These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[November] Rorqual Changes

First post First post First post
Author
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2016-10-04 20:24:56 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.
Dirk Stetille
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#82 - 2016-10-04 20:36:34 UTC
In my opinion, these changes will be interesting to play with, and I'm especially hyped for the Porpoise for wormhole gas and ice mining operations - also curious to see how we will be able to apply the Porpoise for use in PvP. That said, I think the ability to use cynosural field generators whilst under the influence of a Rorqual's P.A.N.I.C. module will be exceptionally overpowered. In effect, it allows a cynosural beacon to be lit whilst also stopping attacking forces from primarying the cyno ship to prevent hostile forces, potentially including supercarriers and titans, from jumping in.

This allows null-sec players a decided advantage over wormholers, above and beyond the current advantages they enjoy. Not only do wormholers not have the ability to own super-capital class vessels, but in general, we are prevented from excessive n-plus-one gameplay by mass restrictions. Our only counters currently to capital-class warfare when out in K-space are to deploy a mobile cynosural inhibitor (which only functions when deployed BEFORE the cyno is lit, and does not shut off an already active beacon), or to kill the cyno ship before anything jumps through, a difficult enough task already. This does not need an additional challenge added to it by making the cyno ship invulnerable for the majority of a beacon cycle.

I would suggest that if you insist upon allowing ships protected by P.A.N.I.C. to light a cyno, the activation of that beacon should automatically end the protection that P.A.N.I.C. provides - basically, if you light a cyno, it should be possible for you to lose that ship.
Basil Vulpine
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#83 - 2016-10-04 20:49:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Vulpine
Two things,

First a consistency question.
Going from T1 Siege -> T2 siege in a dread is the same amount of base stront usage despite the module having better effects.
Going from T1 Triage -> T2 Triage in a fax is actually a reduction in base stront usage despite the module having better effects.

For the industrial core going from T1 -> T2 is a 50% increase in activation cost? I get that there's some differences in usage pattern since in theory if you are sieging a Rorq you are going to be sieging it for a long time unlike combat capitals but that still seems a pretty hefty increase.

Second (and most definitely not least!):
Absolutely, positively, 100% necessary - having an entosis link active needs prevent benefiting from the PANIC module.
Scythian Revenant
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2016-10-04 20:51:07 UTC
Looks like an impressive set of changes coming up for the industrial side of things this November!

As far as the Rorqual's PANIC ability and Cyno usage goes, I feel that it would be abused in more than a few situation. An example that comes to mind are large fleet fights where a 2-3 bil Rorqual can be seen as expendable as means to provide a full 5-7.5 minutes of cyno invulnerability. This would enable an uncontestable means to jump in a fleet into a system during an engagement and as such would provide an unfair (non-counterable) advantage to groups that have enough disposable income to sacrifice a Rorqual for each engagement. The only way to prevent this type of action within the current mechanics would be to use the cyno jammers to prevent the initiation of the cyno in the first place, which would require relying on the old POS mechanics and deployables.

My recommendation would be to either not allow cyno under the protection of a PANIC field or create a new command burst type module that can be used to close active (non-covert) cyno's (within a set range of course). If you make it a command burst module it will require a dedicated slot on any command ships to utilize so forethought is required on the part of the defenders and you will need to be on grid with it to utilize the effect. This means that there is risk on both sides of the engagement and would add to the list of de-buff's that are being added to the game so no new mechanic will be needed post patch. I would suggest covert cyno's could be immune to this burst since they are immune to other jamming means and only allow a relatively limited response (Black Ops Battleships and recon-esq ships) when compared to capital ships.

Just a few ideas and some feedback on the new PANIC field and how to work around the protected cyno aspects of it.

Regards,
Scythian Revenant
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#85 - 2016-10-04 20:54:08 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about. But you have skill extractors.

To explain for the people who don't understand shield tanking.

Shield regen is not static. It varies based on your current shield level.
Your max shield regen is at about 33%, as your shields drop below 33% the passive regen actually gets less.
Tactical Shield Manipulation moves your bleed through margin by 5% per skill level. Bleed through is where a small percentage of the damage to your shields actually skips shields and applies to armour. While this sounds like a bad thing, it actually helps passive shield tanking by keeping your shield regen at a higher level meaning overall you can take more damage over time.
This means Tactical Shield Manipulation actually hurts your passive shield tanking the better you have it trained. I can't name a single other skill in EVE where training it makes something worse.

Most people have to train this skill to 4 in order to use Tech 2 Invulns, the odd wallet warrior keeps it at 1 and only ever uses faction invulns which cost a lot more obviously, but means they get better passive tank.

By making this a requirement of V, you have to put yourself in the worst possible position for passive shield tanking, and you will not be able to extract it because it is a requirement for something else, and you can't extract requirements.
So no you do not have skill extractors, and it's high time CCP solved this skill being a negative to train.
Fletcher Ryan
Asteroid Bluez
#86 - 2016-10-04 20:55:35 UTC
is the rorqual ship maintenance array still tied to only industrial ships?
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2016-10-04 20:56:35 UTC
Borat Guereen wrote:
Zira Happy Ape wrote:
nobody will have time to form up and jump several gates in such a short time)...


You are right for the large alliances that waste space by not really using it and living in it. For those living in it, 5mn to 7mn is plenty enough to scramble a defense force.


I can see these getting use in pandemic horde for sure. They're defense fleets blot out the damned sun.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Anne Aymore
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
All My Friends Are Ded
#88 - 2016-10-04 20:59:55 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.


10 rorqs multiboxed = 3B+ isk / hour....

Will Michi's and MX-1005 work on these new drones?
Chalithra Lathar
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#89 - 2016-10-04 21:04:39 UTC
Anne Aymore wrote:

10 rorqs multiboxed = 3B+ isk / hour....

Will Michi's and MX-1005 work on these new drones?


Pretty much this

Anyone who multiboxes a mining fleet will be dumb not to drop exhumers entirely even if they're planning using the porpoise

Industrial core wont be necessary with rorquals. You can just mine while aligned and put scouts 3 jumps out.
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2016-10-04 21:04:51 UTC
Anne Aymore wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.


10 rorqs multiboxed = 3B+ isk / hour....

Will Michi's and MX-1005 work on these new drones?


Not for long since the more people that do this the faster the mineral prices will crash.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Noga Taranogas
Doomheim
#91 - 2016-10-04 21:07:34 UTC
industrial core makes rorqual a sitting duck -add 250km cyno inhib side effect so nothing can jump in or out within it.

PANIC is a massive warp disrupt zone with shield boosting for only friendlies or everything caught in the aoe?

Can mining ships still attack when panic is active?

Should the PANIC double as a cyno beacon (would immediately disable industrial core cyno inhib) allowing fleet members to jump/bridge to it? but the active cyno
Sanctus Maleficus
Lambent Enterprises
Virtue of Selfishness
#92 - 2016-10-04 21:16:27 UTC
Fletcher Ryan wrote:
is the rorqual ship maintenance array still tied to only industrial ships?


That is what I would like to know as well.

While in panic, can miners eject from their barges and get into a combat ship in the Rorq's SMA? lol
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2016-10-04 21:19:02 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.


Yes, but Rorqs are kinda expensive. Estimate a 3b pricetag for a fully fitted one including the new drones. Putting 20 of those on the field at once is pretty hefty, even for a seasoned multiboxer. There's a return on investment calculation to be made here. Sieging 20 Rorqs with the risk that an enemy fleets gets wind of it and hotdrops the entire fleet is a serious consideration (and something that is very likely to happen at least a few times in the first couple of weeks :D)

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#94 - 2016-10-04 21:20:10 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.



How many multiboxers do you think have 20 or 50 accounts skilled to sit in a Rorqual?

How many have the drone skills ready?

How many have all the other skills involved ready?

Someone has posted that it will take 18 days to sit in the new Porpoise...That's all you'll do as well, you won't have skills to do anything else with it.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2016-10-04 21:26:12 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.



How many multiboxers do you think have 20 or 50 accounts skilled to sit in a Rorqual?

How many have the drone skills ready?

How many have all the other skills involved ready?

Someone has posted that it will take 18 days to sit in the new Porpoise...That's all you'll do as well, you won't have skills to do anything else with it.


There are people with way too much money and time in this game. WIth injectors you can sit in a Rorqual on day 1, so that's not the issue. There are very much people out there who will inject 20 Rorq accounts. It's not a matter of if.

Multiboxing on a scale like this (10 accounts or more) has always been a ****** thing in EVE. People like that strip entire high-sec systems on a daily basis, and null is no stranger to it either. With the power the Rorq is getting now in combination with super secure backwater null systems this has the potential to seriously screw up the market.

The question is, of course, is this intentional? With the Alpha's incoming it would certainly lower the barrier of entry for everyone if all items in space become 10 to 20% cheaper across the board. But as it stands I'm worried about what this is going to do to the economy.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Chalithra Lathar
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#96 - 2016-10-04 21:26:52 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals

10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.



How many multiboxers do you think have 20 or 50 accounts skilled to sit in a Rorqual?

How many have the drone skills ready?

How many have all the other skills involved ready?

Someone has posted that it will take 18 days to sit in the new Porpoise...That's all you'll do as well, you won't have skills to do anything else with it.


Plenty I know have been training/building in anticipation. Never underestimate the ingenuity of the industrialist.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#97 - 2016-10-04 21:29:17 UTC
20 rorqs with 2000 dps each... anything that drops is it is going to hurt hard
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#98 - 2016-10-04 21:39:18 UTC
Maybe I missed it, but can Rorqs carry mining frigs in their SMBs? Is this change included in November? If not, it should be.

It'd also be nice if Rorqs could carry noobships and shuttles in their SMBs too (for the obvious reasons), but that'd just be a nice bonus.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2016-10-04 21:41:48 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
20 rorqs with 2000 dps each... anything that drops is it is going to hurt hard


With these kinds of targets you enter into the realm of capital and even super drops. Super carriers and Titans supported by FAX Machines really aren't going to hurt against 40k DPS.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

DCLi Ext
Very Italian People
Initiative Mercenaries
#100 - 2016-10-04 21:45:44 UTC
I think the problem that still has to be addressed is the OP of interceptor. Speed tank to drones and interdiction nullification.

To get the same bonuses you now need to commit the Rorqual to a fixed position for 5 minutes intervals over hours at a time. Other ships you can align out, but this negated by the keeping mining ships in range and having to siege.

This basically painting a big target on it. Risk versus reward.

You cannot defend a warp in from an interceptor.

There has been suggestions about countering (i.e. anti interdiciton nullified field, propulsion jam field disable all prop mods within 100 km etc).

Some of these would create interesting combat uses for rorquals.

I believe the best interim solution is to make consistent with carrier stream.

Porpoise = Myrm
Orca = Carrier
Rorqual = Super Carrier (has lots of special modules as well)

Give the rorqual the +5 warp strength that a super carrier has.

A single interceptor cannot tackle a super carrier unless faction fit. Will need multiple interceptors to hold it there. Instead of single speed tank interceptor immune to drones (faster) while the DPS fleet sits at range.

The industrial core modules need some AOE effect to be locked for 5minutes, given that it could be running for hours. Burns out or offline propulsion mods on interdiction nullified ships (this means interceptor have to choose between running props and out speed drones or be attacked by drones).

There is potential for game meta using this instead of I win interceptor for big kills. This can change the risk reward potential to make using in the belts.

The other thing that was not clear can industrial core run within a pos shield for compression?

Hope this provokes thought.