These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

First post First post First post
Author
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#361 - 2017-02-24 16:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Iowa Banshee
I don't think you needed to touch the way PANIC works

If you want the Rorqual to just use PANIC to support mining fleets then take away the ability for it to run warp scrams
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#362 - 2017-02-24 16:51:44 UTC
Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
  1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
  2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
  3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
  • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
  • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
  • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.

As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#363 - 2017-02-24 16:51:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Now for some Q&A from the thread so far:

Porthos Jacobs wrote:
So if I bring Ewar to get a rorqual it cannot panic now. bonus
The industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance (as well as very strong damp resistance). There's currently a bug that prevents the ECM resistance attribute from being displayed in the show info window, but we'll be fixing that bug at the same time.

Retar Aveymone wrote:
be honest, did you make the PANIC module a mining laser in some hilarious internal work-around for this issue
Heh. No, the code just iterates over the list of locked targets and looks for something in the asteroid category. It doesn't even require the asteroid to be the selected target, just locked.

Wibla wrote:
Didn't see that nerf coming - oh wait, who am I kidding.

If you want to make the mineral market healthier, have a look at the ore composition in nullsec ore anoms vs mineral usage. Mexallon is a bottleneck, while some other minerals are basically waste material at this point.

The PANIC mod change is at least a first stab at a solution.
There is definitely an imbalance between overall mineral use and the composition of the prospecting array anoms (much smaller than it once was, but there is room for more work there), although that is a separate issue to the overall mineral supply issues caused by Rorquals being too strong.

Tau Cabalander wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

... and what about ice fields?
For these purposes, ice counts as an asteroid (technically it's anything within the "asteroid" inventory category). I'll edit the OP to clarify, good question.

Luna TheMoonrider wrote:
I don't have the numbers and all the big data, but it's seems a bit hard, second nerf in a row, without trying to effectively reduce the price of these very expensive drones.
If the price drop accordingly, why not, but I feel sad for my mining friends.
The current prices are a symptom of extremely high demand. Once the market cools down a bit we'll definitely re-evaluate and make changes to the components as needed. The price of Excavators is set by the player market and will only stay at whatever level people consider worth paying. If player's evaluation of how much they're worth changes, the price will change.

Taunter wrote:
Little bit of a kick in the balls Fozzie. Lets be honest.

You shouldn't of had to nerf it, if you did the rebalance right in the first place.

I'm not salty, I'm still going to use mine. I just think you wasted time.
I'll readily admit that we went too high with the numbers in the initial release. However these kinds of things can always happen, and the only true solution is to be willing to make changes as necessary and observe the results. I would absolutely love to have an exact formula for predicting player behavior, but barring that all we can do is make our best guesses (taking player feedback into account) and then tweak and tweak again.

Or'es'ka wrote:
welp, CCP, you did it. You ruined the rorq for actual miners. Cant justify the 8 bill in drones plus another 2.7 bil for the ship, not to mention another 2-3 bil for the fit..... This is almost a 50% reduction. You need to seriously adjust the required mats to build excavators because they arent worth the insane price anymore.
I can understand why you might feel that way right now, but people said the same thing when we announced the last Rorq nerf (and I'm sure they'll say the same thing when we announce the next Rorq nerf someday). If this change ends up going too far then we can always tweak up a bit, but these changes are actually relatively conservative considering the behavior changes that we're seeing and that we saw after the last set of changes.

Jura McBain wrote:

2 hulks 600M
1 Rorq 12B.

Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs?
There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.

Jura McBain wrote:
CCP in August 2016: " Rorqs need love so people will use them again"

CCP in Feb 2017: " Rorqs must be nerf"

CCP are you mad? Please Sthaapppp Sthaapppppp
We're confident that Post-March Rorquals will still be vastly more powerful than they were pre-Ascension.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Exia Lennelluc
Unholy Knights of Cthulhu
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#364 - 2017-02-24 16:52:36 UTC
Theres a player in alliance who runs 37 procurer with a boosting rorqual, he mines the 5 rorquals in ore a hr.
Nerfing the mineral faucet of the rorqual wont do a thing, players will either still mine in rorquals or have massive mining barge fleets aka a mineral faucet.
Morgan La Faye
Vision Inc
Hole Control
#365 - 2017-02-24 16:59:59 UTC
I can see your point in the nerf of the mining volume of the excavator drones to keep the market healthy.....but i miss the point were you try to balance the market on the drones itself? where is the tweak of a ridicoulus amount of money you can make out only in the dronelands while the price for the excavator drones is going through the roof?
Where is the tweak on the risk you put on the mining drones while stretching out the belts even more. you can lose a set of drones worth ~10b ISK to a 60m t2 destroyer with a jump field generator.
Start lowering the prices of the drones drastically and i dont feel bad if you are hitting the Rorqual with the nerf bat again....but without doing so you are screwing over everybody who believed your words about a powerful mining platform on its own. you are destroying the risk/reward ratio to much in my eyes.
Lukka
#366 - 2017-02-24 17:00:55 UTC
Bit of a draconian nerf, isn't it Fozzie? Nerfing so many aspects simultaneously results in greater unpredictability regarding the results.

Might it be better to take a series of smaller steps and perhaps to address some underlying issues promoting their excessivs employment?

One of the big issues is that Rorquals favour the largest alliances who can defend them at the drop of a hat (cyno). This is problematic because it allows massive economy of scale to those alliances. As usual, power projection is a major underlying cause. While I am a fan of the Rorqual being able to defend itself, I would suggest review of the PANIC button as follows:

Panic module protects mining fleet, but no longer protects the Rorqual. Rorqual and protected mining ships may not light cyno while PANIC active.

Mining mechanics are too mundane to prevent players from up-scaling operations. We have all heard about the guy in Goonswarm running 30 Rorquals. Maybe it's time to look at the fundamental mechanics of mining to encourage active gameplay rather than 'assign mining drone to rock x'.
Exia Lennelluc
Unholy Knights of Cthulhu
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#367 - 2017-02-24 17:11:11 UTC
CCP Fozzie im still trying to understand why the drones are being nerfed, they are making null sec finally for the most part not relent on High sec except for moon goo.
I wont be surprised if the next nerf hits the drones down to the t2 stats
Ezra Endashi
Deep Space Exoplanet Exploration
#368 - 2017-02-24 17:19:34 UTC
I totally support resizing of Ore rocks in space. Pls make them larger. That would change the feeling when you are in asteroid belt. It will look like you are in a real mining field Cool
Pizza Thief
Rise Of Technology Industrial
#369 - 2017-02-24 17:19:46 UTC
Come on CCP, I literally spent close to $200 us dollars in plex for one set of ore drones less than a week ago. Now your gonna take my money and **** in my pot? Good to see you care about thone of us willing to deal with your terrible balancing of drone sites in space while creating a high demand for one of the rarest drops in drone sites. Forcing us to plex into or spend ungodly amounts of isk to actually aquire something that you consistently nerf but have no plans of making easier to get. "They are now 25% less effective, same price, same availability, AND your 12b is now less secure with the PANIC changes." You can pull the knife out of my back now CCP and Fozzie.
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
Central Omni Galactic Group
#370 - 2017-02-24 17:20:27 UTC
Youv'e said a few times now that you're not worried so much about the Excavator costs - because the cost is due to demand. But given the whole nerf to yield is in part due to the affect on the economy - surely you can see that it's because the only way to get the parts for an Excavator drone is from L4 missions or Drone Regions (or the rare drone site outside drone regions).

It's a problem with the resources needed to make, not demand itself. There needs to be significant increases in the drop rates of the parts required to make an Excavator. Similar to how you guys rescued the Nestor from being a 1.5bn isk battleship hull.

Surely you guys have teh market data to see that.

RE:

Quote:
There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.


At the moment the Rorqual only gets brought out if I have a few logistics pilots available, no interceptor gangs roaming (read uncatchable hit and run tactics with almost no counter) within 5 jumps and a good few friends out mining to benefit from the boosts. Because honestly - 9bn isk worth of hull, locked in space, compared to just using a porpoise or jetcan mining from a hulk seems like the answer is pretty obvious.
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#371 - 2017-02-24 17:24:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Luna TheMoonrider wrote:
I don't have the numbers and all the big data, but it's seems a bit hard, second nerf in a row, without trying to effectively reduce the price of these very expensive drones.
If the price drop accordingly, why not, but I feel sad for my mining friends.
The current prices are a symptom of extremely high demand. Once the market cools down a bit we'll definitely re-evaluate and make changes to the components as needed. The price of Excavators is set by the player market and will only stay at whatever level people consider worth paying. If player's evaluation of how much they're worth changes, the price will change.




I'm not sure this will work out in the end. I need to go back and look over all the different blueprints, but last I looked, the new mining excavators used the same (or at least the same rare ones) parts as the Augmented drones. Augmented drone prices were already high and for the most part did not drop.

The price of these two groups are now tied together, so both will remain high as a result since they both pull from the same limited supply stock as inputs.

Yes, you could consider both items "luxury items" but the current high price is due to limited input stock just as much as high demand here. Look at the price history for Augmented drones and you will see this.
Flashmala
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Brothers of Tangra
#372 - 2017-02-24 17:35:15 UTC
javer wrote:


solution is disable offensive mods if panic in use



This.

Age does not diminish the extreme disappointment of having a scoop of ice cream fall from the cone.

Tribal Trogdor
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
#373 - 2017-02-24 17:37:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
  1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
  2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
  3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
  • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
  • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
  • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.



So, you had to stick arbitrary rules on an interceptor to make it fit in with how entosis works. Now you have to do arbitrary restrictions on the Rorqual because of entosis...Clear issue with the sov system aside, whats wrong with disallowing fitting both a panic and an entosis? That would solve issue 3

Issue 2 isn't really an issue. Yes you can use it as a heavy cyno, but you say that it needs that to fill its role. You can't say its okay to make it be an invulnerable heavy cyno, but only if you're in an asteroid belt. That still lets people sit in belts, and be bait to cyno in more dudes. I can fit small autos to my tornado and kill frigs that think they got me. Its not meant for that, but sandbox. At the end of the cycle, if the attackers have more, the Rorq still dies.

As for issue 1, you seem to only want to keep the tackle as a means to "present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period" but thats not the goal of the PANIC, correct? The goal is to keep your fleet and yourself alive. Because you're in a situation where you yourself cannot handle what's come to kill you. Its a defensive, oh **** module. Not a "haha, got you with my invulnerable tackle so my friends can come kill you" module. Same thing as issue 2. You cant be unhappy with it being invulnerable tackle, but only outside of belts. So its better to just give it NSA restrictions.

Seems like two simple changes: No Entosis + Panic mod, and no ewar in panic. Issues 1 and 3 solved, issue 2 still out there in a sense, but again, its not major, and is necessary
mkint
#374 - 2017-02-24 17:40:18 UTC
When you're doing these mining output balance changes, are you actually doing a breakdown of the mineral faucet? Are rorqs producing too much ore, or are the command bonuses in general? Do you have a target rate for "mineral inflation" like you would have for isk inflation?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Kahrnar
Brooklynn Eve and Co.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#375 - 2017-02-24 18:00:32 UTC
Bottom line CCP shouldn't be "fixing" the market. The whole eve game should dictate the pricing in game...
Benaf Christacer
Brooklynn Eve and Co.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#376 - 2017-02-24 18:02:38 UTC
And, here comes CCP not sobriety testing their Dev's again. You know there's an app for that now?

CCP Fozzie, for the amount of training time & investment it takes to get into a well skilled Rorqual, the yield is perfectly fine. If the drones are getting nerfed, you should cut the build requirements in half for them and decrease Rorqual trains too, or leave things alone. Im sorry an industrialis bullied you as a child but please dont take it out on my rorq pilots. Im also terribly sorry that people overused combat rorq's but there are better ways of dealing with that than taking away their only viable defense should they, say, get caught in a bubble. Why not make them immune to bubbles, then? You're a fan of awful ideas so that one should catch right on...X
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#377 - 2017-02-24 18:04:11 UTC
Benaf Christacer wrote:
And, here comes CCP not sobriety testing their Dev's again. You know there's an app for that now?

CCP Fozzie, for the amount of training time & investment it takes to get into a well skilled Rorqual, the yield is perfectly fine. If the drones are getting nerfed, you should cut the build requirements in half for them and decrease Rorqual trains too, or leave things alone. Im sorry an industrialis bullied you as a child but please dont take it out on my rorq pilots. Im also terribly sorry that people overused combat rorq's but there are better ways of dealing with that than taking away their only viable defense should they, say, get caught in a bubble. Why not make them immune to bubbles, then? You're a fan of awful ideas so that one should catch right on...X



Or make them unable to use an entosis link?

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.

Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#378 - 2017-02-24 18:04:46 UTC
I think PANIC should just deactivate any active module on Rorqual other than PANIC and prohibit their activation. And that would be sufficient.
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#379 - 2017-02-24 18:05:27 UTC
I can see some of the concerns here - let me see if I can address your three main triggers for the need in change in rorqual Panic usage.

Quote:
#362
- 2017-02-24 16:51:44 UTC |
Like
2
Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:


  1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
  2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
  3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.


Point 1 - alternatively, just take the ability to mount warp scramble/tackle modules from a Rorqual. Or, add a penalty to the Panic module that imposes a passive 100,000% capacitor use increase for all warp disruption modules. This functionality penalty/bonus is already coded in the game in several different ways (NSA, reduction for tackle frigates etc), so reduces follow-on effects and reduces server load.

Point 2 - I can see where the issue about this is, but not sure how much of a change is necessary at this point, I don't see any good options at this time.

Point 3 - Add Rorquals to the disallowed ships just as interceptors are OR just make it that active Entosis disallows PANIC

I'm a jerk.  Get used to it.

Cade Windstalker
#380 - 2017-02-24 19:05:28 UTC
Flashmala wrote:
javer wrote:


solution is disable offensive mods if panic in use



This.


Someone didn't read Fozzie's post...

Exia Lennelluc wrote:
Theres a player in alliance who runs 37 procurer with a boosting rorqual, he mines the 5 rorquals in ore a hr.
Nerfing the mineral faucet of the rorqual wont do a thing, players will either still mine in rorquals or have massive mining barge fleets aka a mineral faucet.


That's absolutely doing something. There's still a massive difference between someone out mining with 38 accounts one of which is in a Rorqual, and someone out mining with 38 accounts all in Rorquals (or 7, to reference a recent killboard event...).

You'll note that they actually buffed Rorqual boosts with this change so your friend is clearly in the minority of players right now and is playing in a way CCP would rather encourage over massed Rorqual-hoovers.

Tribal Trogdor wrote:
So, you had to stick arbitrary rules on an interceptor to make it fit in with how entosis works. Now you have to do arbitrary restrictions on the Rorqual because of entosis...Clear issue with the sov system aside, whats wrong with disallowing fitting both a panic and an entosis? That would solve issue 3

Issue 2 isn't really an issue. Yes you can use it as a heavy cyno, but you say that it needs that to fill its role. You can't say its okay to make it be an invulnerable heavy cyno, but only if you're in an asteroid belt. That still lets people sit in belts, and be bait to cyno in more dudes. I can fit small autos to my tornado and kill frigs that think they got me. Its not meant for that, but sandbox. At the end of the cycle, if the attackers have more, the Rorq still dies.

As for issue 1, you seem to only want to keep the tackle as a means to "present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period" but thats not the goal of the PANIC, correct? The goal is to keep your fleet and yourself alive. Because you're in a situation where you yourself cannot handle what's come to kill you. Its a defensive, oh **** module. Not a "haha, got you with my invulnerable tackle so my friends can come kill you" module. Same thing as issue 2. You cant be unhappy with it being invulnerable tackle, but only outside of belts. So its better to just give it NSA restrictions.

Seems like two simple changes: No Entosis + Panic mod, and no ewar in panic. Issues 1 and 3 solved, issue 2 still out there in a sense, but again, its not major, and is necessary


First off, #2 very much is an issue I can assure you, it just may not be an issue for you...

Your solution doesn't actually work for #2 since you can still fit an Entosis on a Mining Barge and then PANIC, protecting both you and the barge, when you come under attack.

If I can't present an actual threat to someone on grid then they have a lot more freedom and a lot more options to threaten me and my mining fleet. The point is to protect the miners, not only bubble up and wait for rescue. Killing, jamming, webbing, ect a small group of aggressors absolutely counts as protecting a mining fleet.

Plus nothing here guarantees that players won't find something else to abuse (like we're already starting to see in small amounts with Rorqual Logi) at which point CCP then need to find another thing to restrict to keep PANIC from being abusable outside of mining applications, or they could just go with what they've done here.