These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Care bear capitals too protected?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#21 - 2015-06-08 16:58:20 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
Mandar Amelana wrote:
So I'm just throwing an idea out there to see where people stand on it.

No doubt many of us have read the article about the Rorqual sabotage.

I'm basing what I'm about to propose off the following quote from the article:

Quote:
Rorquals are industrial capital ships, incredibly rare with minimal uses for combat—meaning they are rarely ever vulnerable.


After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about, or perhaps it is just me. It just seems to me that if losing a ship really only happens from gross negligence or extremely elaborate plots like the one highlighted above, it might be good to talk about alternatives (educate me if I'm completely misunderstanding how often Rorqs actually get downed).

So I'm tossing out the following idea, and I encourage you to amend it and flesh it out in whatever direction would make the game better:

Whenever a POS is put into reinforced mode, it jettisons all currently free floating ships that are within the bubble. Ships cannot enter the bubble while it is in reinforced mode.


Wormholers would never have a chance after a tower was reffed. bad idea.

As to the Rorqual. It's primary purpose is to support mining operations with bonuses and mobile compression. only a few are brave/crazy enough to have them in the open, and given their cost and lack of defensive power that is justifiable.

Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

Second question, we seem to always hear about cries of making combat links only work 'on grid' with a pvp fleet. I am sure you also support the selfsame change to mining links, and that mining command ships should also be 'on grid' with mining fleets to work?

F

Would you like to know more?
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#22 - 2015-06-08 17:18:06 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Mandar Amelana wrote:
So I'm just throwing an idea out there to see where people stand on it.

No doubt many of us have read the article about the Rorqual sabotage.

I'm basing what I'm about to propose off the following quote from the article:

Quote:
Rorquals are industrial capital ships, incredibly rare with minimal uses for combat—meaning they are rarely ever vulnerable.


After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about, or perhaps it is just me. It just seems to me that if losing a ship really only happens from gross negligence or extremely elaborate plots like the one highlighted above, it might be good to talk about alternatives (educate me if I'm completely misunderstanding how often Rorqs actually get downed).

So I'm tossing out the following idea, and I encourage you to amend it and flesh it out in whatever direction would make the game better:

Whenever a POS is put into reinforced mode, it jettisons all currently free floating ships that are within the bubble. Ships cannot enter the bubble while it is in reinforced mode.


Wormholers would never have a chance after a tower was reffed. bad idea.

As to the Rorqual. It's primary purpose is to support mining operations with bonuses and mobile compression. only a few are brave/crazy enough to have them in the open, and given their cost and lack of defensive power that is justifiable.

Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

Second question, we seem to always hear about cries of making combat links only work 'on grid' with a pvp fleet. I am sure you also support the selfsame change to mining links, and that mining command ships should also be 'on grid' with mining fleets to work?

F


I'll toss in my .02 isk. I do. I always felt the rorq should of been a capital mining ship, with a capital strip miner, and now as a way to mine current moon ore (from hence forth i'll call it T2 ore) from roid feilds (i think T2 ore should be active mined) and links should work on grid. Remove the compression function and give it like a refining, reacting, or some other type of industry function. The rorq should become a 'mining operations command and support ship' and should be deployed on the field.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#23 - 2015-06-08 17:19:13 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.

Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.
flakeys
Doomheim
#24 - 2015-06-08 17:44:13 UTC
William Weatherwax wrote:
Mandar Amelana wrote:

After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about


Considering that Eve is a Sandbox game, can you claim that your assumption on what the game is about is the correct one?

It seems to me as if Rorquals are getting downed quite regularly (https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/) and the article just tried to make the achievement (he had to maintain his cover for many months which I think should count as an achievement itself) look bigger.




Just counted the losses of may on zkilboard , 27 in total.To be honest was more then i expected.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#25 - 2015-06-08 17:54:47 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
... Second question, we seem to always hear about cries of making combat links only work 'on grid' with a pvp fleet. I am sure you also support the selfsame change to mining links, and that mining command ships should also be 'on grid' with mining fleets to work?

F
I do; with my design plan.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#26 - 2015-06-08 18:20:37 UTC
Mandar Amelana wrote:
So I'm just throwing an idea out there to see where people stand on it.

No doubt many of us have read the article about the Rorqual sabotage.

I'm basing what I'm about to propose off the following quote from the article:

Quote:
Rorquals are industrial capital ships, incredibly rare with minimal uses for combat—meaning they are rarely ever vulnerable.


After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about, or perhaps it is just me. It just seems to me that if losing a ship really only happens from gross negligence or extremely elaborate plots like the one highlighted above, it might be good to talk about alternatives (educate me if I'm completely misunderstanding how often Rorqs actually get downed).

So I'm tossing out the following idea, and I encourage you to amend it and flesh it out in whatever direction would make the game better:

Whenever a POS is put into reinforced mode, it jettisons all currently free floating ships that are within the bubble. Ships cannot enter the bubble while it is in reinforced mode.


you have no idea how a POS works do you? lolz

stupid stupid stupid stupid.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#27 - 2015-06-08 18:35:47 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
... Second question, we seem to always hear about cries of making combat links only work 'on grid' with a pvp fleet. I am sure you also support the selfsame change to mining links, and that mining command ships should also be 'on grid' with mining fleets to work?

F
I do; with my design plan.


link?

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
Gorinia Sanford
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2015-06-08 18:55:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorinia Sanford
Urziel99 wrote:
Mandar Amelana wrote:
So I'm just throwing an idea out there to see where people stand on it.

No doubt many of us have read the article about the Rorqual sabotage.

I'm basing what I'm about to propose off the following quote from the article:

[quote]Rorquals are industrial capital ships, incredibly rare with minimal uses for combat—meaning they are rarely ever vulnerable.


After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about, or perhaps it is just me. It just seems to me that if losing a ship really only happens from gross negligence or extremely elaborate plots like the one highlighted above, it might be good to talk about alternatives (educate me if I'm completely misunderstanding how often Rorqs actually get downed).

So I'm tossing out the following idea, and I encourage you to amend it and flesh it out in whatever direction would make the game better:

Whenever a POS is put into reinforced mode, it jettisons all currently free floating ships that are within the bubble. Ships cannot enter the bubble while it is in reinforced mode.

Wormholers would never have a chance after a tower was reffed. bad idea.

As to the Rorqual. It's primary purpose is to support mining operations with bonuses and mobile compression. only a few are brave/crazy enough to have them in the open, and given their cost and lack of defensive power that is justifiable.[


True, few risk a Rorqual out in the open, but someone that I know from a previous alliance told me some corp (I think they're a part of Brave Newbies or some such) took 10 Rorquals and did a gate camp with them using sentry drones. Funniest damn thing I heard in a long time.
Black Panpher
CastleKickers
Rote Kapelle
#29 - 2015-06-08 18:57:30 UTC
What would be the point in playing a game where "doing everything right perfectly" would still get you killed?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#30 - 2015-06-08 19:40:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Gorinia Sanford wrote:
True, few risk a Rorqual out in the open, but someone that I know from a previous alliance told me some corp (I think they're a part of Brave Newbies or some such) took 10 Rorquals and did a gate camp with them using sentry drones. Funniest damn thing I heard in a long time.

If it is something crazy mining related, my first thought would be Bovril.

Example: Battle Procs Are Real "Kernite is primary!"

However, I think I heard the Rorqual one was one of the others. Brave Provisions maybe? Don't remember for certain.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#31 - 2015-06-08 19:51:47 UTC
Quote:
Shanq Myteia masterminded the whole operation, nine months of sleuthing and spying coming to an electric conclusion as, within minutes, the coveted ship was reduced to smouldering wreckage.


9 months.
For a kill.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#32 - 2015-06-08 19:58:51 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.

Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.

Bottom line for me is that if something is going to exert a beneficial force on either the battlefield or a belt, it should be exposed to risk. Today a warfare link ship cannot exert links outside a forcefield, so then neither should mining links, PERIOD.

If you are going to argue a ship should be able to exert mining links from behind a POS forcefield, then I demand so too should warfare links 'because fairness'.

Again, either mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or you also have to make warfare links work from within one -- you can't give candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because'.

F

Would you like to know more?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#33 - 2015-06-08 20:05:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.

Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.

Bottom line for me is that if something is going to exert a beneficial force on either the battlefield or a belt, it should be exposed to risk. Today a warfare link ship cannot exert links outside a forcefield, so then neither should mining links, PERIOD.

If you are going to argue a ship should be able to exert mining links from behind a POS forcefield, then I demand so too should warfare links 'because fairness'.

Again, either mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or you also have to make warfare links work from within one -- you can't give candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because'.

F

You seem to be missing the point: the Rorqual is broken, so CCP made a temporary kludge for mining links until the Rorqual can be fixed.

CCP hates making exceptions, as it leads to bugs and hard to maintain code, so you can fully expect mining links to be moved outside the force field as soon as practical.

Heck, CCP is also working on on-grid-boosting, but needs to optimize it because it currently would set the hamsters on fire.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#34 - 2015-06-08 20:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.

Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.

Bottom line for me is that if something is going to exert a beneficial force on either the battlefield or a belt, it should be exposed to risk. Today a warfare link ship cannot exert links outside a forcefield, so then neither should mining links, PERIOD.

If you are going to argue a ship should be able to exert mining links from behind a POS forcefield, then I demand so too should warfare links 'because fairness'.

Again, either mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or you also have to make warfare links work from within one -- you can't give candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because'.

F

You seem to be missing the point: the Rorqual is broken, so CCP made a temporary kludge for mining links until the Rorqual can be fixed.

You're missing the point, rationalizations for an imbalanced 'temporary' (yeah right) hack are meaningless to me, when at the same time warfare links could have been also made to also 'temporarily' work from outside a POS force field. They weren't, so now we have a risk/reward imbalance based on dev exscuses of 'coding is hard?'...

One more time...

Either a) mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or b) warfare links immediately 'temporarily' made to work from within them to restore overall game balance and not give risk-free candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because coding hard'.

p.s.
Don't even think about forcing warfare-links on-grid, without selfsame making mining-links on-grid to work CCP.

p.p.s.
Why is it that 'magically' all these code imbalances seem to keep landing on the benefit-the-carebears side of the equation? Its a mystery to be sure..all rationalizations aside....

WE ARE WATCHING.

F

Would you like to know more?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#35 - 2015-06-08 23:44:17 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
... it should be exposed to risk. ... F
Besides spending nine months figuring out that you can start a mining fleet, there are other times that Rorquals are at risk.
You might want to figure them out so that you can kill them and say, "Back in my day before the new structures patch ... blah blah... I am awesome ... blah blah ... kill Rorqual ... blah blah ... (link kill mail)" P

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#36 - 2015-06-09 06:28:41 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Mandar Amelana wrote:
So I'm just throwing an idea out there to see where people stand on it.

No doubt many of us have read the article about the Rorqual sabotage.

I'm basing what I'm about to propose off the following quote from the article:

Quote:
Rorquals are industrial capital ships, incredibly rare with minimal uses for combat—meaning they are rarely ever vulnerable.


After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about, or perhaps it is just me. It just seems to me that if losing a ship really only happens from gross negligence or extremely elaborate plots like the one highlighted above, it might be good to talk about alternatives (educate me if I'm completely misunderstanding how often Rorqs actually get downed).

So I'm tossing out the following idea, and I encourage you to amend it and flesh it out in whatever direction would make the game better:

Whenever a POS is put into reinforced mode, it jettisons all currently free floating ships that are within the bubble. Ships cannot enter the bubble while it is in reinforced mode.


Wormholers would never have a chance after a tower was reffed. bad idea.

As to the Rorqual. It's primary purpose is to support mining operations with bonuses and mobile compression. only a few are brave/crazy enough to have them in the open, and given their cost and lack of defensive power that is justifiable.

Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?

(silence..sound of crickets...)

Second question, we seem to always hear about cries of making combat links only work 'on grid' with a pvp fleet. I am sure you also support the selfsame change to mining links, and that mining command ships should also be 'on grid' with mining fleets to work?

F


To answer the troll,

Mining links work in a tower because they don't boost combat statistics the way Armor, Siege, Skirmish and Information Links do. When was the last time you ever heard of someone jumping a mining fleet and getting mined to death?

(crickets...............) Right. Moving on.

Mining links can be on grid only when we get viable command ships (IE putting mining foreman bonuses on existing T2 Command Ships) and a faction mindlink from ORE with Siege and Mining Foreman bonuses. That will make the command links consistent with the current iterations that have been given to all other command bonus types in all other respects as well.

Till then. The rorqual can stay in the POS. And you can continue to weep about having to have your neutral booster at risk of getting probed down.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#37 - 2015-06-09 11:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Same goes for Jump Freighter with cynos being deployable at 0 km from stations -> From station invulnerability to Station invulnerability with 250bn in cargo.

You can't even move 3bn in a freighter safely in Hisec without a webber.

All the JFs you see on killboards are either amateurs dieing to station bumps due to amateur cyno placements, or getting ganked in Hisec. Most of the time they are flying empty.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Azarath NazGhoul
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-06-09 12:35:16 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Don't worry about Rorquals, as CCP Fozzie is on the case.

"... basically next" as of May 1st, 2014.

Any minute now.

As for the ones that were destroyed mining, or with only capital tractor beams fitted:

CCP Fozzie wrote:
... you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.



Well it could be worse, its just been a year for the Rorq so far, now they need at least another year for combat caps.
As stated they know the need to "look" TM at them....
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-06-09 14:54:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Urziel99 wrote:

Mining links work in a tower because they don't boost combat statistics the way Armor, Siege, Skirmish and Information Links do. When was the last time you ever heard of someone jumping a mining fleet and getting mined to death?

I will go slow here, because you seem a little confused...

Warfare links boost combat factors for PVP players (i.e. people shooting people).
Mining links boost mining factors for PVE players (i.e. people shooting rocks).

Still with me?

Warfare links today can not project outside a POS forcefield.
Mining links today can project outside a POS forcefield.

Still with me? Am I going slow enough for you?

I have no issue with warfare link ships being exposed to risk (contrary to your troll), what I am saying is both PVP and PVE links should operate the same way re: risk vs reward. PERIOD.

IF mining links are going to be a risk-free boost to PVE players, then selfsame combat links should be a risk-free boost to PVP players. IF however you (rightly) say that PVP links should be exposed to some risk to give their benefit, then I am simply saying SO TOO SHOULD MINING LINKS.

tldr;
Still waiting for you to explain why PVE players should get risk-free links compared to PVP players who today do not, without quoting 'coding is hard' crap from CCP.

Stiiiiiill waiting.

F

Would you like to know more?
Ragnar Rancidbreeks
SYNDIC Unlimited
#40 - 2015-06-09 16:33:51 UTC
2 questions, If I may (which i can't see have been answered above)

1) Why are *carebears* being allowed access to capital ships ? They have no need of the, since they just pootle about the universe, existing to get shot at ?

2) Why is any corporation fielding a Rorqual without giving it adequate protection ? The incident which seems to have started this thread, appears to have occurred because the ship was being flown AFK. Surely that is a situation where one ought not only to lose the ship, but also pay whoever destroyed it for their ammunition. It also raises the question of why an "attacker" can't simply board an AFK ship and fly it away ?