombs, it should be allowed. The artificial restriction on all Indy ships on fitting is a large part of what hurts them and forces the base EHP numbers to be so high.
Burl en Daire M.O.M.S. Corp 76	Posted - 2014.11.14 04:48:16 - [1407] - Quote Sorry for the noob question, can a fitted ship in the ship maintenance array be used? If I am in a pod can I fly up to the Bowhead and enter the ship or can it be jettisoned for me to get into? Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson
Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 303	Posted - 2014.11.14 07:35:33 - [1408] - Quote Any news on courier contracting goodness? Travelling at the speed of love.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 89	Posted - 2014.11.14 07:44:01 - [1409] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Any news on courier contracting goodness? Not yet. Things people are waiting for answers to: Will this ship cause modifications to plastic wrapping ships in courier contracts? (Will we be able to haul plastic wrapped ships in the Bowhead? Will plastic wrapped ships still be courier-able via freighters and other ships) Will this ship have a Ship Maintenance Array (P.O.S. Module)? or a Ship maintenance Bay (Like every other ship that holds ships) Will we be able to board and load ships to/from this vessel in space? Will we be able to refit in ships in space using this ship? If you're also interested in the answers to these questions, please like this post!
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1871	Posted - 2014.11.14 08:38:18 - [1410] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: They need to move their single battleship alone. Since they are alone, there is no sense on usign a ship capable of moving 3 battleships at a time? This assumes they have only one ship to move. This is not the norm amongst Incursioners. So adapt.. as everyone in game adapts. You do not need several battleships. If you eel entitled to that.. PAY THE PRICE! Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Also.. you want to ccp take you by the hand? By resorting to such cliche and terrible personal attacks you discredit yourself which actually works against you in the long run. Where in the nine hells is that a personal attack? It is neither an attack neither personal. It is just a serious statement about the nature of the responses in this thread. If you think that is a personal attack, no wodner that eve is too harsh for you> probably a butterfly flapping its wings near you would be too harsh as well. Anonymous Forumposter wrote: It's a reality that is common for Incursioners to log in and have the entire focus moved in a matter of hours. Your ignorance of such a simple fact demonstrates your lack of context to effectively debate the situation thereby negating any validity you could have offered to the debate on this aspect. Aa pooor boy. What do you think happens for people in 0.0 or wormhoel space when their station or POS are attacked? Oo right. They COMMUNICATE and try to solve the issue. I am not ignroant of anything, I used to hunt you guys a lot. I know very well your movement patterns, and know that you guys could easily solve it, if you had a little bit of goodwill. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment

Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1871	Posted - 2014.11.14 08:41:56 - [1411] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: The reality is that the only group in highsec that actually needs to move 3 battleships around at once is incursion runners, and most of them with either have vindi+mach+nm or vindi+nm+scimi+basi, Either way the hull value alone is getting close to 2 bil....and lots of highsec players will be sticking their expensive mods in as well, so we could easily be looking at 10 bil+ inside. I'm just hoping we don't start seeing these blowing up the same way we see jump freighters blowing up. Personally I'm gonna wait a couple of months to see the ganking level before I even consider flying this. Nope. We do need to move our high end combat ships from one contract zone to the other. And out Ships are as expensive as incursion shiny fleets (usually ranging form 3 bil to 7 bil). But we do not whine as much... and in fact I think we were never ever ganked because we use brains. (Move modules in a blockade runner ) "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 90	Posted - 2014.11.14 08:58:26 - [1412] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Where in the nine hells is that a personal attack? It is neither an attack neither personal. Your inability to identify that as a personal attack isn't at all a surprise. It does however make me question what else you're incapable of having an unbiased judgement on. Kagura Nikon wrote: no wodner that eve is too harsh for you> probably a butterfly flapping its wings near you would be too harsh as well. Personal attack #2 and #3 I won't bother expecting you to be capable of recognizing those either. You're clearly deluded and emotional. Kagura Nikon wrote: Aa pooor boy. Personal attack #4, again, not holding my breath on you to realize let alone accept/admit it. Kagura Nikon wrote: What do you think happens for people in 0.0 or wormhoel space when their station or POS are attacked? Oo right. They COMMUNICATE and try to solve the issue. Comparing Null-sec and Wormhole space to high sec invalidates your entire argument. Kagura Nikon wrote: I am not ignroant of anything, You've already used this entire post to build an argument against this claim, only to contradict yourself with this. Not to mention the immutable fact that every single being in existence (That we can prove exists) is ignorant of something.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.14 09:36:21 - [1413] - Quote Quote: -The ship should be in the Interbus line -Which line is not the concern it's just that the skill progression doesn't feel natural for a hauler alt compared to the Rorqual and the Orca .It would make much sense to use Capital industrial ship for the first bonus and Capital ship for the other . Quote: -Not the role of the ship -You can deny that this ship is some sort of Orca's big brother, and will be used in the same way.Some incursion community make great use of this bay to haul the necessary ore to complete some of their sites.It would be nice to add one. Quote: -Warp speed for a tugboat? Doesn't seem realistic and comparable to other T1 freighters or Orca. -Why not a 10 % bonus would give a max warspeed of 2.2 tie this to capital ship skill and you have a nice trade off skill vs warspeed. it would remove the need of an High grade Ascendancy set to get decent use of the ship and reduce the bill if u get ganked + podded. Quote: -That will sure limit availability and won't add much to regular Industrialist players in Eve. So no. Underestimating the amount of LP stored by incursionners:) + as they will be the main users once again it would make sense , worst case you have to farm incursion to farm the LP ,we have seen less profitable way to farm ... Quote: -Why more CPU? Since suicide ganking we shouldn't discuss and now is not even an issue. As specified a bit more CPU to fit 2 x t2 Hardener or to 2 x t2 invul because they aren't only Catalyst and Talos roaming in space ^^ To Kagura Nikon : I'd be please that you do not tie whining to "incursionners" as we are mostly complete strangers to ganking problems mostly because we don't move our BS faction fitted ... This whole thread as been derailed on the freighter subject + i doubt any sane incursionners would fit BS faction fitted in that hull. But you can deny the entry Bill for doing a proper use of this ship is quite hight ! -HULL (2b)+3 rigs (700M)+3 BS (2.2 B)+warpspeed implants because freaking slow (2B) +2 other + 6 % implants (hull+ agi) = 7.4 B to do max use of the hull is not pocket money even for an incursionner
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1395	Posted - 2014.11.14 10:07:57 - [1414] - Quote The bowhead as a tool to do indirect mass projection in null seems fine to me. Given that i can only mass-transport frigates, I don't see the problem... Its a nice way of mitigating the jump fatigue changes for those willing to fight in small ships instead of supercaps. I always thought that fatigue should scale depending of the mass of the ship you bridge. Well, this is a nice indirect realization of that thought. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
Bagrat Skalski Poseidaon 6231	Posted - 2014.11.14 10:44:12 - [1415] - Quote In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. Recon makes them stronger
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 90	Posted - 2014.11.14 10:51:31 - [1416] - Quote Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. I suspect the reasons they aren't adding a drone bay is "Because none of the other freighters have them." The role as an in space depot is already the secondary/tertiary activity built into this ship designed to move ships from one station to another.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 89	Posted - 2014.11.14 11:47:48 - [1417] - Quote So far the usage of the bowhead has only been stated as incursion usage - which is far too limited. Any ship in Eve can and is used for many different purposes . So specializing this just for incursion runners is plain out wrong. The industry changes in Crius forced industrialist to rethink how they establish themselves - it has become much more dynamic due to system cost index. The bowhead fills this role as well. Entire mining fleets being moved by a indy corporation into a new area of operations is another use case for the new ship - any kind of moving a fleet to a new ops area basically qualifies for this. As with any freighter related business this ship doesn't really introduce any new challenges. Serious players will not move solo around with a freighter right now and they will not with this new ship either - unless they are too homophobic to play along with other players or are plain out 'advice resistant'. CCP -please do not continue to make the game more and more a solo game - we have enough offline games for that. Not each and every ship type has to be defined in a way that it only requires a single person to 'get the job done'. Moving large amounts of valuable assets has to be risky when done solo. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5500	Posted - 2014.11.14 12:09:31 - [1418] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: You're making my point for me and don't even realize it in your rush to argue - follow along closely this time.... CCP did not try to remove hisec criminality, they only nerfed/tweaked/adjusted/whatever'd it. Had they wanted to remove criminal behavior in hisec, the crimewatch revamp would've been a really opportune time to do it. - feel free to insert whatever term you feel is most genuine here - again, it is not relevant to the point unless you use "removed", and then you'd be being disingenuous again. Sigh Why is it so hard to be civil to others when trying to make a point? As to your point, I've already stated numerous times that I don't believe high sec should be completely safe and I don't think criminality should be completely removed from the game. What I have said is that the balance for this activity is STILL not there and in my opinion needs work. So considering that I already agreed with the point you're trying to make and that I made it long before you even posted this response, it appears that you are the one that is arguing for the sake of it. You're the one that took issue with my point when you misunderstood it. If you agree, then why are you arguing with me? My post wasn't even addressing you, it was addressing others that feel hisec should be safe, and I didn't quote anyone. If you want to be civil, perhaps you could back down occasionally and take ownership when you're in the wrong instead of bull-headedly arguing just for the sake of arguing. You picked this argument, you misunderstood and now you try and put it on me? Yeah, that's civil. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 18	Posted - 2014.11.14 12:17:03 - [1419] - Quote Does there remain the possibility that CCP will clarify the SMA vs SMB query? The OP still says 'Array' - and they are different.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5500	Posted - 2014.11.14 12:25:50 - [1420] - Quote I like the solo pilot argument for balance versus a gang. It makes so much sense! I like soloing too - we need a ship that is capable of ganking freighters solo in hisec. I will gladly pay the hull price equivalent of the ship I intend to gank so it will also be isk balanced. Now how many solo freighter pilots think this is a good idea? It fits your need for isk equality and solo capability. Come on, step right up and either support the idea or admit you're being selfish in that you really only want your solo capability enhanced, not everyone's. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

Ix Method Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 304	Posted - 2014.11.14 12:29:29 - [1421] - Quote Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. Another way to 'break free of the empires', etc, etc. A 25/75 bay for Logi Drones might be a nice touch without meaningfully improving its defence. But then I guess you could say the same for a high for an Improved Cloak, in the end you could lump all sorts of **** onto this for all kinds of reasons. Travelling at the speed of love.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5500	Posted - 2014.11.14 12:36:29 - [1422] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. Another way to 'break free of the empires', etc, etc. A 25/75 bay for Logi Drones might be a nice touch without meaningfully improving its defence. But then I guess you could say the same for a high for an Improved Cloak, in the end you could lump all sorts of **** onto this for all kinds of reasons. Oooh, that gave me an idea (not a sarcastic one either)... The Bowhead could be allowed to repair other ships and make it a floating garage. Ships in the SMB could be right-click repaired by the pilot - including module overheat damage. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.14 13:43:17 - [1423] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Bertucio wrote: This does make me wonder if the real design goal of the Bowhead is just to provide more cannon fodder for gankers? Since as it stands now - unless you fly with it in a fleet or dual account play and have some kind of logistics, you're going to have to say bye bye to your Bowhead everytime a group of 20 cheap dessies and their CODE? leader want to gank it in hi-sec. 35 destroyers if you tank it properly. And if you're flying solo. If you're caught at all with your 10 second warps. If the fc can even get 35 gankers. Who by the way have to all have perfect skills for this calculation. And if nobody makes any mistakes. And if there is no interference reducing the effective firepower of the fleet. And if you ignore the huge red circle of death on your star map from the activity of such a large, well trained gank fleet. It's called isboxer :) There are entire fleets of them. Some ganking in HS. Some flying SBs in 0.0, some doing incursions with 30 something pirate battleships.
Valterra Craven 364	Posted - 2014.11.14 14:51:00 - [1424] - Quote War Kitten wrote: My post wasn't even addressing you, it was addressing others that feel hisec should be safe, and I didn't quote anyone. No, your original post did not quote me. But when I asked you to back up your claims, every other post you made after did: War Kitten wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: War Kitten wrote: For those of you that think hisec should be safe, ponder this... CCP recently revamped how the crimewatch criminal flagging system works. Can flipping disappeared, and hisec combat in general took a pretty big nerf with the new suspect flag making criminals vulnerable to all. If you commit a crime in hisec, everyone can shoot at you now - not just the person you stole from. Given the nature of the beast I'm not sure that you can factually make this claim. I'm not per se saying you are wrong, just that I don't believe their is enough evidence to make that claim. I see plenty of bait blinky yellows around minnie systems that have lots of traffic in it. All crimewatch has done is condition people not to be stupid enough to shoot those blinky players given the way the mechanics of assistance are so foolishly laid out. The quirks of crimewatch's implementation are secondary to my point. Don't be obtuse. If CCP intended hisec to be safe, they would have made it so by now. Now, the original point you made was that due to all of the changes over that years that high sec ganking and and other activities have been drastically cut down. My point was that I could see no evidence of this, nor did you provide any data to back your assertion up. All of this other tangential business aside, are you going to try to provide the data are aren't you? Keep in mind that while CCP does have a history of making changes, those changes don't necessarily work out the way they intend them too. Given the amount of people in this thread saying that the bowhead should have more HP so that it is not easy to gank and given all of the anecdotal evidence to the contrary of your point, I don't believe you can back up you argument.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 257	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:06:43 - [1425] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Ix Method wrote: Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. Another way to 'break free of the empires', etc, etc. A 25/75 bay for Logi Drones might be a nice touch without meaningfully improving its defence. But then I guess you could say the same for a high for an Improved Cloak, in the end you could lump all sorts of **** onto this for all kinds of reasons. Oooh, that gave me an idea (not a sarcastic one either)... The Bowhead could be allowed to repair other ships and make it a floating garage. Ships in the SMB could be right-click repaired by the pilot - including module overheat damage. If this goes through I will do two things. A) Immediately invest every scrap of liquid ISK I havbe in Nanite Paste. B) Have your children. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 229	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:09:30 - [1426] - Quote For a ship designed specifically for hisec use, I'm surprised it even has a jump drive. Considering that everyone has been arguing why the ship that absolutely needed it, the Nestor, doesn't have one.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 92	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:10:24 - [1427] - Quote SFM Hobb3s wrote: For a ship designed specifically for hisec use, I'm surprised it even has a jump drive. Considering that everyone has been arguing why the ship that absolutely needed it, the Nestor, doesn't have one. Because it DOESN'T have a jump drive. That's why.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 89	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:11:31 - [1428] - Quote SFM Hobb3s wrote: For a ship designed specifically for hisec use, I'm surprised it even has a jump drive. Considering that everyone has been arguing why the ship that absolutely needed it, the Nestor, doesn't have one. Its not a jump drive but the bonus of reducing jump fatigue by 90% - when using a jump bridge like other haulers. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9009	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:56:16 - [1429] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Ix Method wrote: Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? Small drone bay would even make this ship capable of repairing other ships outside the maintenance bay. Or even limited self defence. Why only hauling other ships?? In a hull like that, there should be secondary and tertiary activity build in for a limited small scale support. Another way to 'break free of the empires', etc, etc. A 25/75 bay for Logi Drones might be a nice touch without meaningfully improving its defence. But then I guess you could say the same for a high for an Improved Cloak, in the end you could lump all sorts of **** onto this for all kinds of reasons. Oooh, that gave me an idea (not a sarcastic one either)... The Bowhead could be allowed to repair other ships and make it a floating garage. Ships in the SMB could be right-click repaired by the pilot - including module overheat damage. Like this from another game universe? :)
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5505	Posted - 2014.11.14 15:57:02 - [1430] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Now, the original point you made was that due to all of the changes over the years that high sec ganking and and other activities have been drastically cut down. This is where you went wrong - I'll ignore the rest of your post because your premise is flawed. That was not the point I made. I did say that the modification to crimewatch was a nerf to hisec criminality, but that was not my point. It was just to establish the fact that CCP visited hisec crime mechanics recently. You can argue that all you like about whether it is a nerf or not until you're blue in the face - it is not my point, as I've stated a few times now. In your rush to argue, you're still pants-on-head and head-in-the-sand wrong and being obtuse. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 16	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:11:55 - [1431] - Quote +1 for the Bowhead/ Space Tug Finally my very own space tug I can haul my ships in. While incursion runners may use them for their shiny ships, I have lots of small ships I would like to haul here and there. When I need to move to another region I can just load up and go, awesome.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1008	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:23:06 - [1432] - Quote Euripedies wrote: +1 for the Bowhead/ Space Tug Finally my very own space tug I can haul my ships in. While incursion runners may use them for their shiny ships, I have lots of small ships I would like to haul here and there. When I need to move to another region I can just load up and go, awesome. See? A use case. The fact that the ship isn't being custom tailored to the whims of the single example proffered by the devblog does not obviate the entire ship's purpose. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 342	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:31:02 - [1433] - Quote Bagrat Skalski wrote: In a ship so huge, why there would be no drone bay? titans don't have a drone bay
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:36:11 - [1434] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Ix Method wrote: Any news on courier contracting goodness? Not yet. Things people are waiting for answers to: 1) Will this ship cause modifications to plastic wrapping ships in courier contracts? - a) Will we be able to haul plastic wrapped ships in the Bowhead? - b) Will plastic wrapped ships still be courier-able via freighters and other ships 2) SMA or SMB? - a) Will this ship have a Ship Maintenance Array (P.O.S. Module that holds both packaged and unpackaged ships and also allows you to assemble ships inside it.)? - b) or a Ship Maintenance Bay (Like every other ship that holds ships) 3) Will we be able to board and load ships to/from this vessel in space? 4) Will we be able to refit ships in space using this ship? If you're also interested in the answers to these questions, please like this post! 1.a) no since it is a ship for hauling ships, plastic wrap is not a ship. 1.b) IDK but i think that it will be changed to not allow it. 2.a) probably not since it is intended to haul "assembled and rigged ships". 2.b) this part was stated as part of the ship, so i assume it to still be this way. 3) probably not since it does not have a ship maintenance bay. 4) probably not since it does not have a ship maintenance bay that works to generate refitting services. this is only my understanding of it and may be changed by the devs... i hope it will have refitting and a fleet hanger.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 20	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:37:32 - [1435] - Quote Bertucio wrote: Actually it's the gankers here that have been arguing for "entitlement" i.e. their entitlement to use a bunch of cheap dessies to take down a Billion+ freighter and its goods. You don't see any problems but many of us do i.e. it's pretty straightforward these days to take down a freighter in Uedama by a group of cheap dessies. In fact, there's not much of a challenge taking down a defenseless ship in hi-sec, and I often wonder if the griefers have anything more challenging in life to do. But hey, not my cup of tea. You just said "I've never done this activity, but I will tell you all about this activity as if i've ever done it"
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1367	Posted - 2014.11.14 16:47:01 - [1436] - Quote Querns wrote: Euripedies wrote: +1 for the Bowhead/ Space Tug Finally my very own space tug I can haul my ships in. While incursion runners may use them for their shiny ships, I have lots of small ships I would like to haul here and there. When I need to move to another region I can just load up and go, awesome. See? A use case. The fact that the ship isn't being custom tailored to the whims of the single example proffered by the devblog does not obviate the entire ship's purpose. The only small issue I ave with this is the thing was stated to be geared toward incursion runners when it was first talked about. I'm not saying the ship is bad or anything, just that it ended up missing it's intended target. If we can unload fitted ships in space, it will be a dream come true for ganking squads imo and that mean a second use case.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:09:38 - [1437] - Quote Stating these ships are made for high sec use was a mistake. By far the most use these ships will see will be outside of high sec where the demand for moving large numbers of fitted ships is very high. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:12:02 - [1438] - Quote this will probably be my only contribution to this topic, so i will try to sum up my thoughts on this as concisely as possible. 1. usefulness: given that the hull cost will probably be in the billions and the complementary skill will be a long train, there has to be a damn good use case or else this hull will not be used a lot. i myself have quite a few rigged hulls lying around across hisec and i'm still not sure if i want to go through the trouble of getting one of those. this leads me to believe that indeed, only incursion runners will make regular use of the hull. 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. as we all know, miniluv and CODE are not the only groups killing freighters for sport (and good for them), so the question of dropping ship hulls from the maintainance bay (array?) is less important than the question of exposing expensive assets. 2.1 unfitting shiny mods: this is not a viable solution, not because it makes players choose between tedium and danger (as this balance is present in many parts of EVE), but because it requires a second trip or a second char. if you need to fly twice or have two toons anyway, you might as well fly your ships manually and enjoy faster align times and faster warp speeds. 3. conclusion: if CCP wants to give the hull a solid role, they have to cater to incursion runners, which means raising the EHP to almost 7 digit levels at least. that said, i have no problem accepting another eccentric and underused hull into the EVE universe to counteract the gleichschaltung that is taking place in other areas. I should buy an Ishtar.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:15:44 - [1439] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:19:36 - [1440] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: this will probably be my only contribution to this topic, so i will try to sum up my thoughts on this as concisely as possible. 1. usefulness: given that the hull cost will probably be in the billions and the complementary skill will be a long train. the skill will probably not be any more time than a current freighter skill. maybe x6 training time so maybe an hour for level 1. and the ship "should be" on par with the other freighters for price in the end.

Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:20:14 - [1441] - Quote Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool. I should buy an Ishtar.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:20:30 - [1442] - Quote The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 74	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:24:14 - [1443] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Stating these ships are made for high sec use was a mistake. By far the most use these ships will see will be outside of high sec where the demand for moving large numbers of fitted ships is very high. Okay Baltec, you know i enjoy your usual sense of crazy, and you have given me some of your nut ball fits when i asked nicely. But if i might be so bold, How do you know what they were thinking? I assume the person who typed the post, and presumably had some impact on the design of the ship, might know what he was thinking when he typed the text, and maybe actually remembered what the internal discussions were like. I should expect Rise to have a functional memory at the very least...
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 276	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:24:36 - [1444] - Quote Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:24:59 - [1445] - Quote Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. so we are back to tedium vs. risk. in that case, the best solution would be to not waste time and effort on avoiding ganks and move your hulls the old way, which defeats the purpose of the new ship. and to restate it, i have no horse in this race, i'm just predicting what will likely happen. I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:28:18 - [1446] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool. No cargo ship should ever be virtually ungankable right out of the box. If you want that level of security then you must put in the effort to do it yourself. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:28:19 - [1447] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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. See, now you're just making things up. Titans die all the time. Case in point: A small alliane, LowSechnaya Sholupen, killed a Northern Coalitiondot titan very recently. There are 11 people on the mail, and the bulk of the DPS was applied via simple dreadnought. Northern Coalitiondot currently controls more space than we do. Your views on eve are, frankly, extremely myopic, and your failure to actually understand the reality of the situation casts quite a bit of doubt over your ability to think objectively outside of your own vignette. e: LowSechnaya Sholupen is an alliance, not a corporation. My apologies. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:30:33 - [1448] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool. No cargo ship should ever be virtually ungankable right out of the box. If you want that level of security then you must put in the effort to do it yourself. if that is true, then this ship will not find any use to speak of, at least not in hisec. I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:31:53 - [1449] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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. Solo titans are far from invincible. They are infact entirely helpless if caught by a small gang of subcaps armed with neuts and a hic/dic. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:31:58 - [1450] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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. See, now you're just making things up. Titans die all the time. Case in point: A small corporation, LowSechnaya Sholupen, killed a Northern Coalitiondot titan very recently. There are 11 people on the mail, and the bulk of the DPS was applied via simple dreadnought. Northern Coalitiondot currently controls more space than we do. Your views on eve are, frankly, extremely myopic, and your failure to actually understand the reality of the situation casts quite a bit of doubt over your ability to think objectively outside of your own vignette. 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.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:32:44 - [1451] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool. No cargo ship should ever be virtually ungankable right out of the box. If you want that level of security then you must put in the effort to do it yourself. if that is true, then this ship will not find any use to speak of, at least not in hisec. There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1989	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:33:29 - [1452] - Quote its not just incursion runners that are going to be using these. this makes moving assembled ships easier for everyone. but it should not make it free and easy. if you want to load it up with everything at once, then accept some risk or get some help FFS. If you dislike risk and friends as much as veers, then sure, keep putting in the work cloaky-mwd-ing about. Ppl will use these, even if not every incursion runner will. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:33:38 - [1453] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: 2. ganking: given the above, there is a very good reason to make this hull virtually ungankable. I disagree. it's always cool to disagree without stating your reasons. it makes you seem edgy and cool. No cargo ship should ever be virtually ungankable right out of the box. If you want that level of security then you must put in the effort to do it yourself. if that is true, then this ship will not find any use to speak of, at least not in hisec. It can sport a 700k ehp tank and when escorted by several logis is virtually ungankable. The very fact that people fly freighters with cargo expanders shows that they will fly this ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 365	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:34:26 - [1454] - Quote War Kitten wrote: I did say that the modification to crimewatch was a nerf to hisec criminality, but that was not my point. It was just to establish the fact that CCP visited hisec crime mechanics recently. You can argue that all you like about whether it is a nerf or not until you're blue in the face - it is not my point, as I've stated a few times now. Ok, so if the main point of your post was just to establish that CCP made changes to a system and didn't make everyone completely safe in the process, then why not just say that changes were made? What purpose does it serve to make statements that you can't back up with actual data to support your main point? I understand why you think this is just me arguing, but I'm honestly trying to show you that as it relates to ganking and the bowhead that there is still a problem even after those changes were made. 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 would make no sense for someone to ask for a ship to be made safer to fly if the environment was already safe enough. The problem is that code/goons/etc have basically industrialized ganking. Put another way, the goons have a habit about discovering things that aren't balanced and abusing those mechanics in order to get CCP to change them. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I see the ganking mechanics as no different. People are abusing game mechanics and its created a lot of frustration from enough people that its going to keep coming up until real changes happen. I don't agree with the mentality that hi sec should be %100 safe, but on the other hand I don't think people should be allowed to gank others to the degree in which they are currently. Very specific targeted attacks for hampering logistics is one thing, but to the degree that ganks occur now and the seemingly indiscriminate nature of the attacks suggest that this is not what is actually happening in practice.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1012	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:34:27 - [1455] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: In no way does Eve require ships to constantly be at risk. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very foundations of the entire game. This is, quite literally, anathema to the very underpinnings of the game's existence. There's no better way to express this. It's objective truth; no amount of wordsmithery will change this indisputable fact. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:35:50 - [1456] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. We lost one in Dek the other week. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:35:52 - [1457] - Quote Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. I should buy an Ishtar.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:37:25 - [1458] - Quote baltec1 wrote: It can sport a 700k ehp tank and when escorted by several logis is virtually ungankable. The very fact that people fly freighters with cargo expanders shows that they will fly this ship. 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 should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:38:03 - [1459] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: 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 Go and look at what M0o got up to a decade ago. Then go look up what gankers were using as gank ships 5 years ago. You will find there has been a huge change over time. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:39:26 - [1460] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: It can sport a 700k ehp tank and when escorted by several logis is virtually ungankable. The very fact that people fly freighters with cargo expanders shows that they will fly this ship. 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). Welcome to EVE. In order to gank these things at all we need entire fleets of people working together. Why is it so bad for the industrial pilots to work together for the best results too? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:41:13 - [1461] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: In no way does Eve require ships to constantly be at risk. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very foundations of the entire game. This is, quite literally, anathema to the very underpinnings of the game's existence. There's no better way to express this. It's objective truth; no amount of wordsmithery will change this indisputable fact. Wrong. As has been pointed out repeatedly properly set up fleets with capital triage logi are essentially unkillable by weaker fleets. The fights are little more than one sided massacres. The titans of the stronger side have absolutely no risk of blowing up. And the yet the game survives - because there is no requirement that every time a ship undocks it faces material chance of destruction. Example - thousands of hours of flying and I have never lost an incursion battleship. Why? Because even a minimal level of precaution makes them virtually unkillable. Same for Goon titans in Deklein - even a minimal level of precaution and they are close to unkillable. This bowhead was created in response to repeated and frequent requests from incursion runners to be able to move multiple ships around highsec....they currently can be moved individually with essentially complete safety. This ship was created to meet that need - not to now create a new risk of freighter ganking similar to that faced in Uedama and Niarja.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:41:28 - [1462] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. again a starting character should be able to train for the bowhead in maybe a day if you have to train 2 skills to level 3. now i never claimed that the support skills would be there, but a day of training max is hardly a month.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:42:29 - [1463] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: It can sport a 700k ehp tank and when escorted by several logis is virtually ungankable. The very fact that people fly freighters with cargo expanders shows that they will fly this ship. 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). Welcome to EVE. In order to gank these things at all we need entire fleets of people working together. Why is it so bad for the industrial pilots to work together for the best results too? 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. I should buy an Ishtar.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:43:25 - [1464] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. again a starting character should be able to train for the bowhead in maybe a day if you have to train 2 skills to level 3. now i never claimed that the support skills would be there, but a day of training max is hardly a month. advanced spaceship command V. I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:44:07 - [1465] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. Transporting three battleships, two logi boats, a command ship, a hauler with ammo and a scout frigate for incursion running is a little over twice as fast using a bowhead than manually transporting them. (ship list taken from a poster earlier in the thread that stated that incursion runners own these ships. Time was calculated over having to move 30 jumps of an average of 50au) Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1013	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:44:56 - [1466] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. Investing a month of training time? The bulk of the training time for the Bowhead is Advanced Spaceship Command 5, a skill which has significant overlap with Freighters, Jump Freighters, and is a gateway to all capital ships. Pretending that it's some sort of burden shouldered only by the Bowhead aspirant is disingenuous. Also, 1b is hardly a large amount of money. PLEX are a doghair from this value right now. And if you use a little bit of brainpower to limit your exposure, you can safely move around the universe while fearing no gank bogey man. As for use cases, here's some: Mercenaries transporting large numbers of ships-of-the-line to stage towards a new target. A common way for corporations and alliances to provide ships for their members is to pre-fit them and put them up on contracts. The Bowhead allows them to move the ships easily should the staging point for the corporation/alliance change. Consolidation of personal assets. With a little creativity, a lot of things come out of the woodwork. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:46:32 - [1467] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. again a starting character should be able to train for the bowhead in maybe a day if you have to train 2 skills to level 3. now i never claimed that the support skills would be there, but a day of training max is hardly a month. advanced spaceship command V. ok i forgot about ASC V but if you have a freighter pilot already or a BS pilot then it is not a long train.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:48:06 - [1468] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: 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. You get a 450k ehp tank with a very basic fit. This is 2.6 times larger than a cargo expanded obelisk and is 83k more ehp than a bulkhead fitted obelisk. If you are in the ship building business then it is going to be safer to transport your products in a bowhead than a t1 freighter. T2 producers will likely make the bowhead their ship of choice for transportation to market. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1989	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:48:50 - [1469] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: This bowhead was created in response to repeated and frequent requests from incursion runners to be able to move multiple ships around highsec....they currently can be moved individually with essentially complete safety. This ship was created to meet that need - not to now create a new risk of freighter ganking similar to that faced in Uedama and Niarja. Yet again...not just incursion runners. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1015	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:51:53 - [1470] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Wrong. As has been pointed out repeatedly properly set up fleets with capital triage logi are essentially unkillable by weaker fleets. The fights are little more than one sided massacres. The titans of the stronger side have absolutely no risk of blowing up. And the yet the game survives - because there is no requirement that every time a ship undocks it faces material chance of destruction. Example - thousands of hours of flying and I have never lost an incursion battleship. Why? Because even a minimal level of precaution makes them virtually unkillable. Same for Goon titans in Deklein - even a minimal level of precaution and they are close to unkillable. This bowhead was created in response to repeated and frequent requests from incursion runners to be able to move multiple ships around highsec....they currently can be moved individually with essentially complete safety. This ship was created to meet that need - not to now create a new risk of freighter ganking similar to that faced in Uedama and Niarja. You are conflating "difficult" with "impossible." Case in point: B-RB saw the death of 75 titans, despite significant numbers of triage and supercarriers supporting these titans. Titans just don't have the sort of invincibility that you think they do. You're talking about a thing whose domain knowledge you increasingly prove that you lack. For your own sake, please discontinue. You're making things up based on a story you've told yourself, and anyone with any real domain knowledge in the matter can instantly tell you're out of your element. Also, the game does not provide this difficulty to its players by dint of the existence of the hull GÇö-áit's the efforts of players that have made the difficulty increase. Trying to discount the hundreds of thousands of manhours of work that has gone into building our empire as mere inevitability is, frankly, insulting. You do not get to enjoy the fruits of our labors just because we've made them theoretically possible inside of your own myopic worldview. No ship currently enjoys invincibility-áGÇö not even the mighty titan. Bowheads do not get special treatment just because the one use case brought about by official communications was due to a certain group. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Valterra Craven 366	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:52:54 - [1471] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: 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 Go and look at what M0o got up to a decade ago. Then go look up what gankers were using as gank ships 5 years ago. You will find there has been a huge change over time. Right, but his argument was not in relation to what MOo were doing (which if memory serves was in low sec/null sec space). He was talking about recent changes to crimewatch etc that related to hi sec affairs. You are correct there has been a huge change in the game over time, since it was first released. However to say that any change has had a real curbing affect on ganking would need to be backed up with data, and everything I've seen suggests this hasn't happened. The fact that gankers just adapted to whatever change has come like using different ships merely proves that while the game has changed, the order of business has not. And until it does, people are still going to complain about it.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:53:04 - [1472] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Yes, ships with large EHP buffers supported by triage carriers are nearly unkillable. That shows more about triage carrier's rep ability than it does anything else.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:53:10 - [1473] - Quote Querns wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. Investing a month of training time? The bulk of the training time for the Bowhead is Advanced Spaceship Command 5, a skill which has significant overlap with Freighters, Jump Freighters, and is a gateway to all capital ships. Pretending that it's some sort of burden shouldered only by the Bowhead aspirant is disingenuous. Also, 1b is hardly a large amount of money. PLEX are a doghair from this value right now. And if you use a little bit of brainpower to limit your exposure, you can safely move around the universe while fearing no gank bogey man. As for use cases, here's some: Mercenaries transporting large numbers of ships-of-the-line to stage towards a new target. A common way for corporations and alliances to provide ships for their members is to pre-fit them and put them up on contracts. The Bowhead allows them to move the ships easily should the staging point for the corporation/alliance change. Consolidation of personal assets. With a little creativity, a lot of things come out of the woodwork. none of the use cases require hauling rigged ships, in fact the first two decidedly favor hauling packaged hulls and assembling in place. as for consolidating items, like i said, i have quite a few hulls lying around myself, but when given the choice of training for, buying and flying the ship (and then selling it once i'm done), i would rather spend a few hours moving them manually and be done. i will not comment on the cost issue, this is something every EVE player (with a median wallet of 2bil) can decide for himself. I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:54:50 - [1474] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Right, but his argument was not in relation to what MOo were doing (which if memory serves was in low sec/null sec space).. No, yours is. Also no, M0o operated in high sec in their most destructive phase. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 17:55:19 - [1475] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: Querns wrote: There are plenty of uses for the ship outside of the "I need to be able to haul extremely expensive battleships" niche in highsec. The ability to haul fitted ships is just more versatile than this. Trying to pretend that the extreme edge case being less viable when a perfect storm of circumstance arises somehow makes the ship worthless is a pretty terrible position from which to argue. 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. Transporting three battleships, two logi boats, a command ship, a hauler with ammo and a scout frigate for incursion running is a little over twice as fast using a bowhead than manually transporting them. (ship list taken from a poster earlier in the thread that stated that incursion runners own these ships. Time was calculated over having to move 30 jumps of an average of 50au) two times longer (assuming you have one char) and infinitely more safe. I should buy an Ishtar.
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:00:48 - [1476] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: two times longer (assuming you have one char) and infinitely more safe. If people fit several billion to their ships like they say then no, they are at more risk because the battleship they are flying is much easier to gank than a bowhead. 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 should buy an Ishtar.
Valterra Craven 366	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:01:08 - [1477] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Right, but his argument was not in relation to what MOo were doing (which if memory serves was in low sec/null sec space).. No, yours argument is. 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:05:08 - [1478] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Right, but his argument was not in relation to what MOo were doing (which if memory serves was in low sec/null sec space).. No, yours argument is. 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? Are you trying at this point to not understand what anyone is saying? I am responding to YOUR argument that ganking hasn't gone down due to changes. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:07:46 - [1479] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: two times longer (assuming you have one char) and infinitely more safe. If people fit several billion to their ships like they say then no, they are at more risk because the battleship they are flying is much easier to gank than a bowhead. 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. There arn't 200 machs running through a system at any one point. Each and every pirate battleship will be scanned and if gank worthy, blown up in the next system. You are lying to yourself if you think its safer. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Daniel Plain Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2167	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:10:53 - [1480] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: baltec1 wrote: Daniel Plain wrote: two times longer (assuming you have one char) and infinitely more safe. If people fit several billion to their ships like they say then no, they are at more risk because the battleship they are flying is much easier to gank than a bowhead. 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. There arn;t 200 mack running through a system at any one point. Each and every pirate battleship will be scanned and if gank worthy, blown up in the next system. You are lying to yourself if you think its safer. 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). I should buy an Ishtar.

Valterra Craven 366	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:13:44 - [1481] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I am responding to YOUR argument that ganking hasn't gone down due to changes. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:16:29 - [1482] - Quote Daniel Plain wrote: 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). So why is it that you are in a fit about a ship with near three times the tank of your battleship? If you only have a single mach and you stick it in your bowhead with a basic t2 tank with t1 rigs it will cost the gankers a lot more to gank you than they could possibly earn. With a max tanked bowhead with logi support they would require more firepower than is needed to alpha a neuted chimera. That simply does not exist in high sec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:19:10 - [1483] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So why is it that you are in a fit about a ship with near three times the tank of your battleship? If you only have a single mach and you stick it in your bowhead with a basic t2 tank with t1 rigs it will cost the gankers a lot more to gank you than they could possibly earn. With a max tanked bowhead with logi support they would require more firepower than is needed to alpha a neuted chimera. That simply does not exist in high sec. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:19:56 - [1484] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: I am responding to YOUR argument that ganking hasn't gone down due to changes. 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. M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:20:43 - [1485] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: baltec1 wrote: So why is it that you are in a fit about a ship with near three times the tank of your battleship? If you only have a single mach and you stick it in your bowhead with a basic t2 tank with t1 rigs it will cost the gankers a lot more to gank you than they could possibly earn. With a max tanked bowhead with logi support they would require more firepower than is needed to alpha a neuted chimera. That simply does not exist in high sec. 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. When the mods are worth several times the value of the hull that point doesn't matter. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:20:53 - [1486] - Quote baltec1 wrote: M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec. And how does that differ from events like hulkageddon?
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 97	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:22:03 - [1487] - Quote baltec1 wrote: M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec. I'd be interested in reading more about this, got any links?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:22:48 - [1488] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec. And how does that differ from events like hulkageddon? They caused more damage with less than a dozen pilots Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:31:02 - [1489] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This happened before much of what we have now. No KMs, few external sites and a smattering of info on the eve wiki. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:33:38 - [1490] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: M0o killed thousands of ships in choke systems over the span of a few days in high sec to the point where CCP had to step in and teleported their fleet to the far corners of null sec. And how does that differ from events like hulkageddon? They caused more damage with less than a dozen pilots 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. You could tank concord back then. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:34:41 - [1491] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: This happened before much of what we have now. No KMs, few external sites and a smattering of info on the eve wiki. 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. M0o is the single most influential corp to have ever existed in EVE. I shouldn't have to go hunting around for you. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:38:54 - [1492] - Quote Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:39:14 - [1493] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: This happened before much of what we have now. No KMs, few external sites and a smattering of info on the eve wiki. 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. M0o is the single most influential corp to have ever existed in EVE. I shouldn't have to go hunting around for you. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:40:22 - [1494] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: This happened before much of what we have now. No KMs, few external sites and a smattering of info on the eve wiki. 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. M0o is the single most influential corp to have ever existed in EVE. I shouldn't have to go hunting around for you. 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. We didn't change the way concord works. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:41:12 - [1495] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You could tank concord back then. 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.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:42:20 - [1496] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Because its a freighter without a cloak + mwd...and it's slow enough to be trapped by bumping. That makes it vastly easier to gank than a mach. Mach can be alpha'ed rather easily. The same cannot be said for a well tanked bowhead. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:42:57 - [1497] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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. No ship can evade everything. The cloak mwd trick doesn't work on an orca vs anyone competent and ECM drones also wont work with the tactics used in high sec gate camps. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:44:15 - [1498] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. We lost one in Dek the other week. Compared with how many freighters you killed in HS?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:46:21 - [1499] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Because its a freighter without a cloak + mwd...and it's slow enough to be trapped by bumping. That makes it vastly easier to gank than a mach. Mach can be alpha'ed rather easily. The same cannot be said for a well tanked bowhead. 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. Feel free to post this fit. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:48:28 - [1500] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. We lost one in Dek the other week. Compared with how many freighters you killed in HS? If freighters had the same security as our titans you would see the numbers ganked drop to near killed titan levels. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:48:40 - [1501] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You could tank concord back then. 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. 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. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:50:32 - [1502] - Quote Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You could tank concord back then. 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. 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. Funny how these people never back themselves up with any evidence yet demand the world from us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:51:53 - [1503] - Quote Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:53:33 - [1504] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You could tank concord back then. 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. You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking? Here's a challenge for you. Go find anyone that regularly ganks using battleships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:54:32 - [1505] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Because its a freighter without a cloak + mwd...and it's slow enough to be trapped by bumping. That makes it vastly easier to gank than a mach. Mach can be alpha'ed rather easily. The same cannot be said for a well tanked bowhead. 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. Feel free to post this fit. 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
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:59:01 - [1506] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: Querns wrote: The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. 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. No ship can evade everything. The cloak mwd trick doesn't work on an orca vs anyone competent and ECM drones also wont work with the tactics used in high sec gate camps. Mwd + cloak does wonders. Yes it can fail, you can be uncloaked and pointed but, it's still is something you can do. ECM might get the first tackle or, you can land an ecm jam and get some (little) dps off field. It's not much but, it is something. Bowhead can't do anything at all. There is basically nothing you can do... Just jump in and hope that in those 10 seconds your mwd is cycling nothing will point you.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 18:59:38 - [1507] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking? 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.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 494	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:06 - [1508] - Quote If there was one of these worth ganking with escorts the escorts would be alphad and the ship bumped. Of course anyone dumb enough to load that much into it..... That said, I'll almost certainly never use it.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries Chelonaphobia 638	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:14 - [1509] - Quote Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity).
xKOMODOx 23	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:24 - [1510] - Quote Confirmed by CCP Seagull "If a Bowhead is destroyed, there is a chance that assembled ships can be found amongst the wreckage." read more at Rhea

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:33 - [1511] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: 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. No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves.. Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:05:12 - [1512] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement. Oh, you mean just like I did with baltec's false statements about mOo. I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on. No, not really. You just did the same thing you always did GÇö-ádeclare yourself the winner because a niggling portion of what you talk about did not have its requisite reams of paperwork. Please, just stop. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:07 - [1513] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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 1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries Chelonaphobia 638	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:32 - [1514] - Quote Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: 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. No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves.. Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence. I just tell the guy he's stoopit in a sideways manner he won't understand and move on. Remember, it takes 2 (or 3 in this case) to tango.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:35 - [1515] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity). As long as interceptors shed their warp bubble immunity and jump freighters are nerfed, I concur. Trying to nerf one form of power projection while leaving a vastly superior one in place is hypocrisy. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:07:42 - [1516] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking? 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. So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries Chelonaphobia 638	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:08:42 - [1517] - Quote Querns wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity). As long as interceptors shed their warp bubble immunity and jump freighters are nerfed, I concur. Trying to nerf one form of power projection while leaving a vastly superior one in place is hypocrisy. agreed
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:11:00 - [1518] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: 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. Null was broken long before goons were a thing. We have managed to get a few things changes, such as tracking titans and tech moons but M0o impacted some very core aspects of the game such as untankable concord, getting tracking introduced on turrets, stacking penalties on weapons and hardeners, gate guns, NPC navies on gates. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:12:57 - [1519] - Quote Querns wrote: Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence. Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed. And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven?
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries Chelonaphobia 638	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:14:02 - [1520] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: 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. Null was broken long before goons were a thing. You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff.

Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:15:07 - [1521] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking? 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. So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history? 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:15:47 - [1522] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: baltec1 wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: 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. Null was broken long before goons were a thing. You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff. Added more. We did some good things but nothing like M0o managed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Pippan DerpCo Conglomerate 3	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:16:17 - [1523] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. I do not understand why this would be an SOE ship instead of an Interbus ship. Seems the obviouss choice to me..
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:17:22 - [1524] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1017	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:21:44 - [1525] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence. Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed. And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven? Obviously I can't GÇö-áno one compiles information like that. That is why your tactics are so disingenuous GÇö-áyou set up complicated scaffoldings that imply that the points require an impossible level or quality of evidence, then go on about how without this evidence, the whole thing falls down. There's more nuance to conversations than this, and you can't just demand evidence about barely related things all the time and expect anyone to take you seriously. Like, I have no idea why you even WANT that information! I have no idea why it even remotely relates to the discussion of Bowhead EHP. Can you even backtrack this conversation to re-assert your initial point? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:21:52 - [1526] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking? 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. So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history? 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? Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box. Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer. Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:24:32 - [1527] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick. Nope, 6. I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1018	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:29:05 - [1528] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box. Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer. Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago. FYI, this is what we in the posting biz refer to as "evidence." This stuff comes right out of patch notes. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:30:53 - [1529] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick. Nope, 6. I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:33:03 - [1530] - Quote If we want some more numbers on ganking then we can look at the number of freighters getting killed. On average this year more freighters were killed via war decs than were ganked. So, there are literally more dumb people undocking their freighters into a war than are getting killed out of the blue by a gank. Going back to last year so far shows the same result. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:35:47 - [1531] - Quote Querns wrote: Obviously I can't GÇö-áno one compiles information like that. That is why your tactics are so disingenuous GÇö-áyou set up complicated scaffoldings that imply that the points require an impossible level or quality of evidence, then go on about how without this evidence, the whole thing falls down. There's more nuance to conversations than this, and you can't just demand evidence about barely related things all the time and expect anyone to take you seriously. So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous agreement? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on. Querns wrote: Like, I have no idea why you even WANT that information! I have no idea why it even remotely relates to the discussion of Bowhead EHP. Can you even backtrack this conversation to re-assert your initial point? Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use? Baltec did make a good point early about barge ganking going down. But the question is WHY did it go down? Was it because of all the other changes or was it because of adding HP to the ship and/or making it more tankable? In fact I'd like to take my data request even further, it would be nice to see all of this data aggregated out by ship just to see how much an effect the changes have had as a whole and in part since most of the other ships that have been changed have had substantial changes to their HP unlike barges. And this is where the bowhead comes in. If it can be shown that the ONLY deterrent to ganking is ship HP, then why is asking for more HP on the ship a bad argument? For the record, I don't think adding more HP is the right answer, I just think that CCP hasn't gone far enough to curb ganking yet.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:42:16 - [1532] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick. Nope, 6. I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help. 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. We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:44:08 - [1533] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick. Nope, 6. I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help. 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
Heathkit Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation 94	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:45:22 - [1534] - Quote 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.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:46:25 - [1535] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention. Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec....but freighters, haulers, JFs, even empty ones, do. Making a gankable Bowhead is exposing incursion runners to more risk, without much in the way of the real reward. I favor reducing that risk as much as possible to preserve the status quo ante. Obviously the Goons, CODE, gankers, etc... disagree. Thankfully CCP seems to have realized that a good tank for this kind of ship is a necessity, as the reasons for it's creation was to assist logistics in highsec, not create a shiny loot pinata.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:46:31 - [1536] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: 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 If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:48:24 - [1537] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention. Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec. Thats because nobody but you would fit them in such a manner. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:49:10 - [1538] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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 If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible. 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1019	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:49:10 - [1539] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on. I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue. Valterra Craven wrote: Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use? The proof is in the pudding. Before the changes to barge / exhumer EHP, I could take down multiple exhumers using a smartbombing battleship. Observe a few of the kills I scored via suicide gank during the first Gallente Ice Interdiction: https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=590210&m=10&y=2011 (note that the pilot in question has been sold and no longer belongs to me; check the corp history and you'll find that in the dates in question, the pilot was indeed a member of goonswarm federation) After CCP made the barge EHP changes, it's impossible to do this. Eight smartbombs are not enough to take down even the most lightly tanked exhumer. The changes directly increased the resiliency of the ships against suicide ganking, and made the ganker exert more effort and more funds into taking down single targets. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:49:38 - [1540] - Quote Heathkit wrote: 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. Gank ships are ironically profitable to gank. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:51:18 - [1541] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: We can nab intercepters, a cloaky battleship isnt an issue. You also dont have 300k ehp with that setup. In order to overheat to combat the alpha you have to have your mods turned off and lets face it, you arnt going to be paying attention. Not really sure what to say....the fact is that ships like this basically never get suicide ganked in highsec. Thats because nobody but you would fit them in such a manner. Kinda funny. Despite the gankers as you put it "scanning all the machs" or whatever....they seem to have decided that it's too hard to blow up travel fit battleships and decided to focus on freighters instead. Opinions don't really matter - facts on the ground do. Having actually talked to the gankers - the overwhelming consensus is that a travel fit battleship has too much ehp to gank cost effectively, not to mention the massive effort involved. There is a reason they hit freighters, haulers, and autopiloted non-travel fit ships...and ignore properly travel fit battleships.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 19:57:53 - [1542] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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 If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible. 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. Your fit is not a travel fit, its just terrible. As far as missing the gank nados goes, how does any gank target miss the people waiting for them? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:05:00 - [1543] - Quote Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on. I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue. Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices. Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Well if the argument is going to be that the activity of ganking is now balanced because of all the changes that ccp have made to the game over the years, like concord not being tankable, crime watch improvements, and kill rights, what data besides that would you use? The proof is in the pudding. Before the changes to barge / exhumer EHP, I could take down multiple exhumers using a smartbombing battleship. Observe a few of the kills I scored via suicide gank during the first Gallente Ice Interdiction: https://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=590210&m=10&y=2011 (note that the pilot in question has been sold and no longer belongs to me; check the corp history and you'll find that in the dates in question, the pilot was indeed a member of goonswarm federation) After CCP made the barge EHP changes, it's impossible to do this. Eight smartbombs are not enough to take down even the most lightly tanked exhumer. The changes directly increased the resiliency of the ships against suicide ganking, and made the ganker exert more effort and more funds into taking down single targets. 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:11:27 - [1544] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: 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? No he isn't. Dont put words he didn't say in his mouth. That is just one example. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 278	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:12:12 - [1545] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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 If he had 300k it would take more, however his tactic is just downright terrible. 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. Your fit is not a travel fit, its just terrible. As far as missing the gank nados goes, how does any gank target miss the people waiting for them? 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.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5507	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:18:43 - [1546] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: So you are saying its disingenuous to make an disingenuous argument to fight a disingenuous argument? Ok, fine, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why its my burden to prove the claim false when I'm not the one making it in the first place. I don't get how you are supposed to fight an argument that has no disprovable or provable basis on which to fight on. I find the assumption that my arguments are disingenuous due to my alliance ticker to be pretty insulting. And, before you start, you've repeatedly mentioned "goons" throughout your discussions to imply a frame of reference to describe WHO is making the arguments, with the express purpose of character assassination. I, on the other hand, have made great pains to avoid the inclusion of posters into any groups, except where it is necessary (e.g.: talking about incursion runners when folks claim that the ship in question is tailor-made to incursion runners.) Including posters in groups is simply unnecessary to argue what I wish to argue. Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. Whoa, hold on there... this sounds like a place where some actual proof is needed. Please come back with a statistical analysis of good vs. bad posting by Goonswarm members over the past ... oh... decade or so, and then you can start casting aspersions and somehow tie this back into the Bowhead discussion. Off you go! I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13898	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:22:21 - [1547] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Nobody fits a ship like that, thats why you dont see it. Lets take a walk down this ALOD in the making to see where you went wrong. First thing we see is the pith as. Why? you want this ship to not be ganked so you fit two 300 mil mods? Thats bad. Next up we have the Gist MWD. Why is that there? A t1 Prototype MWD does the exact same job but doesnt cost 290 mil a pop. Next up are the faction 1600s. Your goal on this abomination is more tank, so why did you fit two plates that offer 1200 less armour HP than t2 plates yet cost 37 mil a pop? We then have 4 armour hardeners. Seems ok right? Wrong. You want to be fast on a gate, so where are the nanos to get you into warp faster? You didnt even bother with an inertia stab. So we wind up with a travel fit mach that is worse than just keeping the t2/faction/complex fit used in missions that is not profitable to gank in the first place. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1022	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:23:19 - [1548] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices. This still counts as character assassination. My affiliations have nothing to do with my forums posting, and I have graciously extended this consideration to others. Building a frame of reference about how the majority of my affiliates argue has nothing to do with how I argue and trying to use that as the fulcrum to demand an above-and-beyond level of busywork is asinine. Valterra Craven wrote: 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? Holy Jump To Conclusions, Batman. Uh, no. That is not remotely what I said. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 496	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:26:09 - [1549] - Quote Any danger if getting back on topic instead of waaaaaaaaaa gankers?
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5507	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:26:46 - [1550] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Faction and Deadspace fittings are things more likely to make you a gank target, not less. Thus, it is a terrible travel fit. Mods that align you quickly will synergize with your MWD Cloak trick. 1600 plates work against that. Thus, its a terrible travel fit. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13900	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:28:24 - [1551] - Quote afkalt wrote: Any danger if getting back on topic instead of waaaaaaaaaa gankers? I consulted my 8 ball. Outlook not good. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:28:37 - [1552] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nobody fits a ship like that, thats why you dont see it. Lets take a walk down this ALOD in the making to see where you went wrong. First thing we see is the pith as. Why? you want this ship to not be ganked so you fit two 300 mil mods? Thats bad. Next up we have the Gist MWD. Why is that there? A t1 Prototype MWD does the exact same job but doesnt cost 290 mil a pop. Next up are the faction 1600s. Your goal on this abomination is more tank, so why did you fit two plates that offer 1200 less armour HP than t2 plates yet cost 37 mil a pop? We then have 4 armour hardeners. Seems ok right? Wrong. You want to be fast on a gate, so where are the nanos to get you into warp faster? You didnt even bother with an inertia stab. So we wind up with a travel fit mach that is worse than just keeping the t2/faction/complex fit used in missions that is not profitable to gank in the first place. 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.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:30:27 - [1553] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Faction and Deadspace fittings are things more likely to make you a gank target, not less. Thus, it is a terrible travel fit. Mods that align you quickly will synergize with your MWD Cloak trick. 1600 plates work against that. Thus, its a terrible travel fit. Wrong...if cloak + mwd fails...you are getting pointed...fast align won't help....but a brick tank, which may make it impossible for the gankers to gank you with their numbers on hand (they don't often have 20 nados handy) will. And the point is to fit with your incursion equipment to obviate the need for multiple trips.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:32:57 - [1554] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box. So, if as you state it was a disaster, why didn't they revert it in their second pass? baltec1 wrote: Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer. Well I haven't seen CCP state this nor have I experienced this safety myself having lost a number of ships after these changes. This here fit being one of them: 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 My point is that these indiscriminate ganks still occur and they still occur regularly enough that in my opinion they are still a problem and no amount of HP adjustments are going to fix it. Was it profitable for the ganker? No. (There were 12 cats involved in this particular kill) But it happened anyway, and so will other events that currently happen regularly that do exactly this. baltec1 wrote: Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13900	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:33:38 - [1555] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nobody fits a ship like that, thats why you dont see it. Lets take a walk down this ALOD in the making to see where you went wrong. First thing we see is the pith as. Why? you want this ship to not be ganked so you fit two 300 mil mods? Thats bad. Next up we have the Gist MWD. Why is that there? A t1 Prototype MWD does the exact same job but doesnt cost 290 mil a pop. Next up are the faction 1600s. Your goal on this abomination is more tank, so why did you fit two plates that offer 1200 less armour HP than t2 plates yet cost 37 mil a pop? We then have 4 armour hardeners. Seems ok right? Wrong. You want to be fast on a gate, so where are the nanos to get you into warp faster? You didnt even bother with an inertia stab. So we wind up with a travel fit mach that is worse than just keeping the t2/faction/complex fit used in missions that is not profitable to gank in the first place. 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. Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types... Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Ocih Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums 815	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:35:44 - [1556] - Quote 21K shield with 96% resists and all of a sudden it's not so pretty to gankers. I don't see resist potential in the OP description though.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:38:24 - [1557] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types... Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD. 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???
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5507	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:38:32 - [1558] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: War Kitten wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Faction and Deadspace fittings are things more likely to make you a gank target, not less. Thus, it is a terrible travel fit. Mods that align you quickly will synergize with your MWD Cloak trick. 1600 plates work against that. Thus, its a terrible travel fit. Wrong...if cloak + mwd fails...you are getting pointed...fast align won't help....but a brick tank, which may make it impossible for the gankers to gank you with their numbers on hand (they don't often have 20 nados handy) will. And the point is to fit with your incursion equipment to obviate the need for multiple trips. Cloak + mwd only fails because of the brick tank preventing you from aligning quickly. If you don't get that, you've not used the maneuver when it actually matters enough to generate real experience with it. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:38:51 - [1559] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: So, if as you state it was a disaster, why didn't they revert it in their second pass? The barge lineup was messed up badly. It wasnt the ganking that was the disater, it was the fact that the barge lineup because very unbalanced and favoured the use of just two ships out of six. Valterra Craven wrote: Well I haven't seen CCP state this nor have I experienced this safety myself having lost a number of ships after these changes. Maby you should look things up before you make baseless claims. Valterra Craven wrote: 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 Its a poor fit and it happened a year ago. Valterra Craven wrote: 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. Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them. Crimewatch changed many things about ganking but did not have the impact that nerfs such as the concord response time has had. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:41:04 - [1560] - Quote War Kitten wrote: Cloak + mwd only fails because of the brick tank preventing you from aligning quickly. If you don't get that, you've not used the maneuver when it actually matters enough to generate real experience with it. It actually never fails if you do it right. Anyway, a mach. even with some plates, is still gonna align much faster than a clunky hauler. Which also doesn't matter, because 99% of the gankers can't get enough dps to punch through a 300k+ tank in 20 seconds...and you can't trap a mach through bumping. Result - no ganking. Now please explain why a bowhead should expose incursion runners to more than the 0% risk they face now????

Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:11 - [1561] - Quote Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices. This still counts as character assassination. My affiliations have nothing to do with my forums posting, and I have graciously extended this consideration to others. Building a frame of reference about how the majority of my affiliates argue has nothing to do with how I argue and trying to use that as the fulcrum to demand an above-and-beyond level of busywork is asinine. I'm sorry but that is a pretty flimsy argument considering that before I even mention your affiliations I said you were above them. This is doubly true when the points I was making were referring to how others were posting in this thread and that I was trying to find a way to confront THEIR foolishness. You will note that I never requested you to provide that data, because well you never made that arguement. In my response to you I said I wouldn't refrain from asking others to back up their claims when they were making arguments that can't be backed up. Since I had already stated that I did not observe that behavior from you I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that were included in the same vein as your affliates. Valterra Craven wrote: 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? Holy Jump To Conclusions, Batman. Uh, no. That is not remotely what I said.[/quote] Well then what was the point you were trying to make? I fail to see how how barge HP changes relate to the state of ganking as in hole when looking at changes like crime watch etc.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:20 - [1562] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types... Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD. 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??? Incursion runners do not fit ships like this, I'm starting to think you don't do incursions at all. At the very least I know you don't fit your ships yourself and most likely use battleclinic because that fit is just horrid. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:29 - [1563] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: 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. Freighters received significantly larger increases in EHP than barges did. While each freighter lost some raw hull, each of them received a more-than-commensurate increase in shields and/or armor to compensate, as well as the ability to fit three reinforced bulkheads, increasing their hull EHP to 175% of what it is normally. This more than compensates for the slight reduction in raw hull EHP, when throwing the increase in shield/armor EHP out the window. See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:44:19 - [1564] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types... Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD. 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??? Incursion runners do not fit ships like this, I'm starting to think you don't do incursions at all. At the very least I know you don't fit your ships yourself and most likely use battleclinic because that fit is just horrid. That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk. But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 504	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:48:45 - [1565] - Quote 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.... Ella's Snack bar
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5507	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:48:48 - [1566] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Now please explain why a bowhead should expose incursion runners to more than the 0% risk they face now???? Properly used, with this level of EHP, it won't expose you to more risk if you need the convenience of moving many ships in fewer trips. Stuffing it full of Pith-A and Core-X mods would be exposing yourself to the risk - not the ship's fault. If you just need to move your one pricey BS, then there's no need for you to use it. Others will find it handy. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:50:15 - [1567] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I'm sorry but that is a pretty flimsy argument considering that before I even mention your affiliations I said you were above them. This is doubly true when the points I was making were referring to how others were posting in this thread and that I was trying to find a way to confront THEIR foolishness. You will note that I never requested you to provide that data, because well you never made that arguement. In my response to you I said I wouldn't refrain from asking others to back up their claims when they were making arguments that can't be backed up. Since I had already stated that I did not observe that behavior from you I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that you were included in the same vein as your affliates. The principle still applies GÇö your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great GÇö-áthat doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others. I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed. Valterra Craven wrote: Well then what was the point you were trying to make? I fail to see how how barge HP changes relate to the state of ganking as a whole when looking at changes like crime watch etc. The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. Hell, we can measure it right now GÇö-áI, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:50:24 - [1568] - Quote baltec1 wrote: The barge lineup was messed up badly. It wasnt the ganking that was the disater, it was the fact that the barge lineup because very unbalanced and favoured the use of just two ships out of six. K, so why make the statement when it has nothing to do with the argument of ganking vs hp? baltec1 wrote: Maby you should look things up before you make baseless claims. What exactly is baseless about the claim I made? baltec1 wrote: Its a poor fit. Compared to what? The fit that most people have on when they get ganked, or the maxed possible tank fit available? baltec1 wrote: Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them. Querns wrote: See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs. Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent....
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:52:58 - [1569] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: 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.... Actually we made more with the mining interdictions because the hulks were not where the profit was being made. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:54:27 - [1570] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk. But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata. You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2... Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit. 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?

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:54:48 - [1571] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them. Querns wrote: See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs. Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent.... It isn't CCP's job to enforce player fits. If players want to increase their risk by fitting modules that reduce their tank to increase their efficacy at another role, that's fine, but you make a conscious decision when doing so to increase your exposure to a suicide gank event. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:55:58 - [1572] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: K, so why make the statement when it has nothing to do with the argument of ganking vs hp? Context. Valterra Craven wrote: What exactly is baseless about the claim I made? That ganking is unchanged over the years. Valterra Craven wrote: Compared to what? The fit that most people have on when they get ganked, or the maxed possible tank fit available? Compared to a good fit. Valterra Craven wrote: Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent.... He isnt wrong, you can get more tank. I am also not wrong, you can reduce the tank to well below what they used to have. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:56:08 - [1573] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:58:14 - [1574] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk. But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata. You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2... Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit. 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? Speed is everything with the MWD trick. You want to get into warp faster not slower. Also the tactics used on freighters are not the same as used on subcaps. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 20:59:06 - [1575] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Im still trying to get my head around how he can manage to fail in every goal he had with this ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Invisusira The Rising Stars Tactical Narcotics Team 273	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:01:51 - [1576] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard good lord man, are you trying to paint a target on your face? EVE Music
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:05 - [1577] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Stop playing dumb. What they do with freighters is bump them to prevent align to....then warp in the -10s and gank so they get the full 20 seconds. Then, if not dead...they keep bumping, and hit again 15 minutes later. With a battleship, bumping doesn't work, so they need to point right away, drawing CONCORD...and by time gankers land and lock only 10 seconds left - almost impossible to pull off. Hence the campaign against freighters...or against autopiloting battleships where scram not needed, and mods off too. Check the killboards - freighters are dying - travel fit battleships are not.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:11 - [1578] - Quote Besides, Cloak + MWD trick is hardly perfect safety. I've successfully caught several covert nullified T3s in nullsec, which move faster and have half to a third of the align time that a Cloak + MWD trick BS has (minimum 10 seconds.) This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:51 - [1579] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk. But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata. You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2... Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit. 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? Speed is everything with the MWD trick. You want to get into warp faster not slower. Also the tactics used on freighters are not the same as used on subcaps. Please show me the battleships miniluv has been killing.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:10:58 - [1580] - Quote Querns wrote: The principle still applies GÇö your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great GÇö-áthat doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others. But did they? My response to you was not colored by your affiliations, therefore I must be capable of seeing past them. To be frank I watch what people say and make judgement based on that. I measure people by their postings and then if they act like a majority of their friends, put them under that banner. If I didn't do that I wouldn't be able to see exceptions like you or myrra (I really need to figure out how to spell his name) Querns wrote: I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed. Shrug You are a better person and a more effective debater. I have no qualms admitting that. I don't have the skills that you do, therefore asking people to back up their arguments is not inherently a bad strategy. Valterra Craven wrote: The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. Hell, we can measure it right now GÇö-áI, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward. Ok, I can easily agree that adding EHP to a ship has a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. I think that is almost universally agreed upon, otherwise people wouldn't be asking for the bowhead to have more HP. What I fail to see is how that is related to things like crime watch and kill rights changes etc.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1023	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:14:15 - [1581] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:15:20 - [1582] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. So explain to us how a ship with 450-700k ehp with 1.8 bil in scannable pirate battleships in the hold is at more risk than you in your "300k ehp" mach with over 3 bil in mods not including the other fittings in your hold? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:16:52 - [1583] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. Oh well done, its even travel fitted. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:17:34 - [1584] - Quote baltec1 wrote: That ganking is unchanged over the years. I never said that ganking has gone unchanged over the years. What I did say is that I believed that changes to crime watch and kill rights havent had a meaningful impact in the incidence rate of ganking. baltec1 wrote: Compared to a good fit. Well would you care to show me what you would call a good fit since I took the time and effort to look up my loss mail? baltec1 wrote: He isnt wrong, you can get more tank. I am also not wrong, you can reduce the tank to well below what they used to have. I was just pointing out that you one of you said the changes were a nerf and of you said they were buff. I was part of that discussion too sadly. But I don't remember the numbers being as lopsided as an 175% improvement.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:17:50 - [1585] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:18:38 - [1586] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So explain to us how a ship with 450-700k ehp with 1.8 bil in scannable pirate battleships in the hold is at more risk than you in your "300k ehp" mach with over 3 bil in mods not including the other fittings in your hold? Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:20:24 - [1587] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. It has three inertia stabs on it, thats to get it into warp faster. Thats what a travel fit requires. Brick tanking is not a travel fit, its brick tanking. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:22:07 - [1588] - Quote 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? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:22:20 - [1589] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius. Your battleship has a huge sig radius thanks to your fit, a dreadnought wouldn't have issues hitting you. Your battleship is easier to kill and will provide a provit. The bowhead is harder to kill and provides a loss to the ganker. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:23:17 - [1590] - Quote Querns wrote: 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? Or just have a guy in a web ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:23:19 - [1591] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. It has three inertia stabs on it, thats to get it into warp faster. Thats what a travel fit requires. Brick tanking is not a travel fit, its brick tanking. 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
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:24:05 - [1592] - Quote Querns wrote: 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? They aggress with a rookie ship to create an LE timer. Code has this down to a science...I assume miniluv does as well.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:25:10 - [1593] - Quote Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:26:51 - [1594] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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 Those things in the hold? Thats his normal fit. He put on stabs to get into warp faster, its a travel fit. Every time you post you somehow manage to show that you know less and less about this game. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:28:10 - [1595] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 Those things in the hold? Thats his normal fit. He put on stabs to get into warp faster, its a travel fit. Every time you post you somehow manage to show that you know less and less about this game. 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.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:29:06 - [1596] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: 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? They aggress with a rookie ship to create an LE timer. Code has this down to a science...I assume miniluv does as well. Uh, you only get a Limited Engagement timer if you fire upon someone with a suspect flag. How do freighters do this? I guess the bowhead could fit a point in its midslots, but doing that is very silly. Shooting the freighter creates an aggression timer and attracts concord, which makes the gank a lot harder. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:30:00 - [1597] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:30:41 - [1598] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. No, they dont tend to fit a cloak or overtank the ship. This guy was a moron no doubt but that is what a normal travel fit looks like. You fit for speed not tank and you sure as hell don't fit billion isk mods. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:32:44 - [1599] - Quote Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. Them shooting at you prevents the logoff I think. So when you disconnect on gate, you get warped 1 mil km off.....they quickly scan down and send a rookie ship to agress....this prevents logoff....the they bump away from concord....and come in for the kill.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 106	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:35:17 - [1600] - Quote Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: I'm sorry but that is a pretty flimsy argument considering that before I even mention your affiliations I said you were above them. This is doubly true when the points I was making were referring to how others were posting in this thread and that I was trying to find a way to confront THEIR foolishness. You will note that I never requested you to provide that data, because well you never made that arguement. In my response to you I said I wouldn't refrain from asking others to back up their claims when they were making arguments that can't be backed up. Since I had already stated that I did not observe that behavior from you I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that you were included in the same vein as your affliates. The principle still applies GÇö your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great GÇö-áthat doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others. I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed. Valterra Craven wrote: Well then what was the point you were trying to make? I fail to see how how barge HP changes relate to the state of ganking as a whole when looking at changes like crime watch etc. The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. Hell, we can measure it right now GÇö-áI, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward. don't worry I've run into this "i quit ganking barges" after the last change and I have made an alt to take your place. so balance is restored.

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1025	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:39:56 - [1601] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. Them shooting at you prevents the logoff I think. So when you disconnect on gate, you get warped 1 mil km off.....they quickly scan down and send a rookie ship to agress....this prevents logoff....the they bump away from concord....and come in for the kill. Not if you safelog. Safe logout takes 30 seconds, and as long as you aren't aggressed, you disappear from space immediately after the 30s timer elapses. It is the premiere choice for Folks Logging Out In Space. Also, when you log in again, you immediately enter emergency warp without having to align. There's no way for someone to aggress you before you initiate the e-warp, and if someone DOES manage to somehow, the GMs will reimburse your ship if you petition it. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 106	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:40:33 - [1602] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. No, they dont tend to fit a cloak or overtank the ship. This guy was a moron no doubt but that is what a normal travel fit looks like. You fit for speed not tank and you sure as hell don't fit billion isk mods. you do normaly fit tank in mids along with prop. That guy was just lazy.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:41:06 - [1603] - Quote Querns wrote: You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. You will have to forgive me for thinking that this example shows why Eve has a tendency to have a bad reputation...
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 106	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:42:27 - [1604] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. Them shooting at you prevents the logoff I think. So when you disconnect on gate, you get warped 1 mil km off.....they quickly scan down and send a rookie ship to agress....this prevents logoff....the they bump away from concord....and come in for the kill. Not if you safelog. Safe logout takes 30 seconds, and as long as you aren't aggressed, you disappear from space immediately after the 30s timer elapses. It is the premiere choice for Folks Logging Out In Space. Also, when you log in again, you immediately enter emergency warp without having to align. There's no way for someone to aggress you before you initiate the e-warp, and if someone DOES manage to somehow, the GMs will reimburse your ship if you petition it. e warp takes you to the same spot that you left from they would aggress you there. so you have to log on when they arent around anymore
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:46:11 - [1605] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. You will have to forgive me for thinking that this example shows why Eve has a tendency to have a bad reputation... A simple web frigate counters the bumping anyway and get the freighter into warp so fast it enters the warp tunnel in sideways. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1028	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:47:35 - [1606] - Quote Oh and here we go travel fit machariel found with a cloak and mwd found https://zkillboard.com/kill/42170465/ This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:50:55 - [1607] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. You will have to forgive me for thinking that this example shows why Eve has a tendency to have a bad reputation... A simple web frigate counters the bumping anyway and get the freighter into warp so fast it enters the warp tunnel sideways. 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13901	Posted - 2014.11.14 21:54:06 - [1608] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: 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 That's a rather bad article, Griefing is a bannable offence and is very much not what was described in that site. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Some Rando University of Caille Gallente Federation 1290	Posted - 2014.11.14 22:01:14 - [1609] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: (otherwise pages like this wouldn't even exist) http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Skullduggery_101#What_are_Griefers.3F That's a rather bad article, Griefing is a bannable offence and is very much not what was described in that site. It's also hideously out of date. CCP has no sense of humour.
Sir Gankal0t Fortuna Heavy Industries Viral Society 23	Posted - 2014.11.14 22:05:28 - [1610] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Here's a teaser image that CCP released at EVE Vegas. Here is a better one

Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.14 22:06:25 - [1611] - Quote baltec1 wrote: That's a rather bad article, Griefing is a bannable offence and is very much not what was described in that site. Again all true. But given that the distinction between pirate and griefer can be rather grey and confusing to new players, there is a reason that Eve has the rep it does.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:14:10 - [1612] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: That's a rather bad article, Griefing is a bannable offence and is very much not what was described in that site. Again all true. But given that the distinction between pirate and griefer can be rather grey and confusing to new players, there is a reason that Eve has the rep it does. Gotta say that you claiming to be on the side of Right on Eve's reputation is pretty laffo considering some things you've posted in the past.
Come2Light Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:23:31 - [1613] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: This is very true, what a webbing frigate doesn't do is combat the reputation that Eve is infested by griefers... This is very true, what a webbing frigate doesn't do is combat that Eve is infested by goons... Fixed it for you. :)
Alexis Nightwish 54	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:41:29 - [1614] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. So given what you say here, can we safely assume that in the future this fatigue bonus will go away as is implied by Greyscale's statement: CCP Greyscale wrote: Hi everyone, We've collected, parsed and thoroughly discussed your extensive feedback on the proposed long-distance travel changes, both in the official thread and elsewhere, consulted with the CSM, and made adjustments accordingly. Conclusions we have reached through this exercise: [list] The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be. []It is, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game. Power Projection: A Brighter Future*
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 342	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:41:53 - [1615] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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 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
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1029	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:44:12 - [1616] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Will probably give you guys updated numbers for HP and bonus change tomorrow, did want to address the jump fatigue generation thing which seems to be coming up a little bit at least. Every 'hauler' in the game got this reduction because the fatigue change wasn't meant to hit logistics, this ship simply fits under that umbrella. It is not meant as any kind of special treatment or specific incentive to use it outside of high-sec. It's fine if that happens but I just wanted to point out that it's a role based bonus and that's all. So given what you say here, can we safely assume that in the future this fatigue bonus will go away as is implied by Greyscale's statement: CCP Greyscale wrote: Hi everyone, We've collected, parsed and thoroughly discussed your extensive feedback on the proposed long-distance travel changes, both in the official thread and elsewhere, consulted with the CSM, and made adjustments accordingly. Conclusions we have reached through this exercise: [list] The ease of nullsec logistics permitted by jump freighters and, to a lesser extent, jump bridge networks is not aligned with where we would like nullsec industry to be. It is, however, pretty well aligned with where nullsec industry is right now. As we improve the status quo for industry in nullsec, we will want to reevaluate this balance, along with the impact potential changes would have on logistical work for other areas of the game. That statement was concerning Jump Freighters getting special-cased to be 10LY. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 342	Posted - 2014.11.14 23:53:00 - [1617] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: That's a rather bad article, Griefing is a bannable offence and is very much not what was described in that site. Again all true. But given that the distinction between pirate and griefer can be rather grey and confusing to new players, there is a reason that Eve has the rep it does. yes, all those newbies flying freighters that are loaded with enough goods they're worth making a special effort to gank
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.15 00:01:36 - [1618] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: Gotta say that you claiming to be on the side of Right on Eve's reputation is pretty laffo considering some things you've posted in the past. Oh, I never claimed to be on the side of "Right".
Valterra Craven 367	Posted - 2014.11.15 00:05:44 - [1619] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: yes, all those newbies flying freighters that are loaded with enough goods they're worth making a special effort to gank Who said anything about newbies flying the freighters? I was implying that the newbie would be flying the webbing frigate and would be wondering why something like that would necessary for safety...
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 342	Posted - 2014.11.15 00:15:47 - [1620] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: EvilweaselFinance wrote: yes, all those newbies flying freighters that are loaded with enough goods they're worth making a special effort to gank Who said anything about newbies flying the freighters? I was implying that the newbie would be flying the webbing frigate and would be wondering why something like that would necessary for safety... no highsec hauler would ever have a newbie on webbing duty either: 1) they are not in-corp and not dueling and they're going to blow up repeatedly, leading to a newbie having to repeatedly buy and fit new ships which will be painstakingly long 2) they are in-corp or dueling, and our idiot freighter pilot is trusting some random newbie with the ability to awox his entire cargo and the random newbie is probably a CODE alt and he's about five minutes away from destruction

Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1877	Posted - 2014.11.15 00:25:20 - [1621] - Quote Well fascinating as this is, I received what I asked for from Rise, a bit more tank. If there is something else specific you wish addressed in reference to the Bowhead feel free to send me an Evemail but I believe this thread has 'jumped the shark' and I will no longer follow and read every post in it. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13903	Posted - 2014.11.15 00:40:59 - [1622] - Quote EvilweaselFinance wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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 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 It seems he abandoned this line of argument when it was shown that travel fit machs pulling the cloak/mwd trick do, infact, get caught and blown up. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
El 1974 Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables 146	Posted - 2014.11.15 00:54:32 - [1623] - Quote So a relatively small group of players that is making tons of isk is complaining about something and you respond by designing a ship to make life even easier for them. This will only make it harder for the little guy to get into running incursions. The ordinary guy doesn't need a super-tanky hisec ship hauler. Keep it simple and affordable please. Don't cater for the guys that really don't need any help. If they don't like moving their ships they can afford to make courier contracts to have it done for them.
Esceem Suns of New Eden 11	Posted - 2014.11.15 01:32:43 - [1624] - Quote Nice. Four racial variants would be great , though - instead of only one ORE ship :-)
ergherhdfgh Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 210	Posted - 2014.11.15 01:46:56 - [1625] - Quote since this is the exact idea that I posted on the forums I feel I need to say I support it's being introduced into the game.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 3922	Posted - 2014.11.15 02:01:50 - [1626] - Quote Sir Gankal0t wrote: Here is a better one Yes it is, thanks for the update. Being an ORE ship, I hope the final colour scheme resembles that of the Orca and Rorqual. And they might as well release an ORE Development skin for it right off the bat as well. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2014.11.15 04:11:56 - [1627] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: Gotta say that you claiming to be on the side of Right on Eve's reputation is pretty laffo considering some things you've posted in the past. Oh, I never claimed to be on the side of "Right". You did not literally type those words, no. But you did say that Eve has a "bad reputation". And you are suggesting things to fix this "bad reputation". The opposite of Bad, is Good. Or Right.
Valterra Craven 368	Posted - 2014.11.15 07:26:58 - [1628] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: You did not literally type those words, no. But you did say that Eve has a "bad reputation". And you are suggesting things to fix this "bad reputation". The opposite of Bad, is Good. Or Right. Lol, If you think that my suggestion that criminals that gank permanently in high sec should have blinky status permanently is going to fix more than a decade of Eve having a bad rep... well I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would make sense to you. My suggestions were merely to address an imbalance in the games mechanics. Nothing more, nothing less.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2014.11.15 07:48:12 - [1629] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Dreiden Kisada wrote: You did not literally type those words, no. But you did say that Eve has a "bad reputation". And you are suggesting things to fix this "bad reputation". The opposite of Bad, is Good. Or Right. Lol, If you think that my suggestion that criminals that gank permanently in high sec should have blinky status permanently is going to fix more than a decade of Eve having a bad rep... well I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would make sense to you. My suggestions were merely to address an imbalance in the games mechanics. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure thing, Bill "I'm only asking questions" O'Reily. And I believe you mean a perceived imbalance of game mechanics.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 91	Posted - 2014.11.15 10:51:37 - [1630] - Quote Let see: Page 65 by now - last on topic arguments back some 20 pages - check 'Elegant' trolling by playing the words - check Thread hooking for personal discussions - check BINGO! Hat off for managing this before page 100. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty

Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2014.11.15 11:38:53 - [1631] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Let see: Page 65 by now - last on topic arguments back some 20 pages - check 'Elegant' trolling by playing the words - check Thread hooking for personal discussions - check BINGO! Hat off for managing this before page 100. What do you mean last on topic argument? This guy's stance is that Eve has a bad reputation, and that his answers will fix that. One of them is to make this new ship ungankable, and to support his theory he points out specifically how none of the changes (Concord now untankable, responds faster, doesn't pay out insurance, tripling the EHP of the most ganked ships) have actually done anything because of reasons. You should accept Valterra Craven on his word alone.
Kruk Rollard Aliastra Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2014.11.15 11:51:23 - [1632] - Quote Super idea. Could only be more dangerous concept to add to game if you added high slots: defense missiles dedicated and utility slots for cloak or logi transfer arrays. Then I guarantee you that you would see these filled with T2 and T3 trying to transverse null -- and bumping into stuff that decloaked them. ROFLMAO
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 91	Posted - 2014.11.15 11:58:36 - [1633] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: Dwissi wrote: Let see: Page 65 by now - last on topic arguments back some 20 pages - check 'Elegant' trolling by playing the words - check Thread hooking for personal discussions - check BINGO! Hat off for managing this before page 100. What do you mean last on topic argument? This guy's stance is that Eve has a bad reputation, and that his answers will fix that. One of them is to make this new ship ungankable, and to support his theory he points out specifically how none of the changes (Concord now untankable, responds faster, doesn't pay out insurance, tripling the EHP of the most ganked ships) have actually done anything because of reasons. You should accept Valterra Craven on his word alone. Its this kind of posting i point to - you create relations to things that are not related to each other. If i had meant a particular post i would have quoted. Your reply to me just proves this -> 'The biggest communication problem is that people don't listen to understand. They listen to reply.' Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Noragen Neirfallas Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective 5	Posted - 2014.11.15 13:38:37 - [1634] - Quote We are trying to give benefit to vigilant at keyboard players right? how about this Shield HP 35000 Armor HP 10000 Hull HP 20000 Same slot layout Ore Freighter bonus 10% shield resist per level I may have mathed bad since I'm slightly drunk and its stupidly late but then again isn't that when we all do our best work :D looks like it would be an effective at keyboard ship with those stats with a dc2 2 invul2's and 3 field extender2's then you can utilize a mid and 2 lows for traveling faster Very entertaining Much content So Eve Such Blogging http://eve12monthchallenge.blogspot.com.au/
Valterra Craven 370	Posted - 2014.11.15 16:50:04 - [1635] - Quote Dreiden Kisada wrote: Dwissi wrote: Let see: Page 65 by now - last on topic arguments back some 20 pages - check 'Elegant' trolling by playing the words - check Thread hooking for personal discussions - check BINGO! Hat off for managing this before page 100. What do you mean last on topic argument? This guy's stance is that Eve has a bad reputation, and that his answers will fix that. One of them is to make this new ship ungankable, and to support his theory he points out specifically how none of the changes (Concord now untankable, responds faster, doesn't pay out insurance, tripling the EHP of the most ganked ships) have actually done anything because of reasons. You should accept Valterra Craven on his word alone. Well they definitely shouldn't accept you on your word considering that you summed up every single one of my arguments incorrectly.
Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 22	Posted - 2014.11.15 18:41:44 - [1636] - Quote 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..
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13912	Posted - 2014.11.15 18:47:51 - [1637] - Quote Euripedies wrote: 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.. No. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.15 18:55:42 - [1638] - Quote this is just my line of thought atm since it is more of a carrier class of ship (to move ships around in HS) it should have the tank (my pref the raw hp) of one but not have the combat abilitys of one. (not many KMs for that without concentrated effort.) now if it falls more under a "carrier" of ships (neutered of combat ability). 87500/100000/112500 arch /chimi /nid or would you classify it as a ferry class ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry. then it would be a ferry of ships and would fall more in line between a carrier and a freighter (way to many KMs with not much more effort than killing an orca.) but if it is along these lines i think it should have more of the hp S/A/H that is between the 2 classes of ship
Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 23	Posted - 2014.11.15 18:56:55 - [1639] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Euripedies wrote: 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.. No. 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.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1123	Posted - 2014.11.15 19:02:13 - [1640] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: baltec1 wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Could you run the numbers on a bulkhead fit?, I dont have any fitting tools or paper with me. 1 DCU, 2 t2 bulkhead, 3 t1 transverse, 3 t2 invuln is around 420k EHP, is that the numbers you were hoping for? That sounds fair to me. I would still like to see the SMB marginally penalized by the bulkheads though. 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

Mangalang State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.15 19:58:12 - [1641] - Quote 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10618	Posted - 2014.11.15 20:18:36 - [1642] - Quote 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. "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 13912	Posted - 2014.11.15 20:28:58 - [1643] - Quote Euripedies wrote: 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. Its utterly out of balance. These ships are not meant to transport tens of billions in near perfect safety and never will be. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 280	Posted - 2014.11.15 22:56:21 - [1644] - Quote Querns wrote: Oh and here we go travel fit machariel found with a cloak and mwd found https://zkillboard.com/kill/42170465/ You are cute :) That was a CODE bumping mach used by gankers to trap freighters. It was killed while on duty by anti gankers trying to help the freighter escape. The anti gankers have a bounty program set up for killing these bumping machs. If you notice it is fit for bumping, and the cloak was not being used :) We gotta get you on duty in Uedama! Edit - also, the Goons don't seem to understand the definition of "active tank" Feel free to mail me in game if you need details.
kelvin oriley Zero-Kelvin 0	Posted - 2014.11.15 23:11:28 - [1645] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. u. you state that the bowhead will have similar to the freighters on the test server the bpo has been seeded with a placeholder and the component parts have had there ammounts changed but it still states that it uses capital cargo bay now im no ccp or csm but a ship with only 4000m3 cargo bay wouldnt use capital cargo bays but with its 1.3mill m3 ship maintenance bay by my reasoning would use capital ship maintenance bay is the bpo corret or has it just not been changed from the placeholder if so what els you changing like skills etc kelvin ceo zero kelvin
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.15 23:19:21 - [1646] - Quote kelvin oriley wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. u. you state that the bowhead will have similar to the freighters on the test server the bpo has been seeded with a placeholder and the component parts have had there ammounts changed but it still states that it uses capital cargo bay now im no ccp or csm but a ship with only 4000m3 cargo bay wouldnt use capital cargo bays but with its 1.3mill m3 ship maintenance bay by my reasoning would use capital ship maintenance bay is the bpo corret or has it just not been changed from the placeholder if so what els you changing like skills etc kelvin ceo zero kelvin i would assume that the updated info will not be available untill close to release due to ccp not wanting people to get a jump on building them like they have in the past.
kelvin oriley Zero-Kelvin 0	Posted - 2014.11.15 23:55:00 - [1647] - Quote i would assume that the updated info will not be available untill close to release due to ccp not wanting people to get a jump on building them like they have in the past. edit: CCP feel free to correct me on this if you would like[/quote] nothing wrong with getting ahead of the mases sisi is open to all if they dnt want to log in and look thats there loss
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.16 00:04:00 - [1648] - Quote kelvin oriley wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: i would assume that the updated info will not be available untill close to release due to ccp not wanting people to get a jump on building them like they have in the past. edit: CCP feel free to correct me on this if you would like nothing wrong with getting ahead of the mases sisi is open to all if they dnt want to log in and look thats there loss i never said that i did not want to get a start on it just that CCP is holding back some of the info. and i am aware of sis and visit regularly.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 24780	Posted - 2014.11.16 01:13:58 - [1649] - Quote I feel bad for ORE. all the ships they build get owned. you'd think they'd start putting an emphasis on tank. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub \| Twitter \|-ámk.III \| Imgur \| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined \|
Commissar Kate GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 89938	Posted - 2014.11.16 01:16:16 - [1650] - 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. People who fly ore ships don't usually fit a tank anyway so I don't see the problem here. Why can't I wear that? \|\| My Fanclub

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

Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 25	Posted - 2014.11.16 20:04:31 - [1681] - 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" 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13920	Posted - 2014.11.16 20:13:00 - [1682] - Quote Euripedies wrote: 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. Its not a carrier, its a freighter. Highsec sees millions fewer ships destroyed than null sec as seen by CCPs own economics reports. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Masao Kurata Z List 149	Posted - 2014.11.16 20:14:08 - [1683] - Quote Euripedies wrote: So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp? 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.
Myrkul Nightshade The Adept Shadow Killers ZADA ALLIANCE 2	Posted - 2014.11.16 21:20:08 - [1684] - Quote 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?
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 283	Posted - 2014.11.16 21:27:39 - [1685] - Quote Myrkul Nightshade wrote: 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? The idea was to allow incursion runners to move multiple ships around at once. Of course, given the broken bumping mechanics, what will actually happen is these ships getting trapped and blown up by waves of gankers, just as is happening to freighters and jump freighters today. I'm guessing the first month will be absolute carnage...and hopefully lead to some agility buffs so the bumping game isn't possible. If the gankers want to kill it, they should need to muster enough dps to do it the first time.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10627	Posted - 2014.11.16 21:56:14 - [1686] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 283	Posted - 2014.11.16 21:58:29 - [1687] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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.
Masao Kurata Z List 149	Posted - 2014.11.16 21:59:20 - [1688] - Quote Or one character to fly ahead of it in an interceptor after the fact. Bumping doesn't prevent warp unless it's expertly done to keep the ship close to 0 m/s (you try this, it's hard), it just restricts the angles you can warp at.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10627	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:01:57 - [1689] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Yes, yes, we all know you're proud of what a gutless coward you are. But that has no bearing on discussing this proposed ship. So stay on topic for once. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 283	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:04:00 - [1690] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: the usual personal attacks Straight to the name calling, Eh? Maybe it's time to stop acting like a three year old all the time. And of course the level of increased risk over the current status quo is directly relevant to the ship.

Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 25	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:04:20 - [1691] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Euripedies wrote: So CCP is giving us the hi-sec version of the carrier (non-combat) so why would it have less ehp? 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? In this case the tank of the Bow is figured by what the tank of the three BSs would be inside the Bow, and that's what the Bow's tank would be. (according to the forums so far..) 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. When its all said and done, I'll take what I get and run with it. I just want my two isk in the mix about a larger tank.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10628	Posted - 2014.11.16 22:11:27 - [1692] - Quote Euripedies wrote: 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. It takes 30+ people to gank a freighter. And it takes one extra person to completely avoid being ganked. It's out of balance alright, but in the opposite of what you'd like to think. Quote: See that's the thing, why must the meta for the predators be at such a low bar? It's not. In fact it's never been higher in the history of the game. Now, you want to talk about hauling? Why the actual ** is the bar for you lot so low? Literally, if it weren't for ganking, you would need to push less than a dozen buttons to get it done. Quote:** 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. And you're failing to account for the immense factor this ship would play in saving you opportunity cost from having to move all three of them by yourself. It is a frankly enormous, ridiculous time saver, that gets bigger the farther you have to move. You should pay for that bonus. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
ashley Eoner 359	Posted - 2014.11.17 02:14:40 - [1693] - Quote It takes far less then 30 people to gank a freighter. I gank freighters on my own when I'm bored. It's pretty much the easiest way to make big isk in this game (other then sell plex). If it takes you 30 people to gank a freighter then you need to stop using imicuses.... 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10628	Posted - 2014.11.17 02:42:08 - [1694] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: 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. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
ashley Eoner 359	Posted - 2014.11.17 03:00:18 - [1695] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: 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. I trained a fleet of gank alts on my accounts and I was able to get to that point in a few months of dual training. It's not like it requires a lot of effort or even t2 guns for the talos to put out +1200 dps. Implants are super cheap and you really shouldn't be losing pods. Do you always have such trouble with reading? I clearly stated I've been actively ganking freighters in game and I've been doing it for some time. You're right though that the vast majority of freighter pilots don't have all V skills. I regularly overkill cause I assume they are maxed.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1696	Posted - 2014.11.17 03:39:21 - [1696] - Quote 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.
ashley Eoner 359	Posted - 2014.11.17 06:25:15 - [1697] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Well I imagine he will argue that those people should of run maximum tanks had a webber a scout a booster and remote reps on site...
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13926	Posted - 2014.11.17 10:11:19 - [1698] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. We showed a few pages back that mwd-cloaky machs do, infact, get ganked. So no, you do not fly with 100% safety. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13926	Posted - 2014.11.17 10:22:19 - [1699] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. You can find it in one of Dr Gumundssons' quaterly economic reports Here is this years economic report. As you can see, null is the meat grinder. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
tekpede Solar Slaves 18	Posted - 2014.11.17 10:38:19 - [1700] - Quote Disappointed with the ship maintenance bay size. Lame

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13926	Posted - 2014.11.17 10:47:02 - [1701] - Quote tekpede wrote: Disappointed with the ship maintenance bay size. Lame You can fit an entire harpy fleet in one. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dave stark 7181	Posted - 2014.11.17 11:29:30 - [1702] - Quote baltec1 wrote: tekpede wrote: Disappointed with the ship maintenance bay size. Lame You can fit an entire harpy fleet in one. but he can't fit all 30 of his pirate battelships in one. therefore this ship is entirely useless and a waste of dev time.
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 6	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:12:15 - [1703] - Quote 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13926	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:30:45 - [1704] - Quote Mariko Bukan wrote: 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 No, a 30 bil cargo should never be safe to transport. This ships tank is more than enough to transport a billion isk in ships which is on par with the other freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 111	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:33:25 - [1705] - Quote Mariko Bukan wrote: 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? 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.
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 7	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:34:31 - [1706] - Quote then the ship is worthless It has great potential
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 7	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:38:03 - [1707] - Quote As it is now the Bow is a big Orca, no real benefit as you still have to move the relevant clone
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13926	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:38:16 - [1708] - Quote Mariko Bukan wrote: then the ship is worthless Only to lazy, cowardly pilots. The bulk of freighter pilots do not fit tanks to their ships so saying a hauler with 2.6 times the tank is useless is just a flat out lie. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 7	Posted - 2014.11.17 12:51:37 - [1709] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Mariko Bukan wrote: 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? 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
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 7	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:06:39 - [1710] - Quote Mariko Bukan wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Mariko Bukan wrote: 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? 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 So basically its a fat Orca then without the ability to boost

Jurico Elemenohpe Laughing Coffin's Surely You're Joking 12	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:34:14 - [1711] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Well I imagine he will argue that those people should of run maximum tanks had a webber a scout a booster and remote reps on site... Yeah, but the thing is you need that amount of people. And no, they don't need all those alts. Just web and scout. Note: that's a joke, I see freighters go through Uedama all the time. Someone should count the amount of freighters that don't get banked over a week and then average it out to hourly unganked freighters.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:43:52 - [1712] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. That guy didn't do the MWD+cloak and he didn't even fill all his lows ... he deserved to die :) Hardly a good example of travel fit BS.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:44:49 - [1713] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. Oh well done, its even travel fitted. No, it isn't. Empty low slot? No MWD + cloak? He could offline his guns and at least fit a plate or AAR or something.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:48:09 - [1714] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills. 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. It has three inertia stabs on it, thats to get it into warp faster. Thats what a travel fit requires. Brick tanking is not a travel fit, its brick tanking. 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.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:49:28 - [1715] - Quote Querns wrote: 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? So playing the game by not playing the game is how we should play the game if we fly a bowhead.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:53:01 - [1716] - Quote Querns wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Querns wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Querns wrote: Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped? I've actually thought about this myself, but given that safe warp brings you right back to where you started, don't the bumpers just have to keep bumping you again? Its not as if the bumper is under a time crunch given how slow those ships are to align. You just stay logged off until the gankers go away. Scouting the gate with an alt helps you figure out when it's time to log in again. Them shooting at you prevents the logoff I think. So when you disconnect on gate, you get warped 1 mil km off.....they quickly scan down and send a rookie ship to agress....this prevents logoff....the they bump away from concord....and come in for the kill. Not if you safelog. Safe logout takes 30 seconds, and as long as you aren't aggressed, you disappear from space immediately after the 30s timer elapses. It is the premiere choice for Folks Logging Out In Space. Also, when you log in again, you immediately enter emergency warp without having to align. There's no way for someone to aggress you before you initiate the e-warp, and if someone DOES manage to somehow, the GMs will reimburse your ship if you petition it. But you will be agressed by a rookie ship so, you won't safe log off.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 13:54:49 - [1717] - Quote Querns wrote: Oh and here we go travel fit machariel found with a cloak and mwd found https://zkillboard.com/kill/42170465/ Where is the tank? Are you serious ? :)
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:05:19 - [1718] - 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. Please, tell me how can you be proactive and protect a Bowhead. You have only the choice of using a web alt, at which point you fly your ships to the destination 2 at a time and while you mission, run incursions, etc, you fly your 3rd BS with your second char and you have much more chances of arriving at your destination with your ships intact.
Jurico Elemenohpe Laughing Coffin's Surely You're Joking 12	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:06:28 - [1719] - Quote Mariko Bukan wrote: Mariko Bukan wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Mariko Bukan wrote: 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? 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 So basically its a fat Orca then without the ability to boost Hence the clone vat bay suggestion BTW you can not jump in hi-sec only gate travel, so jump fatigue would not be an issue for me So jump fatigue bonus not an issue as I fly hi-sec Just need the ship and skill on SISI to test it Done. A bow is not a "fat orca without the ability to boost". It's a ship hauling ship. At all V, assuming tank fit with t2 mods/t1 rigs and assuming they both have the same base resists, an orca has a 37.8s align time with 2au/s warp. Bowhead is 51.48s align and 1.37au/s warp. However! It can carry over 4* the amount of ships that an orca can (not including cargo bay). So yeah, for moving ships? This is better.
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:07:19 - [1720] - Quote Kestrix wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Kestrix wrote: ^^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 [/quote] What is the point of the bowhead if you need more than 1 character (well, let's say 2 because a web char is always good)?

S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:14:44 - [1721] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. Yes, yes, we all know you're proud of what a gutless coward you are. But that has no bearing on discussing this proposed ship. So stay on topic for once. He is gutless coward because he doesn't give you a loot pinata in a paper thin ship? This is good man.. this is good :)
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:26:11 - [1722] - Quote Jurico Elemenohpe wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Well I imagine he will argue that those people should of run maximum tanks had a webber a scout a booster and remote reps on site... Yeah, but the thing is you need that amount of people. And no, they don't need all those alts. Just web and scout. Note: that's a joke, I see freighters go through Uedama all the time. Someone should count the amount of freighters that don't get banked over a week and then average it out to hourly unganked freighters. So, if you need 3 characters, one for freighter one for web and one to scout... why would you even fly the bowhead instead of flying the 3 BSs at the same time?
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 7	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:30:36 - [1723] - Quote Given the bow favours shield buffer tank it suits me to fleet move it with a scimi backup. I would still like to to see a clone vat bay option
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 266	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:36:10 - [1724] - Quote The Bowhead is the first freighter that would actually benefit from having a logistics escort. That, alone, makes it worth having. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
Mariko Bukan The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd. 7	Posted - 2014.11.17 14:51:45 - [1725] - Quote A bitter vet trying to start anew. Mentor new bros it's always furfilling
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1694	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:04:19 - [1726] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: Jurico Elemenohpe wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Well I imagine he will argue that those people should of run maximum tanks had a webber a scout a booster and remote reps on site... Yeah, but the thing is you need that amount of people. And no, they don't need all those alts. Just web and scout. Note: that's a joke, I see freighters go through Uedama all the time. Someone should count the amount of freighters that don't get banked over a week and then average it out to hourly unganked freighters. So, if you need 3 characters, one for freighter one for web and one to scout... why would you even fly the bowhead instead of flying the 3 BSs at the same time? If your solo, don't stuff the shipp with all your goodies at once. If you are in a group, these things increase the amount of safety you can have and in turn, how many goodies you can stuff in said ship.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10630	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:19:33 - [1727] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Don't bullshit me. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42463226/ 20 catalysts, and that was with an anti tank. Now both of you knock off the crap. [edit: Oh, and that was in a 0.5. If the sec level goes up, you need even more people. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:23:38 - [1728] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Don't bullshit me. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42463226/ 20 catalysts, and that was with an anti tank. Now both of you knock off the crap. love the guy that was using civilian guns
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10630	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:29:14 - [1729] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Don't bullshit me. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42463226/ 20 catalysts, and that was with an anti tank. Now both of you knock off the crap. love the guy that was using civilian guns Want some another one? http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26038278 20, mostly catalysts with T2 neutrons. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:32:34 - [1730] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Don't bullshit me. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42463226/ 20 catalysts, and that was with an anti tank. Now both of you knock off the crap. love the guy that was using civilian guns Want some another one? http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26038278 20, mostly catalysts with T2 neutrons. same kill mail dude. the guy with 13 dmg and a civilian gun is still there. edit: but good try. and dont get to hurt I thought it was funny. don't know why they didn't show in a noob ship instead of putting the civilian gun on a dessy

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10630	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:38:19 - [1731] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: same kill mail dude. the guy with 13 dmg and a civilian gun is still there. edit: but good try. and dont get to hurt I thought it was funny. don't know why they didn't show in a noob ship instead of putting the civilian gun on a dessy I know it's the same one, it's a different killboard. They mess up the damage counts fairly often, but this one is consistent between them. "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 10630	Posted - 2014.11.17 15:39:33 - [1732] - Quote Oh, yes, the civilian gun. People use that to keep aggression timers on someone trying to use a logoff. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.17 16:13:58 - [1733] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Oh, yes, the civilian gun. People use that to keep aggression timers on someone trying to use a logoff. its just funny its a on dessy and not a noob ship where they come preinstalled.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10630	Posted - 2014.11.17 16:22:16 - [1734] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Oh, yes, the civilian gun. People use that to keep aggression timers on someone trying to use a logoff. its just funny its a on dessy and not a noob ship where they come preinstalled. shrugs "for the lulz" I can only assume. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 283	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:02:44 - [1735] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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. We showed a few pages back that mwd-cloaky machs do, infact, get ganked. So no, you do not fly with 100% safety. 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13933	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:23:45 - [1736] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 283	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:26:54 - [1737] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. Wrong. In highsec (note, this is not null!), travel fit battleships best use is to deter gankers from even bothering in the first place. For battleships, where bumping to prevent warp is not possible, that means gankers need to have enough DPS on field to knock you down in the first wave. When you reach or eclipse 300k, the gankers give up, because they simply don't have that amount of DPS available. The cloak + mwd trick is another useful weapon in the arsenal, because even if somehow the gankers have enough dps to crack 300k in 25 secs, they know that most likely you will just cloak up and escape. Result - the gankers don't bother, and focus on freighters. That's why you virtually never see properly bricked tanked travel fit battleships dying.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:35:04 - [1738] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. 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.
Jessica 1 seviq Corporation 5	Posted - 2014.11.17 17:35:38 - [1739] - 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? Yes definitely has to be reasonable. Because it will be a sad day in EVE for everyone when someone with 10 trial accounts and isoboxer needs to spend more then 20mil to gank the thing.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13934	Posted - 2014.11.17 18:28:54 - [1740] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. 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. Thats the point we are making. The mach we linked was faster than the brick tank monstrosities they are using and it still got caught. All this sorry argument is showing is just how bad some high sec players are. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13934	Posted - 2014.11.17 18:32:03 - [1741] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: 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? Citation needed. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.17 18:33:51 - [1742] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. 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. Thats the point we are making. The mach we linked was faster than the brick tank monstrosities they are using and it still got caught. All this sorry argument is showing is just how bad some high sec players are. 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
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13935	Posted - 2014.11.17 18:39:45 - [1743] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: 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 The fit Veers tried to use was a 4-5 bil armour/shield buffer that a dreadnought would have no problem hitting and included such wonders as factions plates and gist MWD. It was dramatically slowed down to the point where a nano dread would also beat it into warp using just one Hyperspacial rig and a set of med grades. He said people cant catch it, we just showed that we catch much faster machs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jada Maroo Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 1400	Posted - 2014.11.17 19:06:12 - [1744] - Quote Needs a high slot to function as a stealth mobile WH base.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 284	Posted - 2014.11.17 19:31:43 - [1745] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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? Citation needed. 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.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1699	Posted - 2014.11.17 20:20:32 - [1746] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Don't bullshit me. Now both of you knock off the crap. [edit: Oh, and that was in a 0.5. If the sec level goes up, you need even more people. Those were legit API verified KM's I found on Eve Kill by using the high value section to quickly get rid of all the cheap ships. So... No BS. I'm sure I could have found a larger gank which used more people if I'd gone looking specifically for it, however I went with the first Freighter kills I found, and would have posted them no matter what the stats actually said. Additionally not all the kills I found were in 0.5 space. Judging by the damage each Talos managed on the 6 Talos kill most of the rest of the kills I found were overkilling by a significant margin as the Talos were managing barely 10-12k damage in some of those mails. So, stop with the aggression, 30+ people are not needed. Just 6 skilled people can do it as logs show quite handily.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10637	Posted - 2014.11.17 20:39:07 - [1747] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: So, stop with the aggression, 30+ people are not needed. Just 6 skilled people can do it as logs show quite handily. If you're using catalysts, then twenty are needed for a safe margin. In a 0.5 system. If you have to gank at any higher sec level, then you need still more. So stop telling me that it's not a lot of people, because it is. Higher sec levels make it ridiculous, and that's the whole point of this. The Bowhead quite simply does not justify such a large tank. A freighter can already avoid a gank that takes twenty, thirty, or more people with a mere one guy with webs. When such a thing is possible, freighters caught without this defense measure should be killed. "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 13935	Posted - 2014.11.17 21:10:13 - [1748] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: 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? Citation needed. 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. That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 284	Posted - 2014.11.17 21:25:45 - [1749] - Quote baltec1 wrote: That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD. 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?
ashley Eoner 360	Posted - 2014.11.17 21:30:57 - [1750] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Don't bullshit me. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42463226/ 20 catalysts, and that was with an anti tank. Now both of you knock off the crap. [edit: Oh, and that was in a 0.5. If the sec level goes up, you need even more people. You're dumb if you're ganking freighters in higher sec then .5. Every major trade route has at least one .5. My point still stands. One guy did 13 damage another did 1148 another did 2075 another did 2193. Just looking at the damage done you can clearly see that the majority of the pilots didn't even do anywhere near the damage they are capable of doing in .5 (which for my catas is about 16500 damage with the standard 25 second response L 2 bait concord away). None of the gankers reached what was their full damage capability. That clearly shows that 19 gankers (one of the 20 is not a ganker with the civilian gatling) were way overkill for that obelisk. Yes I'm aware the civilian gatling pilot is there to keep the freighter from logging off. With that many people though you shouldn't even need that.

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10638	Posted - 2014.11.17 21:33:23 - [1751] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: You're dumb if you're ganking freighters in higher sec then .5. Every major trade route has at least one .5. PvP doesn't just belong in 0.5 systems. You're basically admitting to me that it does take large numbers of people, in all but specific situations. So thanks for that. "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 13935	Posted - 2014.11.17 21:45:31 - [1752] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD. 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? Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling. Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
ashley Eoner 360	Posted - 2014.11.17 22:00:33 - [1753] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: You're dumb if you're ganking freighters in higher sec then .5. Every major trade route has at least one .5. PvP doesn't just belong in 0.5 systems. You're basically admitting to me that it does take large numbers of people, in all but specific situations. So thanks for that. I'm admitting that it's easier / smarter to do in certain systems. The .5 systems also tend to be choke points which makes it even smarter to camp. Ganking in a .6 or .7 just requires an extra pilot or two. If you preposition concord you won't even need an extra pilot in those cases. I've ganked freighters on my own in .8 space. I see no reason to engage in .9 or 1.0 since those are severely limited areas and the other lower sec systems outnumber them. Ganking isn't real pvp it's basically a PVE level of activity. There's no risk involved and the target is unable to defend itself. In the end you can qualify mining as a pvp activity as you're actively competing against other players for ore and such. I'm not even sure if there's an activity in this game that you couldn't technically define as pvp.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 284	Posted - 2014.11.17 22:02:42 - [1754] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD. 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? Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling. Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship. 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.
ashley Eoner 360	Posted - 2014.11.17 22:05:23 - [1755] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD. 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? Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling. Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship. 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 ganks, 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. One of the smartest things I've done since I came back to this game was to make gank alts on all my accounts. I now have 14 characters who with a mere 2 months of training (I went with 3 months because nado/talos/t2cata) are capable of being used to make life horrible for those I choose to target.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10638	Posted - 2014.11.17 22:05:56 - [1756] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken. You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend. And having to actually fight back is not broken, either. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 284	Posted - 2014.11.17 22:22:37 - [1757] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken. You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend. And having to actually fight back is not broken, either. Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. And yes, I am the good guys....I've never once committed a criminal act in the game. Keep trying.
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10639	Posted - 2014.11.17 22:50:23 - [1758] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. It's not broken. It's a dystopian society. You know, the entire game setting? "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 13935	Posted - 2014.11.17 23:00:38 - [1759] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: That you are terrible at EVE and it is impossible for you to learn. Feel free to use that fit of yours as I will love to see that ALOD. 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? Either there is a valid counter to bumpers or he got killed while traveling. Doesnt change the fact that your brick tank is the worst thing you could possibly do for a travel fit ship. 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. Said the guy who fits billions of isk on a ship that is meant to be travel fit yet moves slower than a roaming dreadnought. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.17 23:07:55 - [1760] - Quote seems like it is time to trim the topic again of bickering/trolling

Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1699	Posted - 2014.11.17 23:42:21 - [1761] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken. You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend. And having to actually fight back is not broken, either. Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. And yes, I am the good guys....I've never once committed a criminal act in the game. Keep trying. You might want to go tell that to about half of the americans. Massive chunk of them own guns for the sole purpose that they believe it is ultimately their responsibility to keep themselves and their friends/family safe. And this is modern society. No need to wait for a dystopian future . Although some would argue we are in one. You'll find them with the tinfoil on their head.
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 284	Posted - 2014.11.18 00:05:54 - [1762] - Quote Rowells wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: It also forces the good guys to become the bad guys, and demonstrates that bumping is broken. You're not a good guy. Nor is anyone who would call you a friend. And having to actually fight back is not broken, either. Forcing law abiding citizens to become criminals to defend themselves against criminals is broken. And yes, I am the good guys....I've never once committed a criminal act in the game. Keep trying. You might want to go tell that to about half of the americans. Massive chunk of them own guns for the sole purpose that they believe it is ultimately their responsibility to keep themselves and their friends/family safe. And this is modern society. No need to wait for a dystopian future . Although some would argue we are in one. You'll find them with the tinfoil on their head. People who defend themselves against break ins are not criminals, they are simply acting in a law abiding fashion. Bumping (a form of entrapment) is already a crime under US law. Demanding that PvE players engage in criminal suicide ganking to protect themselves against bumpers is contrary to the principles of the game, where non-criminals are able to lawfully operate in highsec with CONCORD protection. Anyhow - this is irrelevant to the thread. Point is travel fit battleships are essentially 100% safe, whereas the bowhead is quite vulnerable. I for one will be checking out the killboard for the first few days post-release, and except to see quite a few ganks of this "unkillable" ship.
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 210	Posted - 2014.11.18 00:18:24 - [1763] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Bumping (a form of entrapment) is already a crime under US law. You owe me a new monitor because I spit my drink out laughing at this and I don't feel like cleaning it.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1699	Posted - 2014.11.18 01:25:14 - [1764] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: Bumping (a form of entrapment) is already a crime under US law. You owe me a new monitor because I spit my drink out laughing at this and I don't feel like cleaning it. I'm gonna start calling the cops every time a ****** hogs the hallway.
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 861	Posted - 2014.11.18 04:00:32 - [1765] - Quote I don't think the Bowhead is a bad idea. As long as the cost to gank it is reasonably high when it's fitted for tank, it should be pretty useful. Just remember that fitted battleships can cost north of 300m now, and it seems reasonable to expect to be able to carry a load of T2-fit BS around without becoming an economically-viable gank target. I still don't think that these should be the only highsec hull transport option, though. I seriously think you guys should re-think your stance on allowing capitals into highsec. It's great that you're introducing a low skill requirement, basic hull-hauler for highsec use, but I think capitals should be allowed to participate in this role as well. The nut-shot you guys have given jump-travel and the complete impracticality of traversing empire space through lowsec (hello, 70-jump routes that still require the use of the jump drive here and there because some places literally don't have a lowsec-only route) would make allowing caps through highsec a major quality of life improvement. Also, you'll have to re-do POSes soon anyway, so any concerns about capitals being used in highsec POS warfare (not that I'm sure these are valid to begin with: people in all other kinds of space manage to get by with caps attacking their POSes just fine) could soon be addressed through a POS shakeup anyway.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1699	Posted - 2014.11.18 05:36:54 - [1766] - Quote Rowells wrote: I'm gonna start calling the cops every time a ****** hogs the hallway. I believe you will find the relevant law under kidnapping in most countries. Removed by force from where you want to be and prevented by force from returning to that area or leaving the person in question. However there is no good computer mechanic to determine bumping intent thus it can never be flaggable in EVE without being utterly abusable. Anyway, are you lot having fun arguing round and round in circles and both sides making themselves look really stupid by this point? Since both sides have had their arguments shot to utter dust, and are still somehow clinging to them as if they are immovable objects.
St'oto Hell's Death Squad Enemy Spotted. 2	Posted - 2014.11.18 06:31:40 - [1767] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Rowells wrote: I'm gonna start calling the cops every time a ****** hogs the hallway. I believe you will find the relevant law under kidnapping in most countries. Removed by force from where you want to be and prevented by force from returning to that area or leaving the person in question. However there is no good computer mechanic to determine bumping intent thus it can never be flaggable in EVE without being utterly abusable. Anyway, are you lot having fun arguing round and round in circles and both sides making themselves look really stupid by this point? Since both sides have had their arguments shot to utter dust, and are still somehow clinging to them as if they are immovable objects. lol just sit back and eat popcorn bud. It's a inevitability that comes from discussing one topic over and over again for hours on end. By the end of it, any onlookers laugh their asses off while the people invested shake their heads and still try to cling to their desperate arguments while wondering why the onlookers are laughing said asses off. On Topic : I think this ship could definitely be useful. Even as a general fitted hauling "service." So I'm glad it's making it's way into the game till capitals are allowed into highsec. I won't even touch on the gank possibilities as it's way out of my expertise. I don't gank, nor do I worry about ganking as I usually don't fly alone or fly AFK when I do.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 92	Posted - 2014.11.18 06:33:49 - [1768] - Quote This thread was supposed to introduce a new ship and discuss the ship and its usage. After 70 pages one can safely summarize that roughly half of this thread has been a discussion about ganking and how to destroy other ships in high sec. CCP please take notice of this - it shows that you missed to adjust other game parameters when you started introducing more t2 and t3 ships over the years. Eve used to be a story rich game - a 'half-way' safe high sec was part of that story as it is heavily policed and regulated. The in-place mechanics dont take that into account as any kind of anti-empire action is only reflected in a concord destruction of the aggressors - thats clearly too weak a response. Security hits and standing losses need to be reconsidered to be in line with the story again. No introduction of any further ship will change or improve the situation - it will always just be a temporary effect. We have 3 distinctive levels of policed and regulated space in Eve - but the mechanics are not in line with the available ships anymore. Ganking is too simple in high sec, tanking gate guns in low sec is too simple - face it it requires immediate adjustment. All that said i think no further adjustment on the bowhead is needed as it doesnt really matter how the stats in the end will be. With current mechanics it will be easy to find ways to overcome whatever the stats will be. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Rhoaden Australia Federal Police 13	Posted - 2014.11.18 06:49:25 - [1769] - Quote TBH I was really hoping for a roquarl that could transport combat ships. I think some one said it can carry 92 ? harpys that's a little under 3billion isk and its only carrying t2 fit AF. so its carrying nearly 3x what a standard freighter would carry and its got less tank and well proably cost more. I don't don't understand why we could just get a roqaul - the jump drive that could carry combat ships seems much easier to me.
Crevtran Sbatiol Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 13	Posted - 2014.11.18 07:15:42 - [1770] - Quote Someone fill me in on how this doesn't ruin one of the remaining niches of carriers. Is it CCPs plan to reduce carriers to oversized logis? Alice: Geez, Bob, you taunted the Goons and now they want to kill you. Bob: Should I call the police? Alice: In game, Bob, kill you in game. Bob: Ah, so petition it and call the police?

Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 81	Posted - 2014.11.18 07:45:33 - [1771] - Quote Highsec is already very, very safe. In fact it is probably safer than it ought to be, and it might be arguable that it is safe to an extent that is unhealthy for the game. That the only real problem players have is in certain chokepoint systems, and even then, the problem is small-scale, infers to me that highsec is very safe indeed. Yes, I know, that is only my opinion and I have nothing substantial or statistical to back it up. It's just what I've observed. (cue the "that's just, like, your opinion man" from Lebowski) That aside, I think the EHP on the Bowhead could use to be reverted back to the original numbers (~350k if properly fitted, if I recall correctly). I don't think gank profitability is of any relevance in this discussion, as it is a question of motive and not of the mechanics of the act, and right now it's highly questionable if profitability is even a [major] driving factor behind ganking at this time (how many times have I seen a thread titled something along the lines of "Help CCP! Empty freighters being ganked!!!"?). So putting that aside, the original EHP numbers were powerful and perfectly usable. Caveat: like others have mentioned earlier in the thread, having the majority of EHP in shield is a great idea to encourage logi support. But EHP plus or minus, it most likely won't directly effect me since I am unlikely to be able to partake in taking one down either through gank or through wardec. No, my main beef with this vessel is another point already driven home by other posters and while I know it won't change, I have to say it just the same - having yet another industrial skill that only effects one ship is just bullpocky. I'd rather see the ship rolled in with Capital Industrial Ship (someone said earlier it would have XL rigs, right? Well, isn't that capital? Well then it's an industrial ship that's capital and needs to be a part of that skillbook). HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
Masao Kurata Z List 153	Posted - 2014.11.18 07:48:01 - [1772] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: I for one will be checking out the killboard for the first few days post-release, and except to see quite a few ganks of this "unkillable" ship. Oh it's killable, it just relies on the pilot doing something monumentally stupid like not fitting tank, fitting laughably incorrect correct tank, going afk and not turning on his modules (has anyone posted recently about how annoying it is that damage control has no visible effect?), flying it with active kill rights (oh yes I should mention that I expect a few to die this way intentionally since it's fully insurable), flying it in (factional) war, undocking it when already suspect, panic ejecting (I don't understand it but people do this) or self destructing (yes this does generate a killmail provided that there was some player damage to the ship). Or of course the old favourite, flying straight into low or null without a plan or even checking your route.
Jerome Gouillot Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency 22	Posted - 2014.11.18 09:26:46 - [1773] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Zappity wrote: Warr Akini wrote: The above being said, it looks as if CCP doesn't actually know what goes through a ganker's mind. If only there was someone who knew the ins and outs of ganking around here... "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. Yea... that guy runs a for profit organisation, not code. CODE does as well, not on a per gank level, but on a meta one I am confident the share/donation pool plus loot makes the whole operation profitable.
Fu Qjoo Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency 19	Posted - 2014.11.18 09:58:36 - [1774] - Quote I do not get why this always leads to a massive threadnought. If you want to move a rigged BS now, you have 2 options: destroy the rigs and ship it in a JF/Freighter or have it hauled by a professional trucker fly it by yourself Now you get a third option. Why are you complaining? In its current state though, it is already on the edge of making option 1 and 2 extremely unattractive, which would cut 2 existing options down to 1. I do not think the game will benefit from taking options away. So I would rather see this ship at 300ish EHP fully tank fitted (well, there is no other option to fit it anyway). That forces you to chose time vs. money vs. risk. Which is good in my opinion. And for Null, it might add content as interfering with enemy logistic lines based on those ships will be a strategic option. We might see large battles around 25 escorted bowheads. Which would be good as well.
Fu Qjoo Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency 19	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:08:18 - [1775] - Quote Querns wrote: Oh and here we go travel fit machariel found with a cloak and mwd found https://zkillboard.com/kill/42170465/ This is a bumping Mach or a pilot with a ship/cargo scanner fetish.
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:49:32 - [1776] - Quote Fu Qjoo wrote: I do not get why this always leads to a massive threadnought. If you want to move a rigged BS now, you have 2 options: destroy the rigs and ship it in a JF/Freighter or have it hauled by a professional trucker fly it by yourself Now you get a third option. Why are you complaining? In its current state though, it is already on the edge of making option 1 and 2 extremely unattractive, which would cut 2 existing options down to 1. I do not think the game will benefit from taking options away. So I would rather see this ship at 300ish EHP fully tank fitted (well, there is no other option to fit it anyway). That forces you to chose time vs. money vs. risk. Which is good in my opinion. And for Null, it might add content as interfering with enemy logistic lines based on those ships will be a strategic option. We might see large battles around 25 escorted bowheads. Which would be good as well. Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13940	Posted - 2014.11.18 10:57:28 - [1777] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive. Same reason why most use freighters over deep space transports. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:01:55 - [1778] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive. Same reason why most use freighters over deep space transports. When the bowhead can ferry 4-10 bs with a total value of below 500m, you will have a point.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13940	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:07:56 - [1779] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive. Same reason why most use freighters over deep space transports. When the bowhead can ferry 4-10 bs with a total value of below 500m, you will have a point. It never will because null sec would abuse such a ship to undo the force projection nerfs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Fu Qjoo Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency 19	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:14:33 - [1780] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: Fu Qjoo wrote: I do not get why this always leads to a massive threadnought. If you want to move a rigged BS now, you have 2 options: destroy the rigs and ship it in a JF/Freighter or have it hauled by a professional trucker fly it by yourself Now you get a third option. Why are you complaining? In its current state though, it is already on the edge of making option 1 and 2 extremely unattractive, which would cut 2 existing options down to 1. I do not think the game will benefit from taking options away. So I would rather see this ship at 300ish EHP fully tank fitted (well, there is no other option to fit it anyway). That forces you to chose time vs. money vs. risk. Which is good in my opinion. And for Null, it might add content as interfering with enemy logistic lines based on those ships will be a strategic option. We might see large battles around 25 escorted bowheads. Which would be good as well. Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive. It does not, both are viable options with specific advantages and disadvantages. Which was my point, Making the bowhead even harder to gank would, which would be not good.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13940	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:31:46 - [1781] - Quote Lets go over the numbers again. With a bog standard t2 tank the bowhead comes out at 2.6 times the tank of a cargo expanded freighter and 85k more EHP than a a bulkhead freighter. In terms of speed a bowhead over 30 jumps of an average of 50 au is faster than manually transporting three battleships. In terms of usefulness the bowhead will transport an entire harpy/hawk fleet or 13 cruisers or three battleships, this is infinatly useful to null organisations, low sec corps, ship manufacturers, incursion corps and anyone else with a need to move a number of ships. It was worked out that an incursion corp of 40 would be able to move to a new incursion using 30 bowheads escorted by 10 logi and would be as close to unkillable as you can get. No gank group would pose a threat to such a convoy. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Anthar Thebess 803	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:33:55 - [1782] - Quote Can this ship get a younger brother? Let say something that is capable of hauling a cruiser , destroyer and 2-3 frigates at the same time. It is fun you offer nice stuff for older and more wealthy players, but some stuff for new players could be also nice. Noob Whale Med slots : 4 Low slots : 3 Cargo Bay :1500 Ship Hangar : 225.000 m3 Total EHP : around 25k without mods Prerequisite : Ore Industrial LVL 3 , Adv Spaceship Command LVL 1 PHOEBE Retrospective
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:35:50 - [1783] - Quote Fu Qjoo wrote: Barton Breau wrote: Maybe you should explain how using 300k ehp and ~30s align time makes mwd cloak 100k ehp with 4 stabs unattractive. Apologies for being unprecise. My post was intended to refer to a situation in that more than one ship has to be moved. Which is obvious from the content but the wording was bad. I have edited it now. I was kinda hoping for use cases to make your point clearer, especially for high, since much is being talked about incursion runners, where it is not unreasonable to expect 500-800m battleships, and the advantage of getting two of them into a very slow and vulnerable hull probably not being a very good thing, and a questionable time saver.
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 111	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:47:04 - [1784] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Can this ship get a younger brother? Let say something that is capable of hauling a cruiser , destroyer and 2-3 frigates at the same time. It is fun you offer nice stuff for older and more wealthy players, but some stuff for new players could be also nice. Noob Whale Med slots : 4 Low slots : 3 Cargo Bay :1500 Ship Hangar : 225.000 m3 Total EHP : around 25k without mods Prerequisite : Ore Industrial LVL 3 , Adv Spaceship Command LVL 1 Lrn 2 Orca.
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.18 11:50:50 - [1785] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: Lrn 2 Orca. A faster orca without the whole mining ballast (500-700k ship bay) is not so unreasonable, however the decision to call it "Ore FREIGHTER" makes that impossible on itself, much less that the null is jumping at the 90% reduction themselves.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13942	Posted - 2014.11.18 12:35:56 - [1786] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lets go over the numbers again. With a bog standard t2 tank the bowhead comes out at 2.6 times the tank of a cargo expanded freighter and 85k more EHP than a a bulkhead freighter. In terms of speed a bowhead over 30 jumps of an average of 50 au is faster than manually transporting three battleships. In terms of usefulness the bowhead will transport an entire harpy/hawk fleet or 13 cruisers or three battleships, this is infinatly useful to null organisations, low sec corps, ship manufacturers, incursion corps and anyone else with a need to move a number of ships. It was worked out that an incursion corp of 40 would be able to move to a new incursion using 30 bowheads escorted by 10 logi and would be as close to unkillable as you can get. No gank group would pose a threat to such a convoy. 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!". Try not skipping over the first paragraph. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10648	Posted - 2014.11.18 13:41:00 - [1787] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: 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!". Why is that? That's exactly the same argument carebears use about the Catalyst to try and get ganking nerfed. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Anthar Thebess 803	Posted - 2014.11.18 13:41:43 - [1788] - Quote Orca is still quite expensive stuff for a new player. I'm talking about ship that will be worth max 100mil , and if it could cost around 50mil , then this will be even better. Something that new player can use to haul its stuff without investment in mining skills. Orca have much bigger cargo space and tank, and ability to boost the fleet. PHOEBE Retrospective
S'No Flake Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 44	Posted - 2014.11.18 13:58:10 - [1789] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13947	Posted - 2014.11.18 15:34:49 - [1790] - Quote S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. 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. Yet here we are with people saying a travel fit mach that is slower and more expensive than a dread is a good idea. You can dump a 50 man fleet on this thing and still walk away with a profit. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.18 16:24:31 - [1791] - Quote baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: baltec1 wrote: S'No Flake wrote: 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. Fitting plates slows your alignment down and fitting extenders makes your sig larger. Both make you easier to catch. Travel fits are ment to make you faster not slower and easier to lock. 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. Yet here we are with people saying a travel fit mach that is slower and more expensive than a dread is a good idea. You can dump a 50 man fleet on this thing and still walk away with a profit. Meanwhile the actual travel fit machs are aligning nearly twice as fast and are sporting a t2 fit. where was he promoting a 3 bil isk travel fit mach?
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 286	Posted - 2014.11.18 16:26:24 - [1792] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yet here we are with people saying a travel fit mach that is slower and more expensive than a dread is a good idea. You can dump a 50 man fleet on this thing and still walk away with a profit. Meanwhile the actual travel fit machs are aligning nearly twice as fast and are sporting a t2 fit. Still clueless.....you don't face 50 man gank fleets in highsec, they max out at around 25, and without enough dps to take down a brick tank even in a 0.5. Also, the point of the travel fit is to move the incursion stuff, not to move the ship! Keep scouring those killmails for an actual gank of a travel mach. Or you could just look for freighter ganks - no shortage of those.
Yazzinra Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate 53	Posted - 2014.11.18 17:40:45 - [1793] - Quote I like it. Already planning on buying 3 of them for my indy/hauler alt.
ashley Eoner 360	Posted - 2014.11.18 18:19:49 - [1794] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Highsec is already very, very safe. In fact it is probably safer than it ought to be, and it might be arguable that it is safe to an extent that is unhealthy for the game. That the only real problem players have is in certain chokepoint systems, and even then, the problem is small-scale, infers to me that highsec is very safe indeed. Yes, I know, that is only my opinion and I have nothing substantial or statistical to back it up. It's just what I've observed. (cue the "that's just, like, your opinion man" from Lebowski) That aside, I think the EHP on the Bowhead could use to be reverted back to the original numbers (~350k if properly fitted, if I recall correctly). I don't think gank profitability is of any relevance in this discussion, as it is a question of motive and not of the mechanics of the act, and right now it's highly questionable if profitability is even a [major] driving factor behind ganking at this time (how many times have I seen a thread titled something along the lines of "Help CCP! Empty freighters being ganked!!!"?). So putting that aside, the original EHP numbers were powerful and perfectly usable. Caveat: like others have mentioned earlier in the thread, having the majority of EHP in shield is a great idea to encourage logi support. But EHP plus or minus, it most likely won't directly effect me since I am unlikely to be able to partake in taking one down either through gank or through wardec. No, my main beef with this vessel is another point already driven home by other posters and while I know it won't change, I have to say it just the same - having yet another industrial skill that only effects one ship is just bullpocky. I'd rather see the ship rolled in with Capital Industrial Ship (someone said earlier it would have XL rigs, right? Well, isn't that capital? Well then it's an industrial ship that's capital and needs to be a part of that skillbook). Says the guy hiding behind a NPC alt.... "Look guys Highsec is TOO SAFE!!! So safe I'm hiding my real character's name because someone might spend time to gank me over and over which would ruin my play experience!! But remember highsec is super safe!"
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 112	Posted - 2014.11.18 18:28:30 - [1795] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: Says the guy hiding behind a NPC alt.... "Look guys Highsec is TOO SAFE!!! So safe I'm hiding my real character's name because someone might spend time to gank me over and over which would ruin my play experience!! But remember highsec is super safe!" ITT: Players who victimize people in high sec are upset over people effectively denying them the opportunity to victimize them.
Valterra Craven 376	Posted - 2014.11.18 18:35:01 - [1796] - Quote baltec1 wrote: It never will because null sec would abuse such a ship to undo the force projection nerfs. 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.
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.18 18:38:44 - [1797] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Barton Breau wrote: 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!". Why is that? That's exactly the same argument carebears use about the Catalyst to try and get ganking nerfed. And dont they face resistance? :)
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.18 18:44:10 - [1798] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lets go over the numbers again. With a bog standard t2 tank the bowhead comes out at 2.6 times the tank of a cargo expanded freighter and 85k more EHP than a a bulkhead freighter. In terms of speed a bowhead over 30 jumps of an average of 50 au is faster than manually transporting three battleships. In terms of usefulness the bowhead will transport an entire harpy/hawk fleet or 13 cruisers or three battleships, this is infinatly useful to null organisations, low sec corps, ship manufacturers, incursion corps and anyone else with a need to move a number of ships. It was worked out that an incursion corp of 40 would be able to move to a new incursion using 30 bowheads escorted by 10 logi and would be as close to unkillable as you can get. No gank group would pose a threat to such a convoy. 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!". Try not skipping over the first paragraph. 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...
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13951	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:03:23 - [1799] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: 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... So dont use it. Meanwhile there is a large number of people who will have a use for this ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13951	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:04:49 - [1800] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: baltec1 wrote: It never will because null sec would abuse such a ship to undo the force projection nerfs. 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. Yep, nobody has ever complained about goons being able to project their vast subcap fleets anywhere they wanted for the last four years. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 81	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:05:23 - [1801] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: ITT: Players who victimize people in high sec are upset over people effectively denying them the opportunity to victimize them. Actually I love the irony and tears of her statement. That with my highsec toon I should say that highsec is too safe and introduce more danger to myself, and that made her cry. I want her to have an easier time victimizing me because I think it's healthier for the game. And she's throwing a temper tantrum over it. I'm actually finding out why people talk so much about "harvesting tears", there actually is something quite special about it. I'm debating whether or not to grab popcorn, as I'm not sure if she's going to continue going on with this show or not. It could be entertaining. HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13951	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:17:36 - [1802] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: where was he promoting a 3 bil isk travel fit mach? Veers Belvar wrote: 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 Cost 3.42 Bil. This is assuming he didn't also use faction extenders and plex hardeners. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tripden Modern Ancient Virtual Reality Cyberdine Systems Skynet Division 2	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:27:05 - [1803] - Quote Should i say is a fail ship nabo asked:why no clue for this kinda of bubble gangam ship nobo sais: well its a nice ship with nice tank ... eject yourself in void
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 107	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:47:47 - [1804] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: where was he promoting a 3 bil isk travel fit mach? Veers Belvar wrote: 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 Cost 3.42 Bil. This is assuming he didn't also use faction extenders and plex hardeners. thanks missed that post.
TheMercenaryKing StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 311	Posted - 2014.11.18 19:52:24 - [1805] - Quote I am still really mixed about this ship. 3 fitted battleships and not much room for packaged ships... 200-300m below current freighters, that's like 1-1.2 billion. I just don't see how it is worth it. Players will fly their blinged out nightmares or whatever in them 430k ehp if the modules are activated, but so many will just autopilot them. I don't know. I really don't know about this ship. I guess I would be fine if it had a jump drive (5 LY max)
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 287	Posted - 2014.11.18 20:13:55 - [1806] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: where was he promoting a 3 bil isk travel fit mach? Veers Belvar wrote: 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 Cost 3.42 Bil. This is assuming he didn't also use faction extenders and plex hardeners. the 2 A types 2.2 bil are already part of the ship. The whole point is not to need to make a 2nd trip. Adding 1 bil to a bil fit you can double, and more, the ehp, and make it essentially ungankable in highsec. That's called good decisionmaking.
ashley Eoner 360	Posted - 2014.11.18 20:24:52 - [1807] - Quote Anonymous Forumposter wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Says the guy hiding behind a NPC alt.... "Look guys Highsec is TOO SAFE!!! So safe I'm hiding my real character's name because someone might spend time to gank me over and over which would ruin my play experience!! But remember highsec is super safe!" ITT: Players who victimize people in high sec are upset over people effectively denying them the opportunity to victimize them. More like I find it funny that he swears highsec is super safe "too safe" and yet he hides behind a npc character. If highsec was too safe then he'd have nothing to fear from posting on his main. Khan Wrenth wrote: Anonymous Forumposter wrote: ITT: Players who victimize people in high sec are upset over people effectively denying them the opportunity to victimize them. Actually I love the irony and tears of her statement. That with my highsec toon I should say that highsec is too safe and introduce more danger to myself, and that made her cry. I want her to have an easier time victimizing me because I think it's healthier for the game. And she's throwing a temper tantrum over it. I'm actually finding out why people talk so much about "harvesting tears", there actually is something quite special about it. I'm debating whether or not to grab popcorn, as I'm not sure if she's going to continue going on with this show or not. It could be entertaining. Your reading comprehension is pretty awful. Almost as bad as your attempt at logic in your earlier post. If this is what you consider tears then I feel sorry for you. Everyone should experience of the joy of true tears.
Valterra Craven 378	Posted - 2014.11.18 20:58:24 - [1808] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yep, nobody has ever complained about goons being able to project their vast subcap fleets anywhere they wanted for the last four years. And? Did you forget how easy it was to move packed ships in a freighter which have exactly the same bonuses? Or are you telling me that you rig and fit all of your fleet op ships for every single one of your members?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13951	Posted - 2014.11.18 20:58:59 - [1809] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lady Rift wrote: where was he promoting a 3 bil isk travel fit mach? Veers Belvar wrote: 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 Cost 3.42 Bil. This is assuming he didn't also use faction extenders and plex hardeners. the 2 A types 2.2 bil are already part of the ship. The whole point is not to need to make a 2nd trip. Adding 1 bil to a 3 bil fit you can double, and more, the ehp, and make it essentially ungankable in highsec. That's called good decisionmaking. Spend that much on a bowhead and you get 700k ehp. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13951	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:10:42 - [1810] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: And? Did you forget how easy it was to move packed ships in a freighter which have exactly the same bonuses? Or are you telling me that you rig and fit all of your fleet op ships for every single one of your members? The hell are you even on about? This guy wants to stuff 42 cruisers in his bowhead, That makes it far too easy for an organisation like ours to transport our fleets around. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Kaarous Aldurald Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 10659	Posted - 2014.11.18 21:30:57 - [1811] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: And? Did you forget how easy it was to move packed ships in a freighter which have exactly the same bonuses? Or are you telling me that you rig and fit all of your fleet op ships for every single one of your members? The hell are you even on about? This guy wants to stuff 42 cruisers in his bowhead, That makes it far too easy for an organisation like ours to transport our fleets around. cough Ishtars cough "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 - 2014.11.18 21:34:46 - [1812] - Quote baltec1 wrote: The hell are you even on about? Thats what I'm trying to find out about you. baltec1 wrote: This guy wants to stuff 42 cruisers in his bowhead, That makes it far too easy for an organisation like ours to transport our fleets around. And? The only difference between freighters and the bowhead is that it packs rigged ships only. Both ships have the same fatigue bonuses. So I'm trying to figure out exactly how you are saying that would be OP when you can already move that amount of ships easily. Because from where I sit the benefit from being able to move a rigged vs unrigged ship is not all that overpowered and is merely a convenience.
Syllabus Memoriae WarBerry Bakery 0	Posted - 2014.11.18 22:35:00 - [1813] - Quote 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.
Zarnoo Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx 6	Posted - 2014.11.18 23:30:32 - [1814] - Quote Love it.. An Ore freighter with no ore hold... Hmm.. perhaps the name should be "ship freighter" ? Z
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1716	Posted - 2014.11.19 00:06:10 - [1815] - Quote Zarnoo wrote: Love it.. An Ore freighter with no ore hold... Hmm.. perhaps the name should be "ship freighter" ? Z ORE as in the corporation. Which already has ship holds on its only two capitals. And no ore hold in its only two industrials.
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 864	Posted - 2014.11.19 00:44:05 - [1816] - Quote Increase the SMA size of the Bowhead, and introduce a T2 version of the Bowhead with a smaller SMA (same as the current ship or at least the same size as a carrier's) that uses the Capital Industrial Ships skill and has a jump drive, for all-over capability, much like a JF for ships?
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 396	Posted - 2014.11.19 03:00:22 - [1817] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: 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. Don't bullshit me. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42463226/ 20 catalysts, and that was with an anti tank. Now both of you knock off the crap. love the guy that was using civilian guns A whopping 13 damage . Every little bit counts, though, right?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13952	Posted - 2014.11.19 04:32:32 - [1818] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: And? The only difference between freighters and the bowhead is that it packs rigged ships only. Both ships have the same fatigue bonuses. So I'm trying to figure out exactly how you are saying that would be OP when you can already move that amount of ships easily. Because from where I sit the benefit from being able to move a rigged vs unrigged ship is not all that overpowered and is merely a convenience. It would save us a metric shitton of money in scrapped rigs and a lot of time in stipping fittings and assembling them again. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13952	Posted - 2014.11.19 04:33:50 - [1819] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 272	Posted - 2014.11.19 07:51:31 - [1820] - Quote dexington wrote: Fonac wrote: dexington wrote: Shalashaska Adam wrote: As others have said, this is gank efficient to about 1b isk. That would carry about half of a single average incursion battleship. If the incursion community was not so god damn awful at playing eve, maybe they would move their stuff in groups with some logi support. I'm not an incursioner. But this logic is flawed in many ways. For example, a gank is fast, sometimes you pop before you can react( if it's done proberly atleast) .... Logi's will give exactly 0% protection. Unless you are saying gankers normally materialize out of thin air and doomsday you in hi-sec, have someone scout and jump the logi and freighter in an sensible way... maybe you too are also awful at playing eve. So to carry 3 fitted battleships in a Bowhead is going to require scouts logi and a support fleet. Would it not be easier to just fly the 3 battleships from A to B and save the cost of the Bowhead? My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care..

Lugh Crow-Slave 215	Posted - 2014.11.19 07:58:56 - [1821] - Quote Why is the sensor strength is so low? this thing is going to be way to easy to scan down is it meant to be that way?
Masao Kurata Z List 153	Posted - 2014.11.19 08:06:34 - [1822] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Why is the sensor strength is so low? this thing is going to be way to easy to scan down is it meant to be that way? Hmm that's actually a valid complaint. It's way lower than typical for capital class hull with a correspondingly large signature radius.
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 272	Posted - 2014.11.19 08:10:54 - [1823] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Every gankers dream is about to come true.. Gank a bowhead in your catalyst- get pop by concord - board bling battle ship dropped as loot and fly off - win win. Q; Does the owner get paid insurance if his ship is insured and the Bowhead carrying it is destroyed? Q; Will there be an option to insure the fit on ships being hauled by a Bowhead (like a courier contract where there is collateral) My opinions are mine. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK. Just don't bother Hating - I don't care..
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.19 08:12:17 - [1824] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: 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... So dont use it. Meanwhile there is a large number of people who will have a use for this ship. 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'.
Lugh Crow-Slave 215	Posted - 2014.11.19 08:26:22 - [1825] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Why is the sensor strength is so low? this thing is going to be way to easy to scan down is it meant to be that way? Hmm that's actually a valid complaint. It's way lower than typical for capital class hull with a correspondingly large signature radius. I mean if it is meant to be easy to scan down i guess this is ok i'm just wondering if it is an oversight
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13952	Posted - 2014.11.19 09:15:22 - [1826] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: So to carry 3 fitted battleships in a Bowhead is going to require scouts logi and a support fleet. Would it not be easier to just fly the 3 battleships from A to B and save the cost of the Bowhead? No it does not require a scout, logi and a support fleet. It just works better with them, just like every other ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13952	Posted - 2014.11.19 09:18:30 - [1827] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Lugh Crow-Slave 215	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:24:59 - [1828] - 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. not when you just use 3 accs to move them
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13953	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:27:45 - [1829] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Lugh Crow-Slave 215	Posted - 2014.11.19 11:34:26 - [1830] - Quote 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

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

Lil' Brudder Too Pistols for Pandas 51	Posted - 2014.11.20 01:14:49 - [1861] - Quote Sooo, a ship that is nothing but a single huge maintenance bay....is built using only cargo bays and ZERO maint bay parts....interesting...nice troll CCP (like they are even still watching this thread)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13958	Posted - 2014.11.20 09:22:05 - [1862] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously, that is the best you can do? You said large CFC deployment wont happen again. We deployed the CFC the very same day you made that comment. Big, organised powerblocks are not going away, hence why CCP are rebuilding nullsec with large groups in mind. Barton Breau wrote: Round and round... You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place. I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met. ashley Eoner wrote: Are you stating that it's overpowered in a null environment? No, its just fine as it is. What I am arguing against is people trying to make it overpowered. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Regithros Raylanar Elysian. Orderly Misconduct 4	Posted - 2014.11.20 11:33:23 - [1863] - Quote Will there be a t2 variant coming? An Ore Jump Freighter that can hold fitted ships?
Thomas Mayaki Perkone Caldari State 35	Posted - 2014.11.20 12:48:44 - [1864] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. i'd still rather have had a warp speed bonus... also GJ caving to whiners. Apparently they didn't cave in to all the whiners.
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.20 17:34:50 - [1865] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: Round and round... You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place. I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met. Source? Since no, the simple reality that the bowhead will be able to carry 3xbs while having a given tank for the fits you specify does not count as "stipulating", especially considering the tank was already raised. And for the record, im in no way arguing for the ship to have more ehp, in general anything goes, we have basically a freighter with 1/7 of space just offering a questionable convenience you are unlikely to use when it counts: expensive hulls with expensive rigs. For example higher warp speed would make sense, since the cargo hauled is just big in volume, not in mass - unpackaged.
BuddhaMancer Argent Corporation Blood Fountain Federation 1	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:06:53 - [1866] - Quote so i just checked the bowhead out on SISI, and im a bit curious about the component requirement for building it. Im just wondering if it was finalized, because it seems strange that a freighter that focuses on ship maintenance bays doesnt require any ship maintenance components for building. Meanwhile theres a huge requirement on cargo bay components for a ship that has a 4km3 hold. at first i thought CCP just used another freighters industry tab as a template but the bowheads doesnt match any of the other freighters, so CCP made the bowheads component list without a single dev deciding to have it make sense. i fully expect CCP to be changing it to a more ship maintenance bay heavy component list( if not then thats just strange). im sure there some freighter builder out there that have begun to stock up components for the bowheads release, but it sucks for them if a few days before rhea patch CCP finally finalizes the bowheads industry tab and the frieghter builders stocked the wrong components, itd be a bad day for them. just saying that the industry tab should be close to final before it goes on sisi cause a lot of players will use the info there to try and get an early start on production of new ships. and again if it is already finalized then its just plain strange and logically the cargo bays should be replaced with ship maintenance bays. im not trying to say anything bad about the devs, their doing an awesome job, keep it up. Just pointing out something i found strange
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1370	Posted - 2014.11.20 18:56:17 - [1867] - Quote BuddhaMancer wrote: so i just checked the bowhead out on SISI, and im a bit curious about the component requirement for building it. Im just wondering if it was finalized, because it seems strange that a freighter that focuses on ship maintenance bays doesnt require any ship maintenance components for building. Meanwhile theres a huge requirement on cargo bay components for a ship that has a 4km3 hold. at first i thought CCP just used another freighters industry tab as a template but the bowheads doesnt match any of the other freighters, so CCP made the bowheads component list without a single dev deciding to have it make sense. i fully expect CCP to be changing it to a more ship maintenance bay heavy component list( if not then thats just strange). im sure there some freighter builder out there that have begun to stock up components for the bowheads release, but it sucks for them if a few days before rhea patch CCP finally finalizes the bowheads industry tab and the frieghter builders stocked the wrong components, itd be a bad day for them. just saying that the industry tab should be close to final before it goes on sisi cause a lot of players will use the info there to try and get an early start on production of new ships. and again if it is already finalized then its just plain strange and logically the cargo bays should be replaced with ship maintenance bays. im not trying to say anything bad about the devs, their doing an awesome job, keep it up. Just pointing out something i found strange As for every change in the game, trying to get a head start on something comes with the potential of profit and the risk of being burned with the wrong things. See rigs on freighter for example.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 108	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:47:33 - [1868] - Quote BuddhaMancer wrote: so i just checked the bowhead out on SISI, and im a bit curious about the component requirement for building it. Im just wondering if it was finalized, because it seems strange that a freighter that focuses on ship maintenance bays doesnt require any ship maintenance components for building. Meanwhile theres a huge requirement on cargo bay components for a ship that has a 4km3 hold. at first i thought CCP just used another freighters industry tab as a template but the bowheads doesnt match any of the other freighters, so CCP made the bowheads component list without a single dev deciding to have it make sense. i fully expect CCP to be changing it to a more ship maintenance bay heavy component list( if not then thats just strange). im sure there some freighter builder out there that have begun to stock up components for the bowheads release, but it sucks for them if a few days before rhea patch CCP finally finalizes the bowheads industry tab and the frieghter builders stocked the wrong components, itd be a bad day for them. just saying that the industry tab should be close to final before it goes on sisi cause a lot of players will use the info there to try and get an early start on production of new ships. and again if it is already finalized then its just plain strange and logically the cargo bays should be replaced with ship maintenance bays. im not trying to say anything bad about the devs, their doing an awesome job, keep it up. Just pointing out something i found strange SISI is testing everything on sisi that is not on live right now is subject to change. That includes but is not limited to the skills required to fly the ship, where bpc/bpo are found/acquired, build materials/cost/time, stats of the ships, look of the ship. Any changes to sisi might not make it to the next version of live. This is the whole point of sis the test server is to find bugs but also to see how things work and change them before live.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 108	Posted - 2014.11.20 20:50:10 - [1869] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: Round and round... You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place. I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met. Source? Since no, the simple reality that the bowhead will be able to carry 3xbs while having a given tank for the fits you specify does not count as "stipulating", especially considering the tank was already raised. And for the record, im in no way arguing for the ship to have more ehp, in general anything goes, we have basically a freighter with 1/7 of space just offering a questionable convenience you are unlikely to use when it counts: expensive hulls with expensive rigs. For example higher warp speed would make sense, since the cargo hauled is just big in volume, not in mass - unpackaged. Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:13:53 - [1870] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk

Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 108	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:32:23 - [1871] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk thats possible. all comes down to what people believe is there personal ratio of what they would put init
Jenni Concarnadine SYNDIC Unlimited 1	Posted - 2014.11.20 21:36:44 - [1872] - Quote Probably not a workable answer but .... Why not make the tank smaller but then put a proportion of the talk(s) of the ship(s) being carried towards the Bowhead tank. That way, if you're carrying t2 BSs, you have abetter chance of hanging on than if, as I will be doing, you're carrying 2 rigged Rifters and my collection of T1 shuttles.
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 273	Posted - 2014.11.20 22:53:46 - [1873] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously, that is the best you can do? You said large CFC deployment wont happen again. We deployed the CFC the very same day you made that comment. Big, organised powerblocks are not going away, hence why CCP are rebuilding nullsec with large groups in mind. . No you did not deploy the "CFC", many alliances in the CFC did not (and will not) deploy. It was at best a partial deployment, of those who wanted to go and were close enough to do so. If your going to make up stories make sure they can't be so easily seen as fantasy.. Wrong again, nerfs to travel (the only change so far) is the 1st nail in the head of large coalitions. Sov changes if done right will be the second. Time vs distance and who holds sov in between will see the end of "workable"coalitions. Might be time for a rethink, Instead of trying to use false and misleading propaganda 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 274	Posted - 2014.11.20 23:07:48 - [1874] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: 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. It used to all be done by carriers, I've not been on a large deployment since the changes (there hasn't been one). Many theories have been discussed as to how to get from 1 place to another efficiently. Using 5k as a guide on the amount of replacement ships. Not all would be assembled and rigged, they get assembled as the need arises. De-rigging a few hundred frigates or cruisers for "safe" travel is really not an issue, the rigs are cheap and supply is plentiful. Personally I hope Goons do start using Bowheads over JF's as a main form of transporting bulk ships to fights.. It will create more fights as those Bowheads will be prized targets by everyone. Why wait to fight in a certain place when you can win the fight by killing the logistics train. 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
Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 26	Posted - 2014.11.21 00:26:22 - [1875] - Quote CCP, please make the Bow have a million hitpoints, yes make it ungankable in hi sec. it just seems to me that the mechanic that allows a gank to take place, must also have a mechanic to allow an anti-gank, in the Bow's case its raw ehp which will let it survive. The bar should be set high. Make the hi sec ganker work for it. Should the Bow leave hi sec then no amount of raw ehp will save it. Stop making things so easy for gankers and start giving the little people some love. Yes I know, everyone is now going to blow their horn about using a corp mate to web you or have your alt web you into warp to avoid ganks. I play with a small group who Ive known a long time. we are spread out everywhere, I can see how difficult it could be for someone to be there when you need them. Then there is the alt. Don't have one. Not interested in paying for another account. Come on CCP, not everyone in this game has or wants alts. Just make the ding dang ship have enough ehp to survive a gank attempt in hi sec, I don't want to lose my billions in mauraders cause of a half axed mechanic that deliberately sets you up to be ganked.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2023	Posted - 2014.11.21 02:48:55 - [1876] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk thats possible. all comes down to what people believe is there personal ratio of what they would put init as noted i want to run a personal event where i get one and max tank it and have it full of fully fit catalysts and talos's.... make it a gang pinata full of gank ships There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2023	Posted - 2014.11.21 02:50:40 - [1877] - Quote Euripedies wrote: CCP, please make the Bow have a million hitpoints, yes make it ungankable in hi sec. it just seems to me that the mechanic that allows a gank to take place, must also have a mechanic to allow an anti-gank, in the Bow's case its raw ehp which will let it survive. The bar should be set high. Make the hi sec ganker work for it. Should the Bow leave hi sec then no amount of raw ehp will save it. Stop making things so easy for gankers and start giving the little people some love. Yes I know, everyone is now going to blow their horn about using a corp mate to web you or have your alt web you into warp to avoid ganks. I play with a small group who Ive known a long time. we are spread out everywhere, I can see how difficult it could be for someone to be there when you need them. Then there is the alt. Don't have one. Not interested in paying for another account. Come on CCP, not everyone in this game has or wants alts. Just make the ding dang ship have enough ehp to survive a gank attempt in hi sec, I don't want to lose my billions in mauraders cause of a half axed mechanic that deliberately sets you up to be ganked. i am going to use mine for 0.0 jumping my ships around to waypoint stations... then using my dst to get between war zones. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Euripedies Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers 27	Posted - 2014.11.21 03:33:41 - [1878] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: Euripedies wrote: CCP, please make the Bow have a million hitpoints, yes make it ungankable in hi sec. it just seems to me that the mechanic that allows a gank to take place, must also have a mechanic to allow an anti-gank, in the Bow's case its raw ehp which will let it survive. The bar should be set high. Make the hi sec ganker work for it. Should the Bow leave hi sec then no amount of raw ehp will save it. Stop making things so easy for gankers and start giving the little people some love. Yes I know, everyone is now going to blow their horn about using a corp mate to web you or have your alt web you into warp to avoid ganks. I play with a small group who Ive known a long time. we are spread out everywhere, I can see how difficult it could be for someone to be there when you need them. Then there is the alt. Don't have one. Not interested in paying for another account. Come on CCP, not everyone in this game has or wants alts. Just make the ding dang ship have enough ehp to survive a gank attempt in hi sec, I don't want to lose my billions in mauraders cause of a half axed mechanic that deliberately sets you up to be ganked. i am going to use mine for 0.0 jumping my ships around to waypoint stations... then using my dst to get between war zones. Jumping a Bow around in null sec with blues everywhere is, from my humble perspective, safer then moving it in hi sec.
Petra Hakaari Caldari Provisions Caldari State 112	Posted - 2014.11.21 04:38:50 - [1879] - Quote I dont know if this has been asked before, but, if you'd understand I'm not going to go over 77 pages for that so here i drop it: Is this bowhead going to have the refitting service? Because tities .
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2023	Posted - 2014.11.21 04:44:38 - [1880] - Quote Euripedies wrote: MeBiatch wrote: i am going to use mine for 0.0 jumping my ships around to waypoint stations... then using my dst to get between war zones. Jumping a Bow around in null sec with blues everywhere is, from my humble perspective, safer then moving it in hi sec. most things are safer in null then high sec There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:24:50 - [1881] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: Barton Breau wrote: Round and round... You assume cheap battleships, cheap fitting and that there even are 3 battleships in the first place. I assume nothing. This is the what CCP have stipulated as the kind of cargo the ship is meant to carry. Their tank should be sufficient to carry 3 T2 fitted T1 battleships, this goal has been met. Source? Since no, the simple reality that the bowhead will be able to carry 3xbs while having a given tank for the fits you specify does not count as "stipulating", especially considering the tank was already raised. And for the record, im in no way arguing for the ship to have more ehp, in general anything goes, we have basically a freighter with 1/7 of space just offering a questionable convenience you are unlikely to use when it counts: expensive hulls with expensive rigs. For example higher warp speed would make sense, since the cargo hauled is just big in volume, not in mass - unpackaged. In this very thread. CCP asked if the tank was enough for transporting 3 t2 fitted battleships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:27:57 - [1882] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk It gets more tank than the other freighters. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:31:35 - [1883] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: baltec1 wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously, that is the best you can do? You said large CFC deployment wont happen again. We deployed the CFC the very same day you made that comment. Big, organised powerblocks are not going away, hence why CCP are rebuilding nullsec with large groups in mind. . No you did not deploy the "CFC", many alliances in the CFC did not (and will not) deploy. It was at best a partial deployment, of those who wanted to go and were close enough to do so. If your going to make up stories make sure they can't be so easily seen as fantasy.. Wrong again, nerfs to travel (the only change so far) is the 1st nail in the head of large coalitions. Sov changes if done right will be the second. Time vs distance and who holds sov in between will see the end of "workable"coalitions. Might be time for a rethink, Instead of trying to use false and misleading propaganda I think we have found this wars Iraqi information minister. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:43:27 - [1884] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk It gets more tank than the other freighters. just wondering how it gets more tank?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:46:42 - [1885] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: baltec1 wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk It gets more tank than the other freighters. just wondering how it gets more tank? More slots for more tank mods and rigs. T2 fit will net you 85k more ehp than a bulkhead freighter. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:51:44 - [1886] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: baltec1 wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Its in this thread in a dev post when they where trying to determine what tank should go on it. CCP asked what tank would be reasonable to haul 3 t1 bs with t2 fittings, then a dev post or 2 later they upped the tank to what it is now. the problem is i don't think it is enough tank yet to be worth the risk It gets more tank than the other freighters. just wondering how it gets more tank? More slots for more tank mods and rigs. T2 fit will net you 85k more ehp than a bulkhead freighter. ok with my skills: charon: 303k ehp obi: 367k ehp prov: 347k ehp fen: 282k ehp ok it has more ehp with the devs fit at around 420kehp but that is going with a split tank and not a strain hull tank
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 05:57:08 - [1887] - Quote Quote: ok with my skills: charon: 303k ehp obi: 367k ehp prov: 347k ehp fen: 282k ehp ok it has more ehp with the devs fit at around 420kehp but that is going with a split tank and not a strain hull tank It doesnt matter if its split what matters is the total buffer. You can get 700k ehp with the bowhead for just 300 mil isk. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.21 06:03:13 - [1888] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Quote: ok with my skills: charon: 303k ehp obi: 367k ehp prov: 347k ehp fen: 282k ehp ok it has more ehp with the devs fit at around 420kehp but that is going with a split tank and not a strain hull tank It doesnt matter if its split what matters is the total buffer. You can get 700k ehp with the bowhead for just 300 mil isk. how?
Meyr Destructive Influence Northern Coalition. 354	Posted - 2014.11.21 06:17:26 - [1889] - Quote Although I've been asking for this type of vessel for a very long time, in the currently-proposed configuration, it appears to be a way to deliver nice loot to gankers in hisec, and a way to get around jump-fatigue limitations in nullsec, and still almost completely useless in lowsec. No change there, as usual. Yet again, you've created a hauler hull that cannot be used to its full capacity with the cheapest possible carge without becoming a profitable gank target - the hallmark of a failure to meet reasonable design considerations that a rationally-thinking person would take into account, i.e., the operating environment.
Meyr Destructive Influence Northern Coalition. 354	Posted - 2014.11.21 06:22:55 - [1890] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: baltec1 wrote: Quote: ok with my skills: charon: 303k ehp obi: 367k ehp prov: 347k ehp fen: 282k ehp ok it has more ehp with the devs fit at around 420kehp but that is going with a split tank and not a strain hull tank It doesnt matter if its split what matters is the total buffer. You can get 700k ehp with the bowhead for just 300 mil isk. how? I'm going to guess all-V fleet bonuses and maximum-bonus implants?

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 06:28:02 - [1891] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: baltec1 wrote: Quote: ok with my skills: charon: 303k ehp obi: 367k ehp prov: 347k ehp fen: 282k ehp ok it has more ehp with the devs fit at around 420kehp but that is going with a split tank and not a strain hull tank It doesnt matter if its split what matters is the total buffer. You can get 700k ehp with the bowhead for just 300 mil isk. how? By using all of the tools CCP have given us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 06:36:46 - [1892] - Quote Meyr wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: baltec1 wrote: Quote: ok with my skills: charon: 303k ehp obi: 367k ehp prov: 347k ehp fen: 282k ehp ok it has more ehp with the devs fit at around 420kehp but that is going with a split tank and not a strain hull tank It doesnt matter if its split what matters is the total buffer. You can get 700k ehp with the bowhead for just 300 mil isk. how? I'm going to guess all-V fleet bonuses and maximum-bonus implants? You can hit half a million using a fairly cheap tank and t2 rigs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.21 10:57:43 - [1893] - Quote baltec1 wrote: In this very thread. CCP asked if the tank was enough for transporting 3 t2 fitted battleships. Fair enough, that leaves us (or them) with having to explain how that is useful in high. Apart of 3 t2 fitted t1 (which was just implied) battleships easily being 550m each.
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 95	Posted - 2014.11.21 10:59:36 - [1894] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You can hit half a million using a fairly cheap tank and t2 rigs. Isnt it supposed to use capital rigs, or was that changed also?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13959	Posted - 2014.11.21 11:09:30 - [1895] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: baltec1 wrote: You can hit half a million using a fairly cheap tank and t2 rigs. Isnt it supposed to use capital rigs, or was that changed also? Capital as far as I know. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Petra Hakaari Caldari Provisions Caldari State 112	Posted - 2014.11.21 16:19:54 - [1896] - Quote Will it have refitting service? Because tities .
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.21 16:47:35 - [1897] - Quote Petra Hakaari wrote: Will it have refitting service? from what i can see in this thread and on sisi there is not going to be any refitting service on this ship. but i would sure love to have it if they change it.
Antarian Anderson C0NATUS Echoes of Nowhere 0	Posted - 2014.11.21 16:48:09 - [1898] - Quote It's may be already asked, sorry but i'm confused ! Is that Bowhead a Jump Freighter or just a freighter ? If it's a simple freighter, what his role bonus "90% reduction in jump fatigue generation" is for ?
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 2	Posted - 2014.11.21 16:50:59 - [1899] - Quote Antarian Anderson wrote: It's may be already asked, sorry but i'm confused ! Is that Bowhead a Jump Freighter or just a freighter ? If it's a simple freighter, what his role bonus "90% reduction in jump fatigue generation" is for ? it is just a freighter. the 90% reduction is for jump bridges and such. also it gets that bonus due to being a industrial hauler. sorry no jump drive.
Petra Hakaari EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 112	Posted - 2014.11.21 17:06:06 - [1900] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Petra Hakaari wrote: Will it have refitting service? from what i can see in this thread and on sisi there is not going to be any refitting service on this ship. but i would sure love to have it if they change it. Indeed. If the orca has it which is the small sista, and even the nestor has it... i dont see why it should not Because tities .

Arsine Mayhem Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 366	Posted - 2014.11.21 18:15:18 - [1901] - Quote I Love Boobies wrote: Interesting. Will probably become a favorite of gankers, and I don't mean in a good way. Yea, probably just be a loot pinata. Be interesting to see if anyone actually uses it.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 3	Posted - 2014.11.21 19:23:54 - [1902] - Quote currently with the fit i was able to come up with for the current stats on the bowhead i have come up with: EHP 490k (eve: 460k) this is T2 fit 3 t2 trans bulkhead rigs DC2 2 t2 rein builkheads 2 ada invuln field 2s and large shield extender 2 will try some other fits to give more feedback using gist a-types it raises to 534k EHP (eve: 491k)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13962	Posted - 2014.11.21 19:36:14 - [1903] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: currently with the fit i was able to come up with for the current stats on the bowhead i have come up with: EHP 490k (eve: 460k) this is T2 fit 3 t2 trans bulkhead rigs DC2 2 t2 rein builkheads 2 ada invuln field 2s and large shield extender 2 will try some other fits to give more feedback using gist a-types it raises to 534k EHP (eve: 491k) (not recommended) using pith a-types it raises to 548k EHP (eve: 501k) (not recommended) Implants. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 3	Posted - 2014.11.21 19:48:25 - [1904] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: currently with the fit i was able to come up with for the current stats on the bowhead i have come up with: EHP 490k (eve: 460k) this is T2 fit 3 t2 trans bulkhead rigs DC2 2 t2 rein builkheads 2 ada invuln field 2s and large shield extender 2 will try some other fits to give more feedback using gist a-types it raises to 534k EHP (eve: 491k) (not recommended) using pith a-types it raises to 548k EHP (eve: 501k) (not recommended) Implants. these? Zainou gnome shield management sm-706 inherent implants noble mechanic mc-806 inherent implants noble hull upgrades hg-1008
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13962	Posted - 2014.11.21 20:14:03 - [1905] - Quote Slave set is also a good option. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1378	Posted - 2014.11.21 21:05:02 - [1906] - Quote Arsine Mayhem wrote: I Love Boobies wrote: Interesting. Will probably become a favorite of gankers, and I don't mean in a good way. Yea, probably just be a loot pinata. Be interesting to see if anyone actually uses it. It will be used. Maybe not how it was first envisioned by people but there will definitely be use case.
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 207	Posted - 2014.11.21 21:15:23 - [1907] - Quote It'll be used about as much as the Rorqlol, maybe even less. :ccp:
Masao Kurata Z List 156	Posted - 2014.11.21 21:40:01 - [1908] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Slave set is also a good option. Not really. That's 2b of implants for another 12k ehp or so.
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 274	Posted - 2014.11.21 23:14:05 - [1909] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: baltec1 wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Seriously, that is the best you can do? You said large CFC deployment wont happen again. We deployed the CFC the very same day you made that comment. Big, organised powerblocks are not going away, hence why CCP are rebuilding nullsec with large groups in mind. . No you did not deploy the "CFC", many alliances in the CFC did not (and will not) deploy. It was at best a partial deployment, of those who wanted to go and were close enough to do so. If your going to make up stories make sure they can't be so easily seen as fantasy.. Wrong again, nerfs to travel (the only change so far) is the 1st nail in the head of large coalitions. Sov changes if done right will be the second. Time vs distance and who holds sov in between will see the end of "workable"coalitions. Might be time for a rethink, Instead of trying to use false and misleading propaganda I think we have found this wars Iraqi information minister. Sad Baltec1, at least when you stuck to spouting off about stuff you knew little about in such an authoritative way, you were like many others, good for a laugh. Then you go make a personal attack and lose what little credibility you ever had. Goon propaganda 101; When the propaganda machine has no answer (or in this case is so easily proven wrong), use personal insults and innuendo. 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
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 3	Posted - 2014.11.22 00:16:16 - [1910] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: baltec1 wrote: Slave set is also a good option. Not really. That's 2b of implants for another 12k ehp or so. sure lets go with a slave set and those implants i mentioned...(3-4b in implants) woohoo (dripping sarcasm) 599kEHP (eve: 545kehp)

Masao Kurata Z List 157	Posted - 2014.11.22 01:53:46 - [1911] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: baltec1 wrote: Slave set is also a good option. Not really. That's 2b of implants for another 12k ehp or so. sure lets go with a slave set and those implants i mentioned...(3-4b in implants) woohoo (dripping sarcasm) 599kEHP (eve: 545kehp) oh wait i installed 2 estimal invulns for that one https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5202939#post5202939
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13962	Posted - 2014.11.22 06:15:42 - [1912] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: baltec1 wrote: Slave set is also a good option. Not really. That's 2b of implants for another 12k ehp or so. If incursion runners are to be believed a good few will have implants like this. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 3	Posted - 2014.11.22 06:57:58 - [1913] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: baltec1 wrote: Slave set is also a good option. Not really. That's 2b of implants for another 12k ehp or so. If incursion runners are to be believed a good few will have implants like this. true about incursion runners but i am not one of them and am not going to get them just to run that ship
Oxide Ammar 179	Posted - 2014.11.22 09:29:52 - [1914] - Quote Has it ever been mentioned in this thread what is it gonna be for skill modifier for ORE Freighter ? Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Praddy Delta United Corp. Eternal Pretorian Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.11.22 11:22:57 - [1915] - Quote Nothing of interest. Will be ganked as crazy in high sec. Owning her - a waste of money and effort. Gankers will race to have her on a personal KB. And base stats just suck...
Meyr Destructive Influence Northern Coalition. 355	Posted - 2014.11.22 16:10:41 - [1916] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: baltec1 wrote: Slave set is also a good option. Not really. That's 2b of implants for another 12k ehp or so. sure lets go with a slave set and those implants i mentioned...(3-4b in implants) woohoo (dripping sarcasm) 599kEHP (eve: 545kehp) oh wait i installed 2 estimal invulns for that one Hmmmmm... So much for that 300 million fit, huh? So, now, the following question applies; assuming that you can achieve an EHP in the neighborhood of 500,000 points, what is the effective limit for cargo value? Assuming that a T2-fit Dominix, with at least one T2 rig, will have a scannable value of about 350 million, will three of them, totaling 1.05 billion ISK, be economically feasible to gank in a 0.5 system? How about a Mach and a logi support ship? At what point does this hull become just so much shiny gift-wrapping paper for gankers?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13970	Posted - 2014.11.22 19:34:10 - [1917] - Quote Praddy wrote: Nothing of interest. Will be ganked as crazy in high sec. Owning her - a waste of money and effort. Gankers will race to have her on a personal KB. And base stats just suck... It gets more tank than a freighter. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Kreed Ellecon Tymast Industries 150th The Bastion 8	Posted - 2014.11.22 20:06:17 - [1918] - Quote why limit this new ship to such a narrow role? make the cargo capacity the same as the ship maintance bay or a total mass limit between the two? GIve the standard JF a increased range to compete with the "Bowhead's" huge capacity just a thought yes is hurt
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 108	Posted - 2014.11.22 20:35:46 - [1919] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Praddy wrote: Nothing of interest. Will be ganked as crazy in high sec. Owning her - a waste of money and effort. Gankers will race to have her on a personal KB. And base stats just suck... It gets more tank than a freighter. is easier to make it a loot pinata.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6017	Posted - 2014.11.22 22:02:21 - [1920] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: baltec1 wrote: Praddy wrote: Nothing of interest. Will be ganked as crazy in high sec. Owning her - a waste of money and effort. Gankers will race to have her on a personal KB. And base stats just suck... It gets more tank than a freighter. is easier to make it a loot pinata. And "that" is why it's a great design in game. You can make it tougher than a freighter, but are tempted to fit in other (easier to gank) ways. Perfect! View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.

Masao Kurata Z List 157	Posted - 2014.11.22 23:00:46 - [1921] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: And "that" is why it's a great design in game. You can make it tougher than a freighter, but are tempted to fit in other (easier to gank) ways.] Only if you're a complete moron. It's not like there's any real tradeoff, you can fit a massive tank while getting mwd warps. The only thing you might want to fit instead of tank modules is hyperspatial accelerators.
Ellendras Silver CrashCat Corporation 163	Posted - 2014.11.23 00:16:46 - [1922] - Quote ok new freighter all cool and well but the stats have been known for a long time and there is nothing on the amarr T3 destroyer it frustrates me [u]Carpe noctem[/u]
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13971	Posted - 2014.11.23 04:56:03 - [1923] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: And "that" is why it's a great design in game. You can make it tougher than a freighter, but are tempted to fit in other (easier to gank) ways.] Only if you're a complete moron. It's not like there's any real tradeoff, you can fit a massive tank while getting mwd warps. The only thing you might want to fit instead of tank modules is hyperspatial accelerators. Its been ten years and people still fit cargo extenders and no tank on a badger then stuff several hundred million in the hold. They will find a way to mess up and then blame the ship rather than their own actions. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Meyr Destructive Influence Northern Coalition. 356	Posted - 2014.11.23 05:26:14 - [1924] - Quote By the way - are any of the Eve-related betting sites accepting wagers on wether or not there will be a 'programming error' that will cause all of the ship's being carried to drop as loot when a gank occurs? Yes, I'm cynical that way...
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6019	Posted - 2014.11.23 17:00:44 - [1925] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: And "that" is why it's a great design in game. You can make it tougher than a freighter, but are tempted to fit in other (easier to gank) ways.] Only if you're a complete moron. It's not like there's any real tradeoff, you can fit a massive tank while getting mwd warps. The only thing you might want to fit instead of tank modules is hyperspatial accelerators. Its been ten years and people still fit cargo extenders and no tank on a badger then stuff several hundred million in the hold. They will find a way to mess up and then blame the ship rather than their own actions. Indeed. A large number of EVE players have found "Complete Moron" to be a quick skill to train, with zero prereq's. View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Masao Kurata Z List 158	Posted - 2014.11.23 18:06:25 - [1926] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Its been ten years and people still fit cargo extenders and no tank on a badger then stuff several hundred million in the hold. They will find a way to mess up and then blame the ship rather than their own actions. Well that's technically less stupid than fitting cargo expanders on a bowhead, since they at least have a function on a badger. I don't doubt that some people will antitank their bowheads though, and more will leave them unfitted. Meyr wrote: By the way - are any of the Eve-related betting sites accepting wagers on wether or not there will be a 'programming error' that will cause all of the ship's being carried to drop as loot when a gank occurs? Ship maintenance bay drops are already coded on sisi to my pleasant surprise, working as intended with the normal 50% rate as far as I can tell. You can launch ships or move them to another smb, but not board them directly.
Nya Kittenheart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 6	Posted - 2014.11.23 19:42:20 - [1927] - Quote Doesn't change the fact that this ship is still a failure in evry possible way . -Too slow without implants -SMA too small -No other bays for polyvalence use -Skill wise it will be a P... .. ... ... to train as one skill per ship doesn't make sense at all. -BP and ship should be available trought concord. -The model look plain as it is,we need to see it textured,i don't expect too much ... -It's more a demilitarized carrier than a freighter and the - 90 % to jump fatigue doesn't make sense at all,we already know that this will be abused in Null and Low to counter the force projection nerf. -EHp is decent but not crazy at all if we look at the initial bill to fly it decently + the cargo (7 b minimun), all this to gain little to no time at all with the current SMA size and warp speed. -Doesn't hit the intended target population in high sec and will be more used in Null Low than High. Sorry CCP but this ship need to get back to the drawing board as it is , it's a no go for 99 % of the intended client who have waited for that ship.Please don't waste development time for a ship who will see little to no use outside of people who has already a lot of way to move their ships and assets in their blue doughnut.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13978	Posted - 2014.11.23 21:18:54 - [1928] - Quote Nya Kittenheart wrote: Doesn't change the fact that this ship is still a failure in evry possible way . -Too slow without implants -SMA too small -No other bays for polyvalence use -Skill wise it will be a P... .. ... ... to train as one skill per ship doesn't make sense at all. -BP and ship should be available trought concord. -The model look plain as it is,we need to see it textured,i don't expect too much ... -It's more a demilitarized carrier than a freighter and the - 90 % to jump fatigue doesn't make sense at all,we already know that this will be abused in Null and Low to counter the force projection nerf. -EHp is decent but not crazy at all if we look at the initial bill to fly it decently + the cargo (7 b minimun), all this to gain little to no time at all with the current SMA size and warp speed. -Doesn't hit the intended target population in high sec and will be more used in Null Low than High. Sorry CCP but this ship need to get back to the drawing board as it is , it's a no go for 99 % of the intended client who have waited for that ship.Please don't waste development time for a ship who will see no use outside of people who has already a lot of way to move their ships and assets in their blue doughnut. The vast bulk of the people who need a ship like this are not high sec incursion bears. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2014.11.23 21:27:44 - [1929] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Nya Kittenheart wrote: Doesn't change the fact that this ship is still a failure in evry possible way . -Too slow without implants -SMA too small -No other bays for polyvalence use -Skill wise it will be a P... .. ... ... to train as one skill per ship doesn't make sense at all. -BP and ship should be available trought concord. -The model look plain as it is,we need to see it textured,i don't expect too much ... -It's more a demilitarized carrier than a freighter and the - 90 % to jump fatigue doesn't make sense at all,we already know that this will be abused in Null and Low to counter the force projection nerf. -EHp is decent but not crazy at all if we look at the initial bill to fly it decently + the cargo (7 b minimun), all this to gain little to no time at all with the current SMA size and warp speed. -Doesn't hit the intended target population in high sec and will be more used in Null Low than High. Sorry CCP but this ship need to get back to the drawing board as it is , it's a no go for 99 % of the intended client who have waited for that ship.Please don't waste development time for a ship who will see no use outside of people who has already a lot of way to move their ships and assets in their blue doughnut. The vast bulk of the people who need a ship like this are not high sec incursion bears. That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13978	Posted - 2014.11.23 21:39:05 - [1930] - Quote Dwissi wrote: That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap. It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them and only them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2014.11.23 21:42:53 - [1931] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap. It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships. You are still trying to loop the discussion : Quote from CCP Rise in OP 'There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' High sec (which includes incursions) is the main intended application. Your statement and others earlier point already to better usage anywhere else but high sec - that cries for a redesign. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 628	Posted - 2014.11.23 23:12:46 - [1932] - Quote I don't see myself using this ship in Null Sec because a carrier is still way better. The JF is way safer when moving stuff from highsec to Null Sec (the JF never has to make that gate jump from high to low or null, unlike this ship). I would not use it in highsec because it's more effort and risk than moving my ships via Redfrog courier contract or simply flying them. Unless it gains some more resistance to suicide attacks, I don't see it seeing much use anywhere. A t2 tanked version - before implants - should be able to haul at least 2 billion worth of stuff in relative safety. Otherwise it is essentially useless. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 6020	Posted - 2014.11.24 01:40:33 - [1933] - Quote Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap. It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships. You are still trying to loop the discussion : Quote from CCP Rise in OP 'There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' High sec (which includes incursions) is the main intended application. Your statement and others earlier point already to better usage anywhere else but high sec - that cries for a redesign. I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree. I seem to remember similar conjecture when freighters were first proposed. Too slow, too easy to gank, plus (in their case) can't be fit (at the time). I have little doubt that although they will not be as common as freighters in high sec, sighting one will be commonplace. You might consider that your argument about their main use being in null sec due to the jump fatigue bonus. If your premise were true you would also have to include all haulers in that statement as well (as it is now a role bonus for all industrial s), and that really doesn't make much sense now does it.... View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
Rosira Warframe Industry And Salvage Fortis Et Certus 3	Posted - 2014.11.24 02:17:49 - [1934] - Quote RoAnnon wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? Going faster... Can we paint it red?
Myrkul Nightshade The Adept Shadow Killers 2	Posted - 2014.11.24 02:17:58 - [1935] - Quote So when would you want to haul a bunch of fitted ships? 1 - When your corp is headed off to war, and you want lots of prefitted ships in your base for players to grab and use. 2 - Because you have Shield/Armor/ETC rigging to IV, and you want to bring rigged ships to market at Jita. (Because apparently players can buy those ships and use them with the rigs despite not having their own skills to IV.) 3 - Because you're a mission runner, and you want to move your mission running fleet to a new system. 4 - Any other reasons?
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 631	Posted - 2014.11.24 02:46:46 - [1936] - Quote Myrkul Nightshade wrote: So when would you want to haul a bunch of fitted ships? 1 - When your corp is headed off to war, and you want lots of prefitted ships in your base for players to grab and use. 2 - Because you have Shield/Armor/ETC rigging to IV, and you want to bring rigged ships to market at Jita. (Because apparently players can buy those ships and use them with the rigs despite not having their own skills to IV.) 3 - Because you're a mission runner, and you want to move your mission running fleet to a new system. 4 - Any other reasons? When you want to move your incursion fleet across the galaxy to the next high sec incursion. Personally, when I ran Incursions, I had jump clones spread all over space with a small cache of ships with each clone. That meant I never had to actually fly that far to keep getting content. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1708	Posted - 2014.11.24 03:28:12 - [1937] - Quote Myrkul Nightshade wrote: So when would you want to haul a bunch of fitted ships? 1 - When your corp is headed off to war, and you want lots of prefitted ships in your base for players to grab and use. 2 - Because you have Shield/Armor/ETC rigging to IV, and you want to bring rigged ships to market at Jita. (Because apparently players can buy those ships and use them with the rigs despite not having their own skills to IV.) 3 - Because you're a mission runner, and you want to move your mission running fleet to a new system. 4 - Any other reasons? 2 is no longer true.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2014.11.24 06:06:28 - [1938] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: That statement would just support the former posters point. The ship was announced for high sec and incursion runners - if its now more interesting for anyone else it needs be be redesigned asap. It was never stated that this ship is only aimed at incursion runners, they just assumed it was for them. This ship is aimed at anyone who needs to transport a number of rigged ships. You are still trying to loop the discussion : Quote from CCP Rise in OP 'There isn't much else to say other than that this ship is intended for a specific niche: high-sec transport of fitted/insured ships. It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' High sec (which includes incursions) is the main intended application. Your statement and others earlier point already to better usage anywhere else but high sec - that cries for a redesign. I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree. I seem to remember similar conjecture when freighters were first proposed. Too slow, too easy to gank, plus (in their case) can't be fit (at the time). I have little doubt that although they will not be as common as freighters in high sec, sighting one will be commonplace. You might consider that your argument about their main use being in null sec due to the jump fatigue bonus. If your premise were true you would also have to include all haulers in that statement as well (as it is now a role bonus for all industrial s), and that really doesn't make much sense now does it.... I never said anything about main usage being null - very much the opposite actually. Hence the quote from the OP Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13983	Posted - 2014.11.24 07:42:10 - [1939] - Quote Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2014.11.24 10:18:22 - [1940] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships. If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design. No one keeps you from hopping into whatever you like to - but that should account for both groups. Null sec has already carriers to perform that kind of job - high sec has nothing comparable as capitals are not allowed for a good reason in it. Every time new ships and designs are introduced its mostly null sec that claims ownership of adjustments and design changes constantly awarding them more than others. If a ship intended for high sec is not following design wishes of that player group it needs to be redesigned or better not introduced at all. Edit: A simple change would be a no-bonus in jump fatigue to make it less interesting for null right away. And the statement '...wanting a ship like that most...' is utterly entertaining. Faction warfare, incursions, industry operations - the list of people in high sec areas wishing for a ship like this will most definitely exceed your group - just because they are less organized than null sec alliances and don't voice as concentrated as those does not mean they are less interested or less in need. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13984	Posted - 2014.11.24 10:43:12 - [1941] - Quote Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships. If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design. No one keeps you from hopping into whatever you like to - but that should account for both groups. Null sec has already carriers to perform that kind of job - high sec has nothing comparable as capitals are not allowed for a good reason in it. Every time new ships and designs are introduced its mostly null sec that claims ownership of adjustments and design changes constantly awarding them more than others. If a ship intended for high sec is not following design wishes of that player group it needs to be redesigned or better not introduced at all. Edit: A simple change would be a no-bonus in jump fatigue to make it less interesting for null right away. And the statement '...wanting a ship like that most...' is utterly entertaining. Faction warfare, incursions, industry operations - the list of people in high sec areas wishing for a ship like this will most definitely exceed your group - just because they are less organized than null sec alliances and don't voice as concentrated as those does not mean they are less interested or less in need. Every hauler gets that bonus. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2014.11.24 10:51:28 - [1942] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Its nullsec players who have been wanting a ship like this the most and it is in null sec where demand for a ship transporter is at its highest due to the need to deploy often. Demanding that CCP should scrap a perfectly good ship and start again because null sec players are more excited than yourself is utterly pointless as we will jump on any ship that allows us to transport a good number of rigged ships. If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design. No one keeps you from hopping into whatever you like to - but that should account for both groups. Null sec has already carriers to perform that kind of job - high sec has nothing comparable as capitals are not allowed for a good reason in it. Every time new ships and designs are introduced its mostly null sec that claims ownership of adjustments and design changes constantly awarding them more than others. If a ship intended for high sec is not following design wishes of that player group it needs to be redesigned or better not introduced at all. Edit: A simple change would be a no-bonus in jump fatigue to make it less interesting for null right away. And the statement '...wanting a ship like that most...' is utterly entertaining. Faction warfare, incursions, industry operations - the list of people in high sec areas wishing for a ship like this will most definitely exceed your group - just because they are less organized than null sec alliances and don't voice as concentrated as those does not mean they are less interested or less in need. Every hauler gets that bonus. You forgot to add 'so far' - nothing wrong in not applying it to this one Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13984	Posted - 2014.11.24 11:04:39 - [1943] - Quote Why would we not have it apply? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2014.11.24 11:35:53 - [1944] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Why would we not have it apply? Simply to prevent this '...It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' Your and other peoples statement should worry CCP by now that its application will be to circumvent the jump changes. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1994	Posted - 2014.11.24 11:59:13 - [1945] - Quote Dwissi wrote: If something is introduced with an intended purpose but is welcomed more by a complete different group than the intended audience it fails its design purpose. Not my opinion but common understanding in design. it doesnt fail its design purpose, it still moves fitted ships through hi-sec and we are welcoming it too. edit- I've never been much of an incursion runner and ive been asking for these since before incursions. you tards arent the only ppl in hi-sec you know... EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13984	Posted - 2014.11.24 13:20:21 - [1946] - Quote Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Why would we not have it apply? Simply to prevent this '...It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' Your and other peoples statement should worry CCP by now that its application will be to circumvent the jump changes. Edit: The usage of 'we' as a player not being part of CCP actually made me think a bit... We would still use it without the bonus so removing it does nothing. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 96	Posted - 2014.11.24 14:09:34 - [1947] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree. This is in a way the main point of disagreement, people ask why should they strip down their faction battleships to reduce the appeal to gankers and put them into a slow freighter when they can fit them for ehp/agility/warpspeed/warpstrength/mwdcloak and travel quite safely and fast, even with 1-2x bs and a orca for small ships, with 10s align...
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13984	Posted - 2014.11.24 14:28:02 - [1948] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree. This is in a way the main point of disagreement, people ask why should they strip down their faction battleships to reduce the appeal to gankers and put them into a slow freighter when they can fit them for ehp/agility/warpspeed/warpstrength/mwdcloak and travel quite safely and fast, even with 1-2x bs and a orca for small ships, with 10s align... Because as we showed earlier if you have a large number of ships using the bowhead is faster. You also cannot scan the fits of the ships inside the hold so nobody but you will know how they are fitted. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1995	Posted - 2014.11.24 15:00:19 - [1949] - Quote Barton Breau wrote: Ranger 1 wrote: I somehow think that all of the RvB players, not to mention mission runners everywhere, will disagree. This is in a way the main point of disagreement, people ask why should they strip down their faction battleships to reduce the appeal to gankers and put them into a slow freighter when they can fit them for ehp/agility/warpspeed/warpstrength/mwdcloak and travel quite safely and fast, even with 1-2x bs and a orca for small ships, with 10s align... did you know its safer to move items in a Maller than a freighter? but ppl use freighters because it saves a **** load of time and effort. risk/reward. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Myrkul Nightshade The Adept Shadow Killers 2	Posted - 2014.11.24 15:22:10 - [1950] - Quote I've been wondering about this. It still seems like, if you want to move ships around fast, you would dissassemble them, and then put both them and their modules into a normal freighter. The only real advantages of a big ship bay would seem to be if they have rigs. That and saving time if you've already got them fit how you want (so you don't have to keep doing it again and again.) The inability to see the modules on a scan might be a side advantage too, I guess. But if they're expensive ships, then probably a high sec pirate will assume the rigs are expensive too. At least the ship adds some variety. I thought the Prospect was going to be a big waste of space, but then I trained an alt on it and tried it out and it's actually a pretty useful ship for the role I give it (not it's intended role).

Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.24 15:27:30 - [1951] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Why would we not have it apply? Simply to prevent this '...It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' Your and other peoples statement should worry CCP by now that its application will be to circumvent the jump changes. Edit: The usage of 'we' as a player not being part of CCP actually made me think a bit... We would still use it without the bonus so removing it does nothing. Excellent - so we others can take that as an agreement then - no jump fatigue bonus required :) Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13986	Posted - 2014.11.24 15:40:54 - [1952] - Quote Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: baltec1 wrote: Why would we not have it apply? Simply to prevent this '...It may find applications in other parts of space (especially because of the reduced jump fatigue), but we aren't really worried about hitting anything outside of the high-sec application.' Your and other peoples statement should worry CCP by now that its application will be to circumvent the jump changes. Edit: The usage of 'we' as a player not being part of CCP actually made me think a bit... We would still use it without the bonus so removing it does nothing. Excellent - so we others can take that as an agreement then - no jump fatigue bonus required :) I wonder, why are you so desperate for this ship to not be used outside of incursion running? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Myrkul Nightshade The Adept Shadow Killers 2	Posted - 2014.11.24 16:11:44 - [1953] - Quote Why not keep the jump fatige bonus, and let the community decide what they want to use the ship for? It's one thing to design a ship with a purpose in mind. It's another thing to try and bar that ship from serving any purpose other than the one you explicitly intended. That's doesn't appear to be the philosophy of Eve.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.24 16:17:49 - [1954] - Quote Myrkul Nightshade wrote: Why not keep the jump fatige bonus, and let the community decide what they want to use the ship for? It's one thing to design a ship with a purpose in mind. It's another thing to try and bar that ship from serving any purpose other than the one you explicitly intended. That's doesn't appear to be the philosophy of Eve. Because the ship with fatigue bonus will just eliminate certain aspects of the jump changes - which isn't the purpose of it. I read and watched the thread a long time and more and more it went into the usual direction: change stuff to the good of null players mainly. Capitals are restricted as well can't be used in high sec - so having it the other way round for certain ships isn't a bad thing either. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Barton Breau University of Caille Gallente Federation 96	Posted - 2014.11.24 20:08:31 - [1955] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Because as we showed earlier if you have a large number of ships using the bowhead is faster. You also cannot scan the fits of the ships inside the hold so nobody but you will know how they are fitted. Unable to scan is a questionable concept as the blockade runners show. Also you are basically saying that freighters should have only 150-300k m3 cargo (3x bs vs bowhead and 3x dst vs freighter), because you can "show" that 30 freighters with 10 logi can be close to being safe as a dst mwdcloaking trough highsec.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13988	Posted - 2014.11.24 21:12:19 - [1956] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Myrkul Nightshade wrote: Why not keep the jump fatige bonus, and let the community decide what they want to use the ship for? It's one thing to design a ship with a purpose in mind. It's another thing to try and bar that ship from serving any purpose other than the one you explicitly intended. That's doesn't appear to be the philosophy of Eve. Because the ship with fatigue bonus will just eliminate certain aspects of the jump changes - which isn't the purpose of it. I read and watched the thread a long time and more and more it went into the usual direction: change stuff to the good of null players mainly. Capitals are restricted as well can't be used in high sec - so having it the other way round for certain ships isn't a bad thing either. We didn't ask for any changes. Also given that this ship is not a combat capital but a freighter it make perfect sense for it to act like freighters which are not restricted in any way. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.24 22:06:38 - [1957] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dwissi wrote: Myrkul Nightshade wrote: Why not keep the jump fatige bonus, and let the community decide what they want to use the ship for? It's one thing to design a ship with a purpose in mind. It's another thing to try and bar that ship from serving any purpose other than the one you explicitly intended. That's doesn't appear to be the philosophy of Eve. Because the ship with fatigue bonus will just eliminate certain aspects of the jump changes - which isn't the purpose of it. I read and watched the thread a long time and more and more it went into the usual direction: change stuff to the good of null players mainly. Capitals are restricted as well can't be used in high sec - so having it the other way round for certain ships isn't a bad thing either. We didn't ask for any changes. Also given that this ship is not a combat capital but a freighter it make perfect sense for it to act like freighters which are not restricted in any way. The word perfect is wrong - it doesnt make perfect sense when it has more value as an alternative to avoid jump fatigue than as a high sec ship. But it of course makes perfect sense for what you would like to have as null player. And thats again why it does not make perfect sense at all. Without a bonus it will immediately only be interesting for the intended target group - mainly high sec dwellers. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1745	Posted - 2014.11.25 00:06:45 - [1958] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Because the ship with fatigue bonus will just eliminate certain aspects of the jump changes - which isn't the purpose of it. I read and watched the thread a long time and more and more it went into the usual direction: change stuff to the good of null players mainly. Capitals are restricted as well can't be used in high sec - so having it the other way round for certain ships isn't a bad thing either. Except it won't. We already discussed this many pages back. It does nothing that can't be done already more efficiently in another ship.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.25 06:17:22 - [1959] - Quote Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Because the ship with fatigue bonus will just eliminate certain aspects of the jump changes - which isn't the purpose of it. I read and watched the thread a long time and more and more it went into the usual direction: change stuff to the good of null players mainly. Capitals are restricted as well can't be used in high sec - so having it the other way round for certain ships isn't a bad thing either. Except it won't. We already discussed this many pages back. It does nothing that can't be done already more efficiently in another ship. Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1745	Posted - 2014.11.25 07:20:08 - [1960] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right.

Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.25 09:59:09 - [1961] - Quote Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right. I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1711	Posted - 2014.11.25 10:43:59 - [1962] - Quote Dwissi wrote: I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) The jump fatigue bonus will remain no matter how much you argue against it. It may go away in the future or lessen when all industrial ships lose it. But as an Industrial ship it gets the same jump benefit as the rest do. I may disagree with people like Baltec over tank because they are obviously simply looking for easy ganks and null sec use and want high sec to suffer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and ruin any null sec use for it when it's a standard role bonus.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.25 11:56:50 - [1963] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Dwissi wrote: I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) The jump fatigue bonus will remain no matter how much you argue against it. It may go away in the future or lessen when all industrial ships lose it. But as an Industrial ship it gets the same jump benefit as the rest do. I may disagree with people like Baltec over tank because they are obviously simply looking for easy ganks and null sec use and want high sec to suffer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and ruin any null sec use for it when it's a standard role bonus. Its an ORE ship - not a standard industrial. There are 5 other ORE ships that don't have that bonus as well - the barges. Noctis , Orca and Rorqual are the only ones that have that bonus as well. Its actually debatable if they should have it at all as well. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 21	Posted - 2014.11.25 12:30:04 - [1964] - Quote Myrkul Nightshade wrote: I've been wondering about this. It still seems like, if you want to move ships around fast, you would dissassemble them, and then put both them and their modules into a normal freighter. ................... As noted before - you don't need a Bowhead to do this, it can be done now. All you need to do is Courier Contracts for fitted ships. The Bowhead's only 'extra' is that you can carry 3 x BS instead of 2. That said, the Bowhead will make things 'easier', as now you can simply load up from one Ship Hanger and deliver to another - possibly all the ships for a campaign, or a selection for different purposes - all without the extra hassle of contracts. The Bowhead's introduction may, however, pressage a future change to contracts.......
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 313	Posted - 2014.11.25 14:06:43 - [1965] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Myrkul Nightshade wrote: I've been wondering about this. It still seems like, if you want to move ships around fast, you would dissassemble them, and then put both them and their modules into a normal freighter. ................... As noted before - you don't need a Bowhead to do this, it can be done now. All you need to do is Courier Contracts for fitted ships. The Bowhead's only 'extra' is that you can carry 3 x BS instead of 2. That said, the Bowhead will make things 'easier', as now you can simply load up from one Ship Hanger and deliver to another - possibly all the ships for a campaign, or a selection for different purposes - all without the extra hassle of contracts. The Bowhead's introduction may, however, pressage a future change to contracts....... Speaking as a former alliance logistics manager, assembled ship courier contracts need to be a thing. Like yesterday. A bitter vet trying to start anew.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13989	Posted - 2014.11.25 16:48:40 - [1966] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right. I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) If you get rid of the jump fatigue bonus we will still make heavy use of the ship because it is better than a carrier at the job of moving fleet assets around. I still don't understand why you want to stamp out this ship being used by null players when it is in null that the need for such a ship is at its greatest. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1747	Posted - 2014.11.25 17:43:23 - [1967] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right. I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) I've explained this at least twice to you, no matter how you try to look at it, it does not circumvent any of the jump changes whatsoever. It doesnt carry any more ships or equipment than existing ships. So your argument that it will circumvent certain changes holds nothing. And again, just because you didnt think of the scenario yourself doesnt mean someone will find use in it. So that means its not untouched.
Dwissi Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2014.11.25 20:47:39 - [1968] - Quote Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right. I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) I've explained this at least twice to you, no matter how you try to look at it, it does not circumvent any of the jump changes whatsoever. It doesnt carry any more ships or equipment than existing ships. So your argument that it will circumvent certain changes holds nothing. And again, just because you didnt think of the scenario yourself doesnt mean someone will find use in it. So that means its not untouched. You did not explain anything - you stated your opinion - which i simply dont share. Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins Before someone complains again: grr everyone Greed is the death of loyalty
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 108	Posted - 2014.11.25 21:53:37 - [1969] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right. I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) I've explained this at least twice to you, no matter how you try to look at it, it does not circumvent any of the jump changes whatsoever. It doesnt carry any more ships or equipment than existing ships. So your argument that it will circumvent certain changes holds nothing. And again, just because you didnt think of the scenario yourself doesnt mean someone will find use in it. So that means its not untouched. You did not explain anything - you stated your opinion - which i simply dont share. what does this ship do that a freighter cant with courier contracts?
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1748	Posted - 2014.11.25 23:00:44 - [1970] - Quote Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Rowells wrote: Dwissi wrote: Which is why no bonus would not change a thing if you would be right about it - but the reactions to the suggestion show already the opposite So, because this bonus will not enact the single scenario you have come up with, we need to stomp out any other potential uses before they happen? Because of a single scenario? The reactions are more because of your terrible arguments. People disagreeing with you does not make you right. I don't need to be right - i am simply stating one opinion in the pool of many. Removing the jump fatigue bonus will not change the ship itself but simply ensure that its main usage will not be as a null sec ship to circumvent other mechanics. Any other scenario you could think of remains untouched. And so far all the disagreement comes from the same coalition group only ;) I've explained this at least twice to you, no matter how you try to look at it, it does not circumvent any of the jump changes whatsoever. It doesnt carry any more ships or equipment than existing ships. So your argument that it will circumvent certain changes holds nothing. And again, just because you didnt think of the scenario yourself doesnt mean someone will find use in it. So that means its not untouched. You did not explain anything - you stated your opinion - which i simply dont share. I have explained numerous times in this thread, and others have as well. And I explained to you already, what does this ship do so well that any other ship can't do already?

Marcus Tedric Tedric Enterprises The Star League 23	Posted - 2014.11.26 10:42:34 - [1971] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: ........................... Speaking as a former alliance logistics manager, assembled ship courier contracts need to be a thing. Like yesterday. Ummm, I think you must have mis-read my post.... 'Assembled ship courier contracts' - are currently a thing - now. Lady Rift wrote: .................... what does this ship do that a freighter cant with courier contracts? It can carry 3 BS instead of only 2. Now, if it could carry packed ships as well - then we really would be talking!
Jackie Cane Chaos Gate 21	Posted - 2014.11.26 12:01:39 - [1972] - Quote This ship needs a jump drive
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 350	Posted - 2014.11.26 15:44:50 - [1973] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: ........................... Speaking as a former alliance logistics manager, assembled ship courier contracts need to be a thing. Like yesterday. Ummm, I think you must have mis-read my post.... 'Assembled ship courier contracts' - are currently a thing - now. Lady Rift wrote: .................... what does this ship do that a freighter cant with courier contracts? It can carry 3 BS instead of only 2. Now, if it could carry packed ships as well - then we really would be talking! Well, what I meant was, we need a category of ship courier contract that will fit in an SMA/SMB rather than cargo space. Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 350	Posted - 2014.11.26 15:46:33 - [1974] - Quote Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That will be for the T2 variant. Like jump freighters, you'll less space than the T1 version and a jump drive, and unlike carriers they would be able to move around in highsec like a jump freighter. Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 643	Posted - 2014.11.26 19:43:25 - [1975] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That will be for the T2 variant. Like jump freighters, you'll less space than the T1 version and a jump drive, and unlike carriers they would be able to move around in highsec like a jump freighter. Like jump freighters, this would be a significant quality of life improvement that is also bad for the game. Ships should not be able to use jump drives in high sec (should have to make at least one gate jump into low or null). This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 275	Posted - 2014.11.27 16:22:56 - [1976] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That will be for the T2 variant. Like jump freighters, you'll less space than the T1 version and a jump drive, and unlike carriers they would be able to move around in highsec like a jump freighter. Like jump freighters, this would be a significant quality of life improvement that is also bad for the game. Ships should not be able to use jump drives in high sec (should have to make at least one gate jump into low or null). That is a pretty bold statement considering where your alliance resides. Think about how much a few lost JF's loaded with alliance needs would impact the cost of you and your alliance mates fielding a fleet. JF's already run the risk of entering empire space (often loaded with an alliances income) via gates, always have. You would see them exit empire in the same manner? 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
Gerald Mardiska Black Water Oasis 17	Posted - 2014.11.28 09:48:21 - [1977] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? so it can go faster the higher the lvl is trained.
Arla Sarain 151	Posted - 2014.12.01 00:02:19 - [1978] - Quote Really like the design. Very industrial and utilitarian. Hopefully more ships with a design philosophy like that, but those that take more of an active role within player conflicts. Shamelessly hinting on https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5233096#post5233096
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 680	Posted - 2014.12.01 00:06:30 - [1979] - Quote I know i'm a bit late to the party, but I feel this ship needs a bit more cargo, as it is most likely gonna be used for moving purposes. I'd say something in the 50k range if you choose to fill the lows with T2 cargo hold optimization
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.01 04:21:42 - [1980] - Quote i say the ship and the BPO need to require ship maintenance arrays instead of cargo bays. but i guess that is just me

FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 660	Posted - 2014.12.01 04:59:39 - [1981] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That will be for the T2 variant. Like jump freighters, you'll less space than the T1 version and a jump drive, and unlike carriers they would be able to move around in highsec like a jump freighter. Like jump freighters, this would be a significant quality of life improvement that is also bad for the game. Ships should not be able to use jump drives in high sec (should have to make at least one gate jump into low or null). That is a pretty bold statement considering where your alliance resides. Think about how much a few lost JF's loaded with alliance needs would impact the cost of you and your alliance mates fielding a fleet. JF's already run the risk of entering empire space (often loaded with an alliances income) via gates, always have. You would see them exit empire in the same manner? Yes. Not everyone in my alliance would agree with me, but that's my opinion. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Thorr VonAsgard Never Surrender. The Blacklist. 43	Posted - 2014.12.01 09:42:01 - [1982] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That will be for the T2 variant. Like jump freighters, you'll less space than the T1 version and a jump drive, and unlike carriers they would be able to move around in highsec like a jump freighter. You mean carrier....
Dangeresque Too Pistols for Pandas 11	Posted - 2014.12.01 16:14:20 - [1983] - Quote So much for the supposed update today to make the BPO not just a straight material copy of the Obelisk... Thats what I get for hoping CCP will actually not half-do something that is being released next week. On the note of it's bay size, once my brother gets home I think I'm going to have to do a test to see if hauling a couple battleships with this thing is actually faster than flying the battleships there myself. As it stands it doesn't seem like it will hold enough ships to actually save time compared to doing it the old fashioned way.
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 70	Posted - 2014.12.01 16:55:37 - [1984] - Quote Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That is in fact called a carrier.
Jessica Danikov Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 424	Posted - 2014.12.01 19:23:25 - [1985] - Quote Tappits wrote: Jackie Cane wrote: This ship needs a jump drive That is in fact called a carrier. Why not shrink the ship maintenance array on carriers? The carrier class already has far too many roles involved and could use having its role as ghetto/defacto 'ship freighter' taken away from it. I'd propose dropping carrier SMAs down to 750k m3 in order to limit it strictly to 1 battleship + misc others. With that in mind, we're stuck with a nasty conundrum: a packaged battleship is 50,000 m3, which means you could jam 10 of them into a Freighter (24 with cargo expanders), or 3 of them into a cargo expanded Jump Freighter (7 with expanders). Unpackaged, they're in the 400-600k m3 range, meaning 2 max in a carrier. Let's assume the Bowhead is a T1 ship freighter. The proposed size of the Bowhead pegs it at 3-4 unpackaged battleships with max skills, which is 40% of equivalent unpackaged transport. Furthermore, this capacity is not buffable with lowslot modules and it really should be to give the same choice offered to freighter pilots. Call them external ship pods, give them bonus to SMA size and negatives to structure and cargo size, might need a role fitting bonus to stop them being used on Rorquals/Carriers, or to balance Rorquals/Carriers to allow their use as a tradeoff with other lowslots. This seems rather punitive. Instead, if we aim for 75% of the freighter equivalent packaged capacity as a trade-off for moving them assembled, the Bowhead should be closer to 7-8 battleships = ship maintenance bay of almost double size (maxing out at 16 battleships with SMA expanders). Let's say it starts at 3,000,000 m3 and smoothly increases by 100k m3 per level to 3,500,000 m3 with Ore Freighter V, giving that equivalent capacity if we want to keep the skill involvement. Between the carrier nerf and the Bowhead, that opens up a niche for a T2 Bowhead jump variant (let's call it a Minke). Again, that should come in at 75% of equivalent to jump freighter, so probably around 1,100,000 m3, also with the option to buff with lowslot modules. Naturally this also fits the expected pattern of freighters having jump counter-parts, ORE ships having T2 versions. Phoebe nerfed jumping into the ground and gate to gate travel has always been tedious and dangerous. Even with jumping, the speed of Bowhead/T2 Variant won't circumvent the nerfs to power projection and this capacity offers the choice of far greater risk, for those willing to take it.
Thorado Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh 5	Posted - 2014.12.02 11:28:47 - [1986] - Quote How many ships can it hold?
crachdown Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires 0	Posted - 2014.12.02 15:17:09 - [1987] - Quote don't know if this have been said or not but... on sisi it say you need 75 capital cargo bays to build the ship wouldn't it make more sense for the bp to use capital ship maintenance bays instead just saying it's a ship shipping ships
LCPL SERENITY Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.12.03 01:29:51 - [1988] - Quote CCP Rise should we expect to see a non Jump drive version that increases the ship maintenance array capacity? This being that you can not use a cyno in highsec. The Jump drive seams like a waste for non lowsec / null / WH players.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1777	Posted - 2014.12.03 01:51:54 - [1989] - Quote crachdown wrote: don't know if this have been said or not but... on sisi it say you need 75 capital cargo bays to build the ship wouldn't it make more sense for the bp to use capital ship maintenance bays instead just saying it's a ship shipping ships I don't believe they updated that yet. Afaik they just copy-pasted the obelisk stats and adjusted from there.
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans 1777	Posted - 2014.12.03 01:53:25 - [1990] - Quote LCPL SERENITY wrote: CCP Rise should we expect to see a non Jump drive version that increases the ship maintenance array capacity? This being that you can not use a cyno in highsec. The Jump drive seams like a waste for non lowsec / null / WH players. There is no jump drive.

Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.03 02:55:07 - [1991] - Quote Rowells wrote: LCPL SERENITY wrote: CCP Rise should we expect to see a non Jump drive version that increases the ship maintenance array capacity? This being that you can not use a cyno in highsec. The Jump drive seams like a waste for non lowsec / null / WH players. There is no jump drive. agreed there is no jumpdrive in this ship. if you want a jumpdrive get a jump freighter or a carrier. now what i would like is a highsec carrier even if it was dumbed down a bit from regular carriers
LCPL SERENITY Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.12.03 03:10:42 - [1992] - Quote Rowells wrote: LCPL SERENITY wrote: CCP Rise should we expect to see a non Jump drive version that increases the ship maintenance array capacity? This being that you can not use a cyno in highsec. The Jump drive seams like a waste for non lowsec / null / WH players. There is no jump drive. Then where does the Role Bonus come in. 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.03 03:28:17 - [1993] - Quote LCPL SERENITY wrote: Rowells wrote: LCPL SERENITY wrote: CCP Rise should we expect to see a non Jump drive version that increases the ship maintenance array capacity? This being that you can not use a cyno in highsec. The Jump drive seams like a waste for non lowsec / null / WH players. There is no jump drive. Then where does the Role Bonus come in. 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation this ship is classified as an industrial ship and all industrial class ships have that bonus
Foxicity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 26	Posted - 2014.12.03 03:30:31 - [1994] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: LCPL SERENITY wrote: Rowells wrote: LCPL SERENITY wrote: CCP Rise should we expect to see a non Jump drive version that increases the ship maintenance array capacity? This being that you can not use a cyno in highsec. The Jump drive seams like a waste for non lowsec / null / WH players. There is no jump drive. Then where does the Role Bonus come in. 90% reduction in jump fatigue generation this ship is classified as an industrial ship and all industrial class ships have that bonus To expand on this, the use of jump bridges (getting cyno'd somewhere by a titan or pos) still generates fatigue. Industrials are bonused to experience less fatigue from jump bridging.
Market Tycoon Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2014.12.03 15:38:01 - [1995] - Quote i hope it hasnt been asked yet, as i refuse to read 84 pages to find out: if you plan to make ships drop from the hangar/bay (or not, either way i need to know this), what will happen to these ships insurances? Will they - be void and just vanish - stay with the dropped ship - pay out if the drop from the bay - pay out only if they die in the exploding bowhead - do not pay out at all ... or what exactly is the plan here. thx for clarification
Random McNally Isogen 5 85525	Posted - 2014.12.03 16:00:01 - [1996] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Hey Rise, for those of us with CRS (Cannot Remember S***), does this mean Bowhead bpo will be available only in ORE space? (sincerely apologize if this has been mentioned earlier) Co-Host of the High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/ Check out the space music at http://minddivided.com In Game Channel HighDragChat
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.03 16:28:24 - [1997] - Quote Random McNally wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Hey Rise, for those of us with CRS (Cannot Remember S***), does this mean Bowhead bpo will be available only in ORE space? (sincerely apologize if this has been mentioned earlier) i have not seen it mentioned earlier, and i hope that we can find these in more places than just 'ORE space' or better yet have an ORE station in highsec that will have them.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 681	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:37:50 - [1998] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) edit: base HP and bonuses updated based on feedback. To be honest, I feel the cargohold is a bit lacking. The most applied use of this ship is going to be for personal movement from system to system. I would like to see the cargo capacity in the minimum of 30k range.key word here being MINIMUM!!! That way you can carry a reasonable amount of supplies in it as well. Where else am I gonna put my 800 cap boosters?
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:46:42 - [1999] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) edit: base HP and bonuses updated based on feedback. To be honest, I feel the cargohold is a bit lacking. The most applied use of this ship is going to be for personal movement from system to system. I would like to see the cargo capacity in the minimum of 30k range.key word here being MINIMUM!!! That way you can carry a reasonable amount of supplies in it as well. Where else am I gonna put my 800 cap boosters? you will put the 800 cap boosters in the ships you are hauling since they count as charges just like ammo
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 666	Posted - 2014.12.03 19:01:10 - [2000] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Random McNally wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Hey Rise, for those of us with CRS (Cannot Remember S*), does this mean Bowhead bpo will be available only in ORE space? (sincerely apologize if this has been mentioned earlier) i have not seen it mentioned earlier, and i hope that we can find these in more places than just 'ORE space' or better yet have an ORE station in highsec that will have them. Keep dreaming. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.**

Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 681	Posted - 2014.12.03 19:18:35 - [2001] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Capacity (cargo / ship maintenance array): 4000 / 1300000 (goes up to 1.6 something with ore freighter 5) edit: base HP and bonuses updated based on feedback. To be honest, I feel the cargohold is a bit lacking. The most applied use of this ship is going to be for personal movement from system to system. I would like to see the cargo capacity in the minimum of 30k range.key word here being MINIMUM!!! That way you can carry a reasonable amount of supplies in it as well. Where else am I gonna put my 800 cap boosters? you will put the 800 cap boosters in the ships you are hauling since they count as charges just like ammo Well, I have a stock pile of spares laid up, but that's beside the point. My point is that it needs a decent amount of cargohold in order to be able to transport extra items that won't or or can't be carried in the holds of the transported ships.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.04 00:10:14 - [2002] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Random McNally wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Hey Rise, for those of us with CRS (Cannot Remember S***), does this mean Bowhead bpo will be available only in ORE space? (sincerely apologize if this has been mentioned earlier) i have not seen it mentioned earlier, and i hope that we can find these in more places than just 'ORE space' or better yet have an ORE station in highsec that will have them. Keep dreaming. i only mention this since it is intended to be a HS ship
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 277	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:25:42 - [2003] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Yume Ookami wrote: Random McNally wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Hey Rise, for those of us with CRS (Cannot Remember S***), does this mean Bowhead bpo will be available only in ORE space? (sincerely apologize if this has been mentioned earlier) i have not seen it mentioned earlier, and i hope that we can find these in more places than just 'ORE space' or better yet have an ORE station in highsec that will have them. Keep dreaming. i only mention this since it is intended to be a HS ship A highsec ship that fits in so nicely with nulsec requirements and being released to coincide with the jump range nerfs and fatigue. The Bowhead should find itself a nice role in CCP's game of "biggest fleet wins". CCP seem to have a thing for handing the biggest groups in nulsec exactly what they need to maintain their domination. 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
Zyxi Zhou-Laun Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:27:34 - [2004] - Quote I am looking forward to this ship. By the time I have the isk to buy it for this toon and my alt, the 'shiney new-so gank me' effect should be mostly gone. Now for my comments... Many people mentioned the role bonus. I am glad it has been changed to boost agility. Its original setting just didn't have any purpose. Now, maybe the solo people like myself has a chance to survive a gank with this HUGE GANK MAGNET. I agree the cargo hold is a bit small, but I don't see a need for it to be much larger (maybe 10-20k at max) I know CCP has planned for it to be designed for 3 T2 fitted battleships and I feel that is a good number for the minimum-skilled pilot. The fully-skilled pilot shold be able to store at least 1 more (for 4 battleships) or at maximum 2 more (for 5). Making a brand new skill just for this one ship is a poor decision in my opinion, but I'm not a CCP stock-holder. I would think consolidating the entire line of ORE vessels to one or two skills would be more efficient. Making a completely new skill for each ship instead of adapting to the already laid foundation seems to be a common thread among CCP developers. We have people in the US to do such things just to prove they can... we call them politicians. This ship will find a niche, I am certain. Through December and most of January, it will make the 'tear-harvesting gankers' happy. After that, it will likely be used for hauling larger numbers of smaller combat-ready ships (frigates to cruisers) than its proposed function. It will be used most often when a player (or group of players) have many more ships than pilots and/or ships they can not pilot... except by a relative few. I like the fact that fitting for 'max tank' will not cut its ability at its main job, unlike other non-combat ships. It will likely be 'tweaked' as CCP watches how the ship is used and decides how to 'guide' how the players use it. I am rather surprised ORE is to make this ship, though. Seems to me me it would be more along the lines of SoE or SoCT (I would prefer the latter). Scratch that. Both of those factions make ships which are quite versitile and capable of fighting back when attacked. In fact, I would think SoCT would make a line of haulers adaptable to the needs of the buyer, but I guess that would be too intelligent.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 343	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:44:30 - [2005] - Quote Zyxi Zhou-Laun wrote: I am rather surprised ORE is to make this ship, though. Seems to me me it would be more along the lines of SoE or SoCT (I would prefer the latter). Scratch that. Both of those factions make ships which are quite versitile and capable of fighting back when attacked. In fact, I would think SoCT would make a line of haulers adaptable to the needs of the buyer, but I guess that would be too intelligent. SoCT does not manufacture ships as a regular thing. Gnosis was a one off, as are all of their previous ships. SoE has the same sort of tech advantage as the pirates and thus all of their stuff is lumped in with pirates, and so requires either breaking precedent to require 1 freighter skill for a pirate freighter (angel freighter then plz) and it as a t1 freighter, requiring 2 skills to use the new faction freighter which is built like a pirate hull, and thus would top out in the low 800ks for tank and rewarding those few people with 2 seperate freighter skills. ORE fits nicely. Its a ship which isn't combat focused, but industrially focused, has a decent tank, tech 1 but along a different development line from the official empires and they already are stated to build or at least design capital ships. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Zyxi Zhou-Laun Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:23:57 - [2006] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Zyxi Zhou-Laun wrote: SoCT does not manufacture ships as a regular thing. Gnosis was a one off, as are all of their previous ships.. I was not aware SoCT made any ships before the Gnosis. I only knew of the shuttle. I was basing my statement on the values of the Gnosis.... a battlecruiser with excellent flexibility and low skill requirements. Whichever dev came up with THAT design knew what new players needed to learn EvE and designed a sturdy ship for the purpose. He/she did an excellent job. That is shown by that rise in its price on the market. Making a line of low-requirement, flexible industrials shouldn't be so difficult.
Lil' Brudder Too Pistols for Pandas 62	Posted - 2014.12.05 15:24:51 - [2007] - Quote Bowhead simply needs more maint bay. If it will take me less time to move each of my three BS's than it will take for this ship itself to get moved to the pickup, then destination...i will never be using this ship. This is compounded by the fact that if i'm going to use this ship at all, you can bet i won't be going anywhere without a friendly web....which further negates the time-savings of this ship with using a second pilot to move the original BS's to begin with. CCP, please listen to the plethora of feedback in this thread, most of which is saying....it simply needs more capacity.
Zyxi Zhou-Laun Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2014.12.05 19:17:50 - [2008] - Quote Lil' Brudder Too wrote: Bowhead simply needs more maint bay. If it will take me less time to move each of my three BS's than it will take for this ship itself to get moved to the pickup, then destination...i will never be using this ship. This is compounded by the fact that if i'm going to use this ship at all, you can bet i won't be going anywhere without a friendly web....which further negates the time-savings of this ship with using a second pilot to move the original BS's to begin with. CCP, please listen to the plethora of feedback in this thread, most of which is saying....it simply needs more capacity. CCP is betting there will be a large number of players who will find a use for it in its present form. They have made that bet with a number of ships and it has been a case of more flops than gold. The Nester (or whatever the SoE battleship's name is) and the prospect being two flops I know of. The chances they'll actually fix the bowhead just because players on the forums are pointing out the GLARING problems with it simply don't exist at this time. CCP doesn't understand some aspects of their own game and the players who abide in those aspects. Solo players being one aspect they simply don't understand and/or just don't want in the game. This desire to avoid solo play seems to be prevalent in many of their decisions... particularly ship design. The bowhead in its present form does not support solo players. Unfortunately, it needs team play to be usefull and that need removes any benefit to using it in its present form. The need of yet ANOTHER skill for this ship and ONLY this ship lowers the value of this ship even more. Letting the ship require an already existant skill (like Capitol Industrial) probably did not even occur to CCP and they're not going to admit it makes sense, so they will not implement the change. Increasing the size of the Bowhead's main bay with a skill's level is also an idea that makes sense, but since THAT would benefit solo players, it won't happen. The bowhead will be bought in the first few weeks by players who want to test it and who collect ships (I'm one of the collectors), and gankers will be joyous to have such a rich, slow target for their killmails. After those first few weeks, the bowhead will sit beside the Nestor as the flop of the year.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1182	Posted - 2014.12.06 01:11:54 - [2009] - Quote Lil' Brudder Too wrote: Bowhead simply needs more maint bay. If it will take me less time to move each of my three BS's than it will take for this ship itself to get moved to the pickup, then destination...i will never be using this ship. This is compounded by the fact that if i'm going to use this ship at all, you can bet i won't be going anywhere without a friendly web....which further negates the time-savings of this ship with using a second pilot to move the original BS's to begin with. CCP, please listen to the plethora of feedback in this thread, most of which is saying....it simply needs more capacity. How will it take longer? Its a 10 second align time when properly fit. Webs would be useless for it. New player resources: Uni Wiki - General Info Eve Altruist - PvP Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 348	Posted - 2014.12.06 11:51:40 - [2010] - Quote BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: Lil' Brudder Too wrote: Bowhead simply needs more maint bay. If it will take me less time to move each of my three BS's than it will take for this ship itself to get moved to the pickup, then destination...i will never be using this ship. This is compounded by the fact that if i'm going to use this ship at all, you can bet i won't be going anywhere without a friendly web....which further negates the time-savings of this ship with using a second pilot to move the original BS's to begin with. CCP, please listen to the plethora of feedback in this thread, most of which is saying....it simply needs more capacity. How will it take longer? Its a 10 second align time when properly fit. Webs would be useless for it. Sigamp loki with quad web takes it <3s to get into warp as is. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships

JP Dante Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.12.06 12:03:49 - [2011] - Quote Damn, I was hoping it would at least be comparable in hp's to the Freighters, Its not even half the hp... this is just big juicy gank target. Seeking out the Bowheads will become the new low risk roulette game of eve... will you get a rigged shop? or a goat! Step and try your luck, gank a Bowhead near you today! So it states base hp and bonuses based on feedback... my question then is who's? certainly not the players as this forum clearly indicates.
Masao Kurata Z List 171	Posted - 2014.12.06 15:14:04 - [2012] - Quote ARGH! I am sick of idiots of who can't grasp the difference between raw HP and fitted EHP.
Lil' Brudder Too Pistols for Pandas 66	Posted - 2014.12.06 17:06:38 - [2013] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Sigamp loki with quad web takes it <3s to get into warp as is. Hyena - 3 webs...it warps the instant the frigate locks it. I never move any of my cap ships without it.
Sturmwolke 595	Posted - 2014.12.06 18:22:42 - [2014] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: Random McNally wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Hey Rise, for those of us with CRS (Cannot Remember S***), does this mean Bowhead bpo will be available only in ORE space? (sincerely apologize if this has been mentioned earlier) i have not seen it mentioned earlier, and i hope that we can find these in more places than just 'ORE space' or better yet have an ORE station in highsec that will have them. " there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca)" - if this is still correct, then the BPO would be available in highsec like the Orca. Look for Deep Core Mining Inc. stations.
Zyxi Zhou-Laun Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2014.12.06 22:13:44 - [2015] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: ARGH! I am sick of idiots of who can't grasp the difference between raw HP and fitted EHP. well, I think I have some idea, but why don't YOU educate us?
Mistah Ewedynao Ice Axe Psycho Killers 572	Posted - 2014.12.07 15:13:45 - [2016] - Quote Up the armor amount to equal the shield amount. That way a pilot in a proper fleet with BOTH shield and armor boosts, along with some decent implants could at least keep the gankers guessing. As it is now, you'd almost think it was designed to give a new fat target for the gankers. Nerf Goons Nuke em from orbit....it's the only way to be sure.
marly cortez Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 58	Posted - 2014.12.07 19:13:22 - [2017] - Quote Utterly Pitiful idea. 3 BS at maxed skills....really???. Expand the SMA to be able to carry half a fleets worth of BS and then maybe it's worth the effort of training skills and actually buying one for a Corp, other than that Gankers would have more fun holding a BS pilot to ransom and having him eject. Corps once had a perfectly good ship transport, they were called 'Carriers', but someone decided these had to be nerfed to the point they became useless for that task so now there relegated to PoS repping and defense, Seems CCP's blind desperation has finally come to this, Spending weeks designing and specifying an utterly useless ship design, might as well dress it with a shoot here sign for all it's worth.
Zyxi Zhou-Laun Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2014.12.07 20:28:00 - [2018] - Quote marly cortez wrote: Utterly Pitiful idea. 3 BS at maxed skills....really???. Expand the SMA to be able to carry half a fleets worth of BS and then maybe it's worth the effort of training skills and actually buying one for a Corp, other than that Gankers would have more fun holding a BS pilot to ransom and having him eject. Corps once had a perfectly good ship transport, they were called 'Carriers', but someone decided these had to be nerfed to the point they became useless for that task so now there relegated to PoS repping and defense, Seems CCP's blind desperation has finally come to this, Spending weeks designing and specifying an utterly useless ship design, might as well dress it with a shoot here sign for all it's worth. why should they make a ship which has an obvious use from the start? And why put a sign on it? The entire ship is a gank target. hello wall... I didn't see you standing there. Did I hurt cha? Boy, I sure did hit you square. Now one of us is plastered. I'll let you guess just who. Just imagine, bumping into you.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.07 20:31:47 - [2019] - Quote marly cortez wrote: Utterly Pitiful idea. 3 BS at maxed skills....really???. Expand the SMA to be able to carry half a fleets worth of BS and then maybe it's worth the effort of training skills and actually buying one for a Corp, other than that Gankers would have more fun holding a BS pilot to ransom and having him eject. Corps once had a perfectly good ship transport, they were called 'Carriers', but someone decided these had to be nerfed to the point they became useless for that task so now there relegated to PoS repping and defense, Seems CCP's blind desperation has finally come to this, Spending weeks designing and specifying an utterly useless ship design, might as well dress it with a shoot here sign for all it's worth. hmm it would seem that we have a nullsec'er here that does not understand that this was intended for highsec
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1754	Posted - 2014.12.07 20:38:07 - [2020] - Quote marly cortez wrote: Utterly Pitiful idea. 3 BS at maxed skills....really???. Expand the SMA to be able to carry half a fleets worth of BS and then maybe it's worth the effort of training skills and actually buying one for a Corp, other than that Gankers would have more fun holding a BS pilot to ransom and having him eject. Corps once had a perfectly good ship transport, they were called 'Carriers', but someone decided these had to be nerfed to the point they became useless for that task so now there relegated to PoS repping and defense, Seems CCP's blind desperation has finally come to this, Spending weeks designing and specifying an utterly useless ship design, might as well dress it with a shoot here sign for all it's worth. Work out how many capitals it would be able to carry at that volume. The only way to carry large numbers of bs without breaking things is going away from a volume based metric and to a strict number limit of each class. Which reduces the versatility of the ship. As you also wouldn't. Be able to carry lots of smaller ships. Though it does remove the issue of carrying other capitals.

Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 281	Posted - 2014.12.07 21:30:49 - [2021] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: marly cortez wrote: Utterly Pitiful idea. 3 BS at maxed skills....really???. Expand the SMA to be able to carry half a fleets worth of BS and then maybe it's worth the effort of training skills and actually buying one for a Corp, other than that Gankers would have more fun holding a BS pilot to ransom and having him eject. Corps once had a perfectly good ship transport, they were called 'Carriers', but someone decided these had to be nerfed to the point they became useless for that task so now there relegated to PoS repping and defense, Seems CCP's blind desperation has finally come to this, Spending weeks designing and specifying an utterly useless ship design, might as well dress it with a shoot here sign for all it's worth. hmm it would seem that we have a nullsec'er here that does not understand that this was intended for highsec I will glady give odds there are more of them in nulsec than are ever seen in highsec. It is perfectly suited to modern nulsec cruiser fleet logistics. People are fixated on 3 battleships - Why when it is far better suited to hauling around a bunch of cruisers? It seems the Bowhead is designed to sit 1 jump out from the fight for reshipping fleet members and get them back into the fight quickly. For highsec incursion runners to use them, you will need at least a 3 or 4 man fleet to escort 3 battleships in a bowhead from 1 incursion to the next, or risk losing them to gankers. Send war to the bowhead pilots corp or alliance and the risk grows, requiring even more in fleet to move safely. Sort of defeats the purpose of moving 4 ships together when you need that many pilots to safely move them. 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
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 799	Posted - 2014.12.08 06:18:02 - [2022] - Quote JP Dante wrote: Damn, I was hoping it would at least be comparable in hp's to the Freighters, Its not even half the hp... this is just big juicy gank target. Long story short: if we are talking highsec (and we probably are, considering your particular considerations with gankers and EHP), then this thing has about 430k EHP while still having ability to fit MWD and thus have 11 sec align time. This is way better than what freighters have.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 111	Posted - 2014.12.08 15:42:29 - [2023] - Quote i have fiddled with some fits and with even minor shiny (if you consider the cost of the hull and the stuff it'll be moving...) you can get a travel fit up to 364k ehp against void, or 500k with heat... If you actually rig for tank that goes up to more in the area of 800+k overheated against ganks Thats not to far south of where my triage carrier lives in EHP wise... And since i'll be webbing mine into warp with an ashimmu (why are those so cheap anyways??) i suspect it'll be fairly straight forward to move it through niarja or uedama...
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 42	Posted - 2014.12.09 03:28:22 - [2024] - Quote Would you please return the Rattlesnake to its former iteration. Versatility was its strength and it was never consider OP. Nobody trained for it for specialized high-dps. You have destroyed a playstyle that utilized torpedoes passive-shield tanking and the optimal medium/light drones.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3510	Posted - 2014.12.09 04:32:23 - [2025] - Quote Removed a spam post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.09 04:57:08 - [2026] - Quote ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Removed a spam post. please remove more, i think there are a few pages worth
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 466	Posted - 2014.12.09 05:02:16 - [2027] - Quote Yume Ookami wrote: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote: Removed a spam post. please remove more, i think there are a few pages worth no kidding. the last 8 posts on this page are about HP or someshit of this ship that is completely irrelevant tbh. what really matters is A does it have a jump drive? nope B how much is it going to cost? so with no jump drive this thing will largely be a ship that belongs in your hanger for bragging rights. Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Arcomius InterSpace Security 0	Posted - 2014.12.09 11:35:08 - [2028] - Quote Hello there, EvE client patched.. new GUI is nice but.. no Bowhead Blueprint on any market have you any ideas where can I found one of them ? thank a lot
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14142	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:06:09 - [2029] - Quote Arcomius wrote: Hello there, EvE client patched.. new GUI is nice but.. no Bowhead Blueprint on any market have you any ideas where can I found one of them ? thank a lot Same place you get the orca from. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 4	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:09:32 - [2030] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Arcomius wrote: Hello there, EvE client patched.. new GUI is nice but.. no Bowhead Blueprint on any market have you any ideas where can I found one of them ? thank a lot Same place you get the orca from. im at a place to get an orca and i dont see any aparently CCP missed some stations

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14142	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:21:56 - [2031] - Quote Citidel it seems. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Azahar Ortenegro Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis 26	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:23:00 - [2032] - Quote No NPC orders in Citadel.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 5	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:26:36 - [2033] - Quote also i still find it interesting that the BPO and the ship indy tab say different things for build requirements on the main server
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 5	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:29:06 - [2034] - Quote Azahar Ortenegro wrote: No NPC orders in Citadel. was in a Citadel station that sold orca and no NPC orders for the 3 stations that should have had them
Random McNally Isogen 5 86488	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:31:49 - [2035] - Quote So, basically ORE space. So much for availability similar to an Orca. Co-Host of the High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/ Check out the space music at http://minddivided.com In Game Channel HighDragChat
Locke Deathroe Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance 2	Posted - 2014.12.09 12:48:53 - [2036] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Given it seems a lot of us actually read what CCP Rise said here... and are sitting in the stations that have Orca BPO's and see zero Bowhead BPO's yet a TON of them are already posted for sale in Jita makes me think CCP Devs have cheated yet again and told "select" people where the damn BPO's were seeded. Sick and tired of Dev hacks and insider information being passed to the big boys.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14143	Posted - 2014.12.09 13:36:27 - [2037] - Quote Locke Deathroe wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Given it seems a lot of us actually read what CCP Rise said here... and are sitting in the stations that have Orca BPO's and see zero Bowhead BPO's yet a TON of them are already posted for sale in Jita makes me think CCP Devs have cheated yet again and told "select" people where the damn BPO's were seeded. Sick and tired of Dev hacks and insider information being passed to the big boys. Or said people went out and hunted them down. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Hoyy Lawson ARES Unlimited 4	Posted - 2014.12.09 17:03:43 - [2038] - Quote You could get it in 4C-B7X and in NM-OEA like Retriever and Covetor BPOs. But pay attention, stations are camped and it's nullsec.
Locke Deathroe Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance 16	Posted - 2014.12.09 17:07:43 - [2039] - Quote Hoyy Lawson wrote: You could get it in 4C-B7X and in NM-OEA like Retriever and Covetor BPOs. But pay attention, stations are camped and it's nullsec. Thanks mate, already been there and back again. Just wish I had known that's where it was going to be in the first place.
Hoyy Lawson ARES Unlimited 5	Posted - 2014.12.09 17:11:03 - [2040] - Quote Yeah, had the same problem. Waiting in Citadel for the patch, see nothing there and burned to Outer Ring.

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15846	Posted - 2014.12.09 20:38:37 - [2041] - Quote Locke Deathroe wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters. It will use capital rigs. I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not. I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you. Given it seems a lot of us actually read what CCP Rise said here... and are sitting in the stations that have Orca BPO's and see zero Bowhead BPO's yet a TON of them are already posted for sale in Jita makes me think CCP Devs have cheated yet again and told "select" people where the damn BPO's were seeded. Sick and tired of Dev hacks and insider information being passed to the big boys. Yes this is the only possible interpretation of events. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15846	Posted - 2014.12.09 20:42:25 - [2042] - Quote Locke Deathroe wrote: Hoyy Lawson wrote: You could get it in 4C-B7X and in NM-OEA like Retriever and Covetor BPOs. But pay attention, stations are camped and it's nullsec. Thanks mate, already been there and back again. Just wish I had known that's where it was going to be in the first place. Your apology to the developers for falsely accusing them of cheating is welcome, if a little obliquely phrased. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Sluht Hunter X.S. Industries TSOE Consortium 23	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:03:54 - [2043] - Quote Kept up on the dev blogs, researched what was going to be needed so I could Aquire the Bowhead bpo today and get one right into the oven, to take advantage of release prices on new ships. To my great surprise yet again /sarcasm, Some one decided to change the required materials to build a bow head at the last min. So there I sat with to many of the wrong parts, not enough of the ones never listed. Gee thanks again CCP. Oh and BTW thanks for that Orca like availability of the BPO that never happend. The only players that benift at all from mining barges and ORE ship bpo's seeded there is Goons. Making them even richer, while the rest of us have to pay their crazy mark up or risk our expensive assets to attempt to fly there to get it. This needs to change. Seed some ORE stations in High sec or at least turn Ore space into hi sec or even low sec. Disgruntled but still playing the game.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14149	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:53:25 - [2044] - Quote Sluht Hunter wrote: Kept up on the dev blogs, researched what was going to be needed so I could Aquire the Bowhead bpo today and get one right into the oven, to take advantage of release prices on new ships. To my great surprise yet again /sarcasm, Some one decided to change the required materials to build a bow head at the last min. So there I sat with to many of the wrong parts, not enough of the ones never listed. Gee thanks again CCP. Oh and BTW thanks for that Orca like availability of the BPO that never happend. The only players that benift at all from mining barges and ORE ship bpo's seeded there is Goons. Making them even richer, while the rest of us have to pay their crazy mark up or risk our expensive assets to attempt to fly there to get it. This needs to change. Seed some ORE stations in High sec or at least turn Ore space into hi sec or even low sec. Disgruntled but still playing the game. Come take the station away from us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Yume Kanekawa Cognitive Disonance 0	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:30:39 - [2045] - Quote Sluht Hunter wrote: Kept up on the dev blogs, researched what was going to be needed so I could Aquire the Bowhead bpo today and get one right into the oven, to take advantage of release prices on new ships. To my great surprise yet again /sarcasm, Some one decided to change the required materials to build a bow head at the last min. So there I sat with to many of the wrong parts, not enough of the ones never listed. Gee thanks again CCP. Oh and BTW thanks for that Orca like availability of the BPO that never happend. The only players that benift at all from mining barges and ORE ship bpo's seeded there is Goons. Making them even richer, while the rest of us have to pay their crazy mark up or risk our expensive assets to attempt to fly there to get it. This needs to change. Seed some ORE stations in High sec or at least turn Ore space into hi sec or even low sec. Disgruntled but still playing the game. i also followed the forums and played on the test server. i bought 2 BPOs and had them in the oven within 20min of buying them i have 2 bowheads coming out so i can enjoy the overpriced nature of the early builds
Erika Tsurpalen Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 14	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:29:45 - [2046] - Quote Sluht Hunter wrote: or risk our expensive assets to attempt to fly there to get it. An Interceptor is expensive? An Inty could easily do that entire run, not only within about 20minutes, but with little Risk, just fit it for quick warp alignment and no one is going to catch you. Except maybe a smartbomber. But theyre pretty rare in their own right.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 15847	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:55:09 - [2047] - Quote Erika Tsurpalen wrote: Sluht Hunter wrote: or risk our expensive assets to attempt to fly there to get it. An Interceptor is expensive? An Inty could easily do that entire run, not only within about 20minutes, but with little Risk, just fit it for quick warp alignment and no one is going to catch you. Except maybe a smartbomber. But theyre pretty rare in their own right. And if you fly an interceptr carefully (eg: scan outgates, use pingspots) then you can nearly always evade smartbombers as well. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Dusty 3allvalve Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial 0	Posted - 2014.12.10 07:56:07 - [2048] - Quote Dear, dear CCP, No I have not read the whole thread but so far I can see many people are exited about your new ship (mostly looking forward to blowing them up), and many suggesting changes because I doesn't quite make sense. Like you say, it's a niche ship...and someone will find a good way to loose stuff with it. Not that I don't look forward to seeing the blueprints (less than others obviously) but right now, I wouldn't be caught dead flying one (pun intended). I told you what you need before: an ORE ship named revenge. I would like to finish by saying thank you all the same. We like more ships, and you are providing THE game. Great job; please keep it up. --Dusty
Dusty 3allvalve Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial 0	Posted - 2014.12.10 08:19:55 - [2049] - Quote Dusty 3allvalve wrote: Dear, dear CCP, No I have not read the whole thread but so far I can see many people are exited about your new ship (mostly looking blowing them up), and many suggesting changes because I doesn't quite make sense. Like you say, it's a niche ship...and someone will find a good way to loose stuff with it. Not that I don't look forward to seeing the blueprints (less than others obviously) but right now, I wouldn't be caught dead flying one (pun intended). I told you what you need before: an ORE ship named revenge. I would like to finish by saying thank you all the same. We like more ships, and you are providing THE game. Great job; please keep it up. --Dusty In fact I'll recap: ORE ship Revenge. Looks like...well, one of these. Displays the name...this. But really, a formitable gun ship with vigilante in its design. Yah. I like where you're going with this.
Random McNally Isogen 5 86842	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:31:22 - [2050] - Quote Yume Kanekawa wrote: Sluht Hunter wrote: Kept up on the dev blogs, researched what was going to be needed so I could Aquire the Bowhead bpo today and get one right into the oven, to take advantage of release prices on new ships. To my great surprise yet again /sarcasm, Some one decided to change the required materials to build a bow head at the last min. So there I sat with to many of the wrong parts, not enough of the ones never listed. Gee thanks again CCP. Oh and BTW thanks for that Orca like availability of the BPO that never happend. The only players that benift at all from mining barges and ORE ship bpo's seeded there is Goons. Making them even richer, while the rest of us have to pay their crazy mark up or risk our expensive assets to attempt to fly there to get it. This needs to change. Seed some ORE stations in High sec or at least turn Ore space into hi sec or even low sec. Disgruntled but still playing the game. i also followed the forums and played on the test server. i bought 2 BPOs and had them in the oven within 20min of buying them i have 2 bowheads coming out so i can enjoy the overpriced nature of the early builds I was pretty grumbly about this as well. Had a stock pile of the components that were listed on Sisi and was surprised at the change on the actual bpo. Reprocessed my extra components and building the relisted ones. In the meantime, my bpo will get a little TE research. I lost two days on the components but should make up a little on the final construction. Co-Host of the High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/ Check out the space music at http://minddivided.com In Game Channel HighDragChat

Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 124	Posted - 2014.12.10 14:57:14 - [2051] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Locke Deathroe wrote: Hoyy Lawson wrote: You could get it in 4C-B7X and in NM-OEA like Retriever and Covetor BPOs. But pay attention, stations are camped and it's nullsec. Thanks mate, already been there and back again. Just wish I had known that's where it was going to be in the first place. Your apology to the developers for falsely accusing them of cheating is welcome, if a little obliquely phrased. they said it would have the same availability as the orca which it does not.
Annabelle Dadunur Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2014.12.11 06:18:26 - [2052] - Quote Reading the descrip, I was hoping for a mobile ship builder...sigh...my dream of a quasi-migrant fleet ruined again
Zyxi Zhou-Laun Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2014.12.12 22:50:57 - [2053] - Quote Annabelle Dadunur wrote: Reading the descrip, I was hoping for a mobile ship builder...sigh...my dream of a quasi-migrant fleet ruined again obviously, you don't understand. CCP doesn't want players to be adventurous. they want players to play in the manner CCP dictates. hello wall... I didn't see you standing there. Did I hurt cha? Boy, I sure did hit you square. Now one of us is plastered. I'll let you guess just who. Just imagine, bumping into you.
Yume Ookami Cognitive Disonance 6	Posted - 2014.12.13 21:04:56 - [2054] - Quote Annabelle Dadunur wrote: Reading the descrip, I was hoping for a mobile ship builder...sigh...my dream of a quasi-migrant fleet ruined again isn't that what a freighter and a POS are for? freighter carries everything. pulls up to a moon. and deploys the POS. you fuel it. and drop your assembly array. build your ships. and then move on?
Lil' Brudder Too Pistols for Pandas 72	Posted - 2014.12.13 22:13:16 - [2055] - Quote Sluht Hunter wrote: Kept up on the dev blogs, researched what was going to be needed To put it bluntly, apparently you did not. Sluht Hunter wrote: To my great surprise yet again /sarcasm, Some one decided to change the required materials to build a bow head at the last min. So there I sat with to many of the wrong parts, not enough of the ones never listed. So you are one of the guys to whom i gladly sold maint bays to at 3x the cost....because i WAS prepared since i did the research. The BPO was updated on SiSi on December 2nd. Note, the BPO was updated, not the ships info card. As this wasn't my first patch, i knew to look at the BPO's info. I checked SiSi on a daily basis to look for the change from 'copy of obelisk' to its own list. I got my pilots out into an ORE station in ceptors, and later discovered the Deep Core seed possibility. Even though, unlike the Orca, the Bowhead has NO mention of any manufacturer other than O.R.E. so i was skeptical. I logged on, it wasn't in Citadel. I JC'd out to the null seed and brought my goods out. Had no trouble building my ships the instant i got the BPO's out.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2077	Posted - 2014.12.14 02:47:09 - [2056] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: Assuming at least one of the mids will be reserved for a MWD, and fitting a hull tank, the defences do seem a little bit weak; I think with DC2 and double bulkheads we'd be looking at about 150, 180K EHP? That's still significantly less than an armour tanked battleship even though it could potentially be carrying 3 of them inside. I can easily see transporting 3 or 4 billion isk of fitted ships around inside one of these (moving a couple of decent mission ships around could easily reach 3 billion), I think the defences need to reflect that when we live in a world of cheap ganking . Crazy idea... slightly less hull, more mids, more shield HP, and a 1000% bonus to the effects of overheating and heat damage absorbed. 500,000k EHP for 30 - 40 seconds then your modules are burnt out. As long as the Bowhead can fit officer defense mods, it's capable of properly hauling ships with officer defense mods. The EHP should stack against the value in the same fashion as on the ships in its hold. Whether that is a safe ratio or not is up to the person fitting officer mods to a ship. Another way to do it is transfer the ship minus any expensive modules in the Bowhead, then ship the expensive bits separately in an interceptor. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1203	Posted - 2014.12.18 03:37:16 - [2057] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: 5% bonus to max velocity per level What is that for? Kiting. Duh. At first I misread that as: Killing. Duh. Do not run. We are your friends.
Pokket Sez Danneskjold Repossessions. 5	Posted - 2015.01.21 19:54:22 - [2058] - Quote Hey MrRise, how's the Bowhead doing since the introduction back in Rhea. Can we have some numbers, produced, destroyed, etc. I yet to see them "used" by players, except few brave souls ... Oh wait I just saw one today.
Leonis Perthshire Broke and Famous Test Alliance Please Ignore 7	Posted - 2015.01.22 14:49:09 - [2059] - Quote Pokket Sez wrote: Hey MrRise, how's the Bowhead doing since the introduction back in Rhea. Can we have some numbers, produced, destroyed, etc. I yet to see them "used" by players, except few brave souls ... Oh wait I just saw one today. Am interested on this also and fitting would be cool. GÇ£If you win, you live. If you lose, you die. If you donGÇÖt fight, you canGÇÖt win!GÇ¥ GÇô Eren Jaeger White Maul
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2199	Posted - 2015.01.23 02:21:36 - [2060] - Quote https://zkillboard.com/ship/34328/losses/ They are getting used. But some people are still waiting for the prices to lower EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"

Leonis Perthshire Broke and Famous Test Alliance Please Ignore 7	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:30:58 - [2061] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: https://zkillboard.com/ship/34328/losses/ They are getting used. But some people are still waiting for the prices to lower yes the price is still hight but i love the idea of using this ship. GÇ£If you win, you live. If you lose, you die. If you donGÇÖt fight, you canGÇÖt win!GÇ¥ GÇô Eren Jaeger White Maul


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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.