These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Rorqual losing its validity
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#21 - 2016-05-02 13:44:02 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
How to (probably) use a Rorqual after it got reworked:

...


Step 3, pull in 2-3b ISK per hour, easily replacing 5-10 Rorqs per hour in case you get ******.


Wouldn't that crash the heck out of the mineral markets though? I don't think that would be sustainable outside of Nullsec becoming an ever-loving warzone to keep the demand of minerals up.

I could see that being handy for raising mining indexes, though.



There's always demand for minerals, and all the new structures will keep it up.
Sheeth Athonille
Rabid Dogz Mining
#22 - 2016-05-03 02:32:30 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
How to (probably) use a Rorqual after it got reworked:

...


Step 3, pull in 2-3b ISK per hour, easily replacing 5-10 Rorqs per hour in case you get ******.


Wouldn't that crash the heck out of the mineral markets though? I don't think that would be sustainable outside of Nullsec becoming an ever-loving warzone to keep the demand of minerals up.

I could see that being handy for raising mining indexes, though.



There's always demand for minerals, and all the new structures will keep it up.



Sure, there's always a demand, but pulling that much in per hour is going to fill quite a bit of that demand.

Isn't this exactly what happened to null ores before they were buffed? They had "the best" minerals, but they were so over farmed that their value dropped.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#23 - 2016-05-04 05:05:54 UTC
What alliances have we been in we bait- er defend ours all the time

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#24 - 2016-05-05 11:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Blade Darth
Brescal wrote:
Alliances do not come to the aid of players who are mining. Playing since 2008 has proved that player behavior is always the same in this regard especially in 0.0.
Even if someone comes to help it ends in a doctrine fleet vs Kitchen Sink- some pve fits, failfits, no fc, no comms, bad intel etc.
So the tackled ratter/ miner dies together with most of the backup. And all get podded (there is a sabre ofc). So the smart thing to do is minimize losses (leave the barge or afk ratter to die) or light a cyno and drop 10 carriers (with 50 supercap blob as backup) for alliances that can do that.

If the invul timer is 15 min I can see alliances being able to muster a defense fleet able to fight 10-15 man wormhole cancer roam, if its shorter than that, not really. Keep in mind that the enemy had longer to prepare and the fleet was probably scheduled, not random.
Other possibility (keeping a pvp fleet in range of pve'ers) is not really an option, even if they get paid, who's gonna babysit a rorq for 10 hours..

Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
Hades Dark
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2016-05-05 17:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Hades Dark
So the way I see it is the rorqual is aimed for being in a belt and with its fleet of miners being that mining supervisor. Do i agree with the aim? No, but if that's the direction then we should be giving feedback as to what it needs to survive and still do it's job. Like fighters maybe 1 or 2 squads to defend its fleet of miners, then once they cover defenses we can really make that argument that the rorqual will be worth the risk or not. Look at carriers, carriers are much better when it comes to ratting and dealing with small ganks with the new update, and if the rorqual is to be put in the same spotlight of vulnerability then it needs some of the defenses that come with it.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#26 - 2016-05-05 19:58:43 UTC
Hades Dark wrote:
So the way I see it is the rorqual is aimed for being in a belt and with its fleet of miners being that mining supervisor. Do i agree with the aim? No, but if that's the direction then we should be giving feedback as to what it needs to survive and still do it's job. Like fighters maybe 1 or 2 squads to defend its fleet of miners, then once they cover defenses we can really make that argument that the rorqual will be worth the risk or not. Look at carriers, carriers are much better when it comes to ratting and dealing with small ganks with the new update, and if the rorqual is to be put in the same spotlight of vulnerability then it needs some of the defenses that come with it.


The obvious solution is 250 mbit of drones and Gecko Blueprints available from faction drops.
And 11 Rorquals in every belt/anom.
Kaska Iskalar
Doomheim
#27 - 2016-05-06 16:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaska Iskalar
Brescal wrote:
Alliances do not come to the aid of players who are mining. Playing since 2008 has proved that player behavior is always the same in this regard especially in 0.0.

Your alliance is nothing like mine when I lived in null then. If you asked for help in our intel channel you'd have several dozen extremely bored people show up instantly.
atomic killer
The DARK TROJANS
#28 - 2016-05-06 18:57:36 UTC  |  Edited by: atomic killer
Blade Darth wrote:
Brescal wrote:
Alliances do not come to the aid of players who are mining. Playing since 2008 has proved that player behavior is always the same in this regard especially in 0.0.
Even if someone comes to help it ends in a doctrine fleet vs Kitchen Sink- some pve fits, failfits, no fc, no comms, bad intel etc.
So the tackled ratter/ miner dies together with most of the backup. And all get podded (there is a sabre ofc). So the smart thing to do is minimize losses (leave the barge or afk ratter to die) or light a cyno and drop 10 carriers (with 50 supercap blob as backup) for alliances that can do that.

If the invul timer is 15 min I can see alliances being able to muster a defense fleet able to fight 10-15 man wormhole cancer roam, if its shorter than that, not really. Keep in mind that the enemy had longer to prepare and the fleet was probably scheduled, not random.
Other possibility (keeping a pvp fleet in range of pve'ers) is not really an option, even if they get paid, who's gonna babysit a rorq for 10 hours..


When Goons were Goons, not what left of them now, they could jump 2-3 motherships + titan (maximum I've seen several titans + motherships and carriers) + several carriers just to save a ratting ship against a fleet of 50+ bombers.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#29 - 2016-05-07 14:19:55 UTC
atomic killer wrote:
Blade Darth wrote:
Brescal wrote:
Alliances do not come to the aid of players who are mining. Playing since 2008 has proved that player behavior is always the same in this regard especially in 0.0.
Even if someone comes to help it ends in a doctrine fleet vs Kitchen Sink- some pve fits, failfits, no fc, no comms, bad intel etc.
So the tackled ratter/ miner dies together with most of the backup. And all get podded (there is a sabre ofc). So the smart thing to do is minimize losses (leave the barge or afk ratter to die) or light a cyno and drop 10 carriers (with 50 supercap blob as backup) for alliances that can do that.

If the invul timer is 15 min I can see alliances being able to muster a defense fleet able to fight 10-15 man wormhole cancer roam, if its shorter than that, not really. Keep in mind that the enemy had longer to prepare and the fleet was probably scheduled, not random.
Other possibility (keeping a pvp fleet in range of pve'ers) is not really an option, even if they get paid, who's gonna babysit a rorq for 10 hours..


When Goons were Goons, not what left of them now, they could jump 2-3 motherships + titan (maximum I've seen several titans + motherships and carriers) + several carriers just to save a ratting ship against a fleet of 50+ bombers.



Can confirm, Goons are dead, and this will never ever happen again. You witnessed the last of their kind and how they died.
Also, Goons is totally only a rotting carcass.

Please come back up to Deklein once PL have left to kick the mortal remains of this former so called "alliance".
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2016-05-09 03:27:24 UTC
They could save the Rorq by turning it into mining Carrier like. Otherwise its gone. Since they have replaced all it's features by stations services. Orca is really more than enough for boosting mining fleets.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Brescal
ADFU Financial Co.
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2016-06-05 11:04:54 UTC
I love some of the ideas being proposed to make rorquals very durable and high damage ships. unfortunately ccp has nerfed the rorqual in the past over a small drone damage bonus because they felt it was too powerful. 100% dmg to 5 measly drones was apparently too much for a 3 billion isk ship :)

They risk making it overpowered if they increase its performance in any way. The only balanced solution is removing it's need to enter "siege" mode completely and leave it as is. I think all can agree this makes the most sense.


CCP however has some misguided belief that making the rorqual vulnerable will create fights.

It wont.

It will make the ship unusable even with their invulnerability module. which makes it useless for indy's.
no one care about mining drones, the rorqual isn't made for yield. It's made as a force multiplier.


Dear CCP devs I hope you are reading this and you see logic in the failed idea of immobilizing a relatively helpless indy ship in the belt. You're screwing indy's over on top of the fact that we pay to play your game while staring at asteroids for 2 -10 hours a day and we get crapped on and disrespected by pvpers.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#32 - 2016-06-06 23:09:35 UTC
Brescal wrote:
I love some of the ideas being proposed to make rorquals very durable and high damage ships. unfortunately ccp has nerfed the rorqual in the past over a small drone damage bonus because they felt it was too powerful. 100% dmg to 5 measly drones was apparently too much for a 3 billion isk ship :)

They risk making it overpowered if they increase its performance in any way. The only balanced solution is removing it's need to enter "siege" mode completely and leave it as is. I think all can agree this makes the most sense.


CCP however has some misguided belief that making the rorqual vulnerable will create fights.

It wont.

It will make the ship unusable even with their invulnerability module. which makes it useless for indy's.
no one care about mining drones, the rorqual isn't made for yield. It's made as a force multiplier.


Dear CCP devs I hope you are reading this and you see logic in the failed idea of immobilizing a relatively helpless indy ship in the belt. You're screwing indy's over on top of the fact that we pay to play your game while staring at asteroids for 2 -10 hours a day and we get crapped on and disrespected by pvpers.



tl;dr: Don't make the rorq a mining ship, cause as it is now, it is no mining ship. It will also never be a mining ship, cause it currently is no mining ship. Also, as it is, it is useless in a belt, so don't put it in a belt when you rework it, because it is useless in a belt.
Pah Triac
Triac Family Logistic Holdings
#33 - 2016-06-14 11:40:40 UTC

Quote:
tl;dr: Don't make the rorq a mining ship, cause as it is now, it is no mining ship. It will also never be a mining ship, cause it currently is no mining ship. Also, as it is, it is useless in a belt, so don't put it in a belt when you rework it, because it is useless in a belt.



not completely i tended to use the rorq in the field tho not in deploy mode
just remote shield repper, Cache for the hauler wile the hulks dump it in the fleet hangar & the decent drone bonus makes minchmeat out of the biggest (subcap) NPC.
so with decent scouting its decently save
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#34 - 2016-06-14 17:23:52 UTC
The whole point of this thread is a crybaby that is speaking out how the Rorqual will be ****, because CCP anounced it will become a different role that involves being on grid, and said crybaby now thinks the Rorq itself will absolutely not be reworked to actually function in that new role but stay as it is.

Then there's some people trying to actually debunk this thinking, and all that follows is more crying.


God why am i even still posting here.
Brown Pathfinder
Black Spot on Parchment
#35 - 2016-06-15 13:39:45 UTC
Maybe some of the new industrial citadel structure that are on the horizon this year can be on grid closer to belts , ore anoms?
You could also fit capital prop mod and stuff on it to make it more agile to fly, warp around? Blink
Skinnie Jeans
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#36 - 2016-06-15 14:09:47 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
The whole point of this thread is a crybaby that is speaking out how the Rorqual will be ****, because CCP anounced it will become a different role that involves being on grid, and said crybaby now thinks the Rorq itself will absolutely not be reworked to actually function in that new role but stay as it is.

Then there's some people trying to actually debunk this thinking, and all that follows is more crying.


God why am i even still posting here.


Cause you're a goon and can't do anything else?
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#37 - 2016-06-15 22:00:13 UTC
Skinnie Jeans wrote:
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
The whole point of this thread is a crybaby that is speaking out how the Rorqual will be ****, because CCP anounced it will become a different role that involves being on grid, and said crybaby now thinks the Rorq itself will absolutely not be reworked to actually function in that new role but stay as it is.

Then there's some people trying to actually debunk this thinking, and all that follows is more crying.


God why am i even still posting here.


Cause you're a goon and can't do anything else?



Touché, unused forum alt. Glad it was me, who made you deflorate yourself on the forums.
Previous page12