These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

++ Stop The Rorqual ++

Author
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2017-02-10 17:08:31 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

Inflation is inevitable (which is particularly bad for players that source their income from other PvE).

Do you know what inflation means? It means, goods have rising prices in money without the goods being changed/improved. Where do you see rising prices in your scenario? The only thing what's happening is, that minerals get cheaper, building stuff gets cheaper, industrialists make more profit and ISK becomes more valuable. The opposite of inflation, it's called deflation.

But in fact it's more balanced because while low end minerals became cheaper some materials also got significantly more expensive, balancing the final material sheet of higher end products.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Bjorn Tyrson
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2017-02-10 17:09:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
for the same price as putting out 2 rorqs you could put out a rorq and 10 hulks. and i'd be willing to bet the isk/hr would be much higher for it.


That would also involve PLEXing and multitasking 11 accounts, as opposed to 2.

Im sure you will agree it is cheaper and more pragmatic to fly/PLEX 2 Rorqs, rather than 1 Rorq + 10 hulks.


if you are multi-boxing sure. but you are also putting 6b in assets out in space to do it. if you have the money then fine, but not everyone does. for a solo pilot yeah it might be the best method currently, you are also putting much more isk on the line though.
and if you have a fleet of pilots you can get comparable or even better yields, while putting less isk at risk.

the question was "whats the point of barges" and so I was putting that forward as an example of one of many roles in which barges could be better. different tools for different jobs.
Salvos Rhoska
#43 - 2017-02-10 17:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Snip


If you put 2 Rorqs in space at 6bil with 2 PLEX, it is less than putting 1 Rorq + 10 Hulks at 11 PLEX.

Not including training time:
The former costs approx 8bil to setup, and 2bil to maintain.
The latter costs approx 18bil setup, and 11 bil to maintain.

2 Rorq accounts are also easier to manage, than 11 accounts.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#44 - 2017-02-10 17:27:32 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
giving a yield of 386mil/hr. That seems kinda reasonable to me.


You find 386mil/hr for shooting at rocks, reasonable?

Really?

As I said above, the real problem here is when this enormous mineral generation in the most lucrative sectors of space saturates its own local market demands and begins to flood into HS markets.

386mil/hr is an insane rate, specific to a certain sector and certain hull.
Invariably, this WILL collapse the mineral market, and by extension, all other markets that involve minerals.

Inflation is inevitable.

Rorq yield, compounded by the lucrative space in which they operate, is going to flood the market.
There is nowhere near enough material destruction in NS, or anywhere else, to offset this rate of mineral generation from Rorqs in NS.

I'm not saying it does or does not need balancing, but to have a 3bil ship with 8bil in drones to make 386m/hr seems not too far out of the ball park compared to other activities like super ratting, carrier ratting, incursions, or burner missions. It also doesn't account for the rarity of finding different ores or transporting the ore.

It will for sure put downward pressure on the mineral markets, however that is a somewhat self correcting cycle as ore values normalize and mining income goes down which may cause miners to mine less.

Inflation is an increase in prices, this is deflation, and most of eve has been in some sort of deflation for as long as I've been playing. The biggest thing to shake up prices that I can think of was ship tiericide as suddenly most ships cost more to build. And then there have been some moon mining changes over time. Check out the price indices, http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Jan_2017/9d_economy.indices.png The CPI last hit 100 right around 2007 when I started playing and is currently somewhere in the 50s. The devblog has a 3 year graph too, which shows a ~10% drop over the last 3 years.

Things like bounty prizes and incursion payouts are isk faucets and can lead to inflation, however it seems we produce far too much to have any chance at creating inflation.

Lastly we have had years to min/max pretty much everything, asset/hr income is probably the highest it has ever been. As many players have better incomes and there has been a ton of RL economic shenanigans things like PLEX prices have gone up. Also as the playerbase matures I think we have more in assets so the desire to buy plex for rl cash goes down. Buying a plex is a great boost for a newer player to give them a ton of isk for cheap pvp ships, but for me buying plex to pay for caps/supers just seems silly. The Main things that seem to have increasing prices are the unique items, like t2 bpos, AT ships, which are both for the main part collector's items.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Bjorn Tyrson
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#45 - 2017-02-10 18:59:53 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Snip


Snip


Again. Wasn't talking about for solo pilot multi boxing in null sec. Yes in that particular circumstance rorqual is king. But for fleet ops, j-space etc... pretty much anything outside of solo mining in null, barges can be the better choice. Again I was addressing the question of "what is the point of the mining barge" by presenting examples where a barge is the better choice. Not saying in any way that a barge is ALWAYS the better choice.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#46 - 2017-02-10 19:19:39 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Its exactly like carrier ratting vs. battleship ratting. Rorqs are fine.(for mining, jump hics are pretty bullshit)



yeah the ~750 mill/hr is totally balancedRoll


750m/hr?

Show your working.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2017-02-10 19:24:48 UTC
Gregorius Goldstein wrote:
If you have a big enough Alliance living in a small enough area and fast responding fleets you can risk high amounts of ISK and still be relatively safe. Like the Goons mining with a lot of Roquals that are together worth over a hundred Billions. Spread you Alliance over to much space and you will lose stuff, be to slow when your ships get tackled and you will lose stuff, don’t bring the numbers and you will lose stuff. Simple as that. Roquals are just a nice tool to make a good use of territory superiority. If you didn’t secure your space like that you are better of mining in anything less expensive.


And in fact quite a lot of rorquals have died in delve. I know that facts are generally considered pretty optional in this type of discussion, but zkill is right there: anyone can query it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Gregorius Goldstein
Queens of the Drone Age
#48 - 2017-02-11 00:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregorius Goldstein
Malcanis wrote:

And in fact quite a lot of rorquals have died in delve. I know that facts are generally considered pretty optional in this type of discussion, but zkill is right there: anyone can query it.


Sure there is still some risk involved, even in Delve. That was the "relatively" part. My point was more that semi-save Roqual use does not come without effort. You can/should only use them under certain circumstances and of course you are never totally save.
Linkette
Doomheim
#49 - 2017-02-11 10:19:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Linkette
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Before changes:

Wah Wah, CCP there will never be any reason to use a Rorqual out of a POS.

After changes:

Wah wah, CCP there is no reason to use anything but a Rorqual.


CCP -->. Roll


That tends to be the result when rather than balancing things with careful precision, you just completely change things to be many times more powerful.

CCP should remove the PANIC feature, or if they don't want to remove it they could alter how it works so that it's not so overpowered. Now that people are used to mining in Rorqs they will likely continue to do so. Should help to balance it a little.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#50 - 2017-02-11 13:58:16 UTC
Linkette wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Before changes:

Wah Wah, CCP there will never be any reason to use a Rorqual out of a POS.

After changes:

Wah wah, CCP there is no reason to use anything but a Rorqual.


CCP -->. Roll


That tends to be the result when rather than balancing things with careful precision, you just completely change things to be many times more powerful.

CCP should remove the PANIC feature, or if they don't want to remove it they could alter how it works so that it's not so overpowered. Now that people are used to mining in Rorqs they will likely continue to do so. Should help to balance it a little.


The balance is that Rorquals can be killed now instead of sitting behind a POS shield boosting. The killboards regularly show Rorqual kills. You're just complaining because now you need more than two people to kill one. What do you expect - it's a capital ship. Bring support.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#51 - 2017-02-11 16:27:15 UTC
Before: This sucks that we can never shoot these Rorquals. BUFF!
After: This sucks that Rorquals are now too hard to kill and make too much ISK. Nerf them!
Future: Damnit, they completely nerfed the Rorqual. Now they're too easy to kill and don't make enough ISK to justify the cost. This sucks. Buff the Rorqual again!!

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Salvos Rhoska
#52 - 2017-02-11 16:30:42 UTC
Imo, the Rorqs defense stats are fine.

But the yield stats are too high.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#53 - 2017-02-11 16:36:47 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Imo, the Rorqs defense stats are fine.
But the yield stats are too high.

Not that you're right - but who cares? There are far more important ships to be rebalancing at this point. They can revisit the Rorqual in 3-6 months...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Salvos Rhoska
#54 - 2017-02-11 18:24:56 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
There are far more important ships to be rebalancing at this point. They can revisit the Rorqual in 3-6 months...


Resource harvesting ships underlie the entire economy of EVE.
This is different than a combat ship being "OP".
Rorqs are specific to space that already is lucrative, and in many instances, very safe.

3-6 months from now may be too late.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#55 - 2017-02-11 20:34:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Resource harvesting ships underlie the entire economy of EVE.

You're going to have do demonstrate where your proof of this is.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#56 - 2017-02-12 04:23:21 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a guaranteed systemic spiral into inflation.
Wouldn't an oversupply lead to deflation? Prices going down for minerals, and all the things that minerals are used to build? And income going down for new miners to the point they give up on the game before they get hooked?


Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#57 - 2017-02-12 05:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This is a guaranteed systemic spiral into inflation.
Wouldn't an oversupply lead to deflation? Prices going down for minerals, and all the things that minerals are used to build? And income going down for new miners to the point they give up on the game before they get hooked?



Yes.

Tritanium: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/34
Pyerite: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/35
Isogen: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/37
Nocxium: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/38
Zydrine: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/39

Megacyte: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/40
Mexallon: https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/market/link/10000002/36

Aside from the last two, all the others are deflationary, even more so since the rorqual/orca rebalance.
Atomic Virulent
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#58 - 2017-02-12 05:58:41 UTC
More Rorquals = more materials = cheaper ships = more likely to be willing to lose ships = finally the game doesnt suck...
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#59 - 2017-02-12 06:01:21 UTC
Atomic Virulent wrote:
= more likely to be willing to lose ships

The game doesn't suck (YMMV), but I'm yet to see the cost of ships be the deciding factor in whether people undock for pvp.
Salvos Rhoska
#60 - 2017-02-12 06:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Resource harvesting ships underlie the entire economy of EVE.

You're going to have do demonstrate where your proof of this is.


Ok. So gun-mining also contributes materials. And isk faucets/sinks regulate available isk.

The odd-one out is unbuildable modules.

My point was that the stats of resource harvesting ships are significant to the economy, more so than other ship types.