These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

The mighty Rorqual

Author
Vajahla
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-05-28 05:51:37 UTC
Ewersmen wrote:
Vajahla I don't understand what you mean ??? make mining harder? ...why is it people want to change mining ...the rocks are there in a belt like space should be ...and they will always be there and the ships change around them.


If mining isn't just sitting in a asteroid belt, waiting for rats/neuts or the "asteroid depleted sound"... there is no progress in mining.

Galphii wrote:
Miners need safety to do their thing, and after the expansion only highsec and nullsec are going to be that secure.


This is so true miners need safety... but why do we define safty with a security status of a system ? Mining isn't changing with your progress as miner.

In high sec you mine until a corp declare war on your corp... after that you sit on a starbase. After what it mentioned above, in 0.0 you sit in a belt until a neut is coming, after that you sit on a station.

i read a post about the spawn of rats in 0.0 and people saying it's all good... but what about chaning asteroid belts this way that mining and ratting whould be better done in a team ?

for example:

miners get ISK out of the asteroids -> combat pilotes get ISK out of ratting

with a stronger spawn in asteroid belts miners need combat pilotes to be safe in a belt and give a part of ther ISK to the combat pilot

maybe there could be a option to decline the bounty payout and that way the combat pilot bounty get bigger, also the miner could give a bit of his income to the combat pilot.

i allready posted somethin about this idea here.
Ewersmen
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-05-28 06:42:40 UTC
Lol so your going to have a constant stream of rats in the belt to keep the ratters happy lol . Vajahla that's a stupid idea....The reason I started this thread was the rorqual shield ....you can pick it to bits all you want but its a good idea .....you are never going to make mining into a theme park ride ....so get over it ...cant believe how many **** heads complain about mining and high sec .......if don't like it don't mine ....if you don't like high sec don't go there.

MINING WILL ALWAYS BE MINING .....Vajahla you are king of the F-u-c-k-I-n-g obvious
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#23 - 2013-05-28 07:43:25 UTC
I have to say I do like this idea and it actualy might bring more combat to mining systems if people would use the rorqual as a "safe heaven" when shield would be up.

But to balance things the shield would have to be like pos shield and it would need to comsume stront to be online or something and pvp players would need to have a way to reinforce it or shoot it down.

i can also wee alot of military applications for suchs a device and it would bring alot new fun stuff into combat.

So I realy don't see any down sides on this subject.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

LtauSTinpoWErs
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-05-28 18:23:42 UTC
Make this new module a hybrid between an industrial core module and a siege/triage module. When active, the Rorqual is unable to move, and diverts all of its energy into a small shield bubble (connected with its own ships shields). Any ships within the shield bubble are unable to lock new targets, but the activation of the shield bubble will not break those ships' lock. I also believe while this is active, the Rorqual should be unable to lock anything. The T2 version could have greater radius of the shield.

Industrial Core Shield Deployment I
Max Velocity Bonus = -100 %
Shield Radius = 7.5km
Activation time / duration = 300 s
Tech Level = 1
Consumption Type = Strontium Clathrates
Consumption Quantity = 250
Disallow Activation In Warp = 1
Max Group Fitted = 1
powergrid usage = 100,000 MW
CPU usage = 100 tf
Max Locked Targets = 0
Shield Boost Bonus = 100%
Shield Boost Duration Bonus = -50%


Compare to Siege Module I and Industrial Core I

Siege Module I
Max Velocity = -100%
Activation Time = 600 seconds
Damage Multiplier Bonus = 625 %
Tech Level = 1
Scan Resolution Bonus = -75 %
Consumption Type = Strontium Clathrates
Consumption Quantity = 500
Tracking Speed Bonus = -50 %
Explosion Velocity Bonus = -60 %
Armor Repair Bonus = 100 %
Armor Repair Duration Bonus = -50 %
Disallow Activation In Warp = 1
Max Group Fitted = 1
powergrid usage = 100,000 MW
CPU usage = 100 tf
Max Locked Targets = 2
Shield Boost Bonus = 100 %
Shield Boost Duration Bonus = -50 %

Industrial Core I
Max Velocity Bonus = -100 %
Activation time / duration = 300 s
Tech Level = 1
Consumption Type = Heavy Water
Consumption Quantity = 1,000
Disallow Activation In Warp = 1
Max Group Fitted = 1
powergrid usage = 100,000 MW
CPU usage = 100 tf
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#25 - 2013-05-28 18:47:43 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I would love a way to be clever and make more ISK than another miner, and if that means i gotta play smarter, I am all for it. Give me a chance to compete.

Miner is not another name for bear, let us prove it!


How are you moving around in null and not drawing attention? If your in your own sov space that's great but otherwise your wide open for a number of dangers and will be spotted by the first person who travels through the system.

Reality check.

Of course I stick to my own space. Null is not for solo players to mine in space not their own, there is another place for that type of play. You either build on the efforts of your team by using the space they provided, or they actively guard you during your activity.

My point, is that as a part of a group effort, my alliance / corp has little chance of catching an enemy miner or ratter with current game mechanics.
Since they cannot be threatened realistically, my ability to compete with them is limited to either having more accounts, or a lot more time.
Neither is a valid expectation for many due to obvious real life limits, but for those willing and able it amounts to an "I WIN" button over those with less opportunity.

I want a way to play smarter, to make a better quality of effort that results in better rewards over the periods available to me to play in.
There is no competition unless someone needs to risk losing in order to win.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2013-05-28 19:35:46 UTC
The op has an interesting idea.. but my problem with it is not because it makes mining too powerful but instead I question the introduction of unintended use of a Rorq. We already saw what came of the Orcas unique features in the hands of gankers or even just rank and file pvpers.. now I'm not saying that using your tools in creative ways is a bad thing... but look what CCP ended up doing to the Orca as a result. If CCP want more Rorqs in belts they may want to look at ways to make it more attractive to do that. The op is wrong for wanting to achieve that end. As it stands, the Rorq is just not a good risk for operating in a belt. Taking the off grid boosting ability away from the Rorq to force it closer to the miners will not work; all this will do is make the Rorq into a useless and very expensive paper weight.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-05-28 19:40:38 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
My point, is that as a part of a group effort, my alliance / corp has little chance of catching an enemy miner or ratter with current game mechanics.
Since they cannot be threatened realistically, my ability to compete with them is limited to either having more accounts, or a lot more time.

The way it should be.

multi-boxing is not the "Iwin" button you might think it is.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#28 - 2013-05-28 20:08:00 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
My point, is that as a part of a group effort, my alliance / corp has little chance of catching an enemy miner or ratter with current game mechanics.
Since they cannot be threatened realistically, my ability to compete with them is limited to either having more accounts, or a lot more time.

The way it should be.

multi-boxing is not the "Iwin" button you might think it is.

It is if it results in more ice or ore being mined by a single player.
Ewersmen
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-05-28 21:05:18 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
The op has an interesting idea.. but my problem with it is not because it makes mining too powerful but instead I question the introduction of unintended use of a Rorq. We already saw what came of the Orcas unique features in the hands of gankers or even just rank and file pvpers.. now I'm not saying that using your tools in creative ways is a bad thing... but look what CCP ended up doing to the Orca as a result. If CCP want more Rorqs in belts they may want to look at ways to make it more attractive to do that. The op is wrong for wanting to achieve that end. As it stands, the Rorq is just not a good risk for operating in a belt. Taking the off grid boosting ability away from the Rorq to force it closer to the miners will not work; all this will do is make the Rorq into a useless and very expensive paper weight.



Unintended use of the Rorq .....the rorq would be in the belt where its meant to be .....that's not unintended....

For alot of people the ultimate pvp goal is the titan ....for the miners its the rorqual ....but wait.....I cant take it in highsec
....I cant have it in the belt to crush my ore .....its a massive sitting duck ...with no defence.

mining ships are weak ....orca's are weak ...rorquals need love ...ccp

I would not take the boost away from the rorqual that's its main attraction
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#30 - 2013-05-29 05:20:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
My point, is that as a part of a group effort, my alliance / corp has little chance of catching an enemy miner or ratter with current game mechanics.
Since they cannot be threatened realistically, my ability to compete with them is limited to either having more accounts, or a lot more time.

The way it should be.

multi-boxing is not the "Iwin" button you might think it is.

It is if it results in more ice or ore being mined by a single player.


I don't see what the problem is if there is one player multiboxing in null. More active characters are online in null what also means more targets to be shot at.

Usualy everyone screams that we need more people in null... your saying he should go to empire.

And in my opinion the op wants to have a shield in the belts. I don't see what the problem is if it would work like a pos shield. you cant do anything under neath the shilds and hostiles has a real good chance to blow the rorq up cause it's stuck at the belt cause of the module.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-05-29 06:16:44 UTC
I kind of like the idea of a temp pos rorq. How about this, The shield will turn on while it's running it's industrial core. So you're running the shield on Heavy water. You can add stront to your fuel bay to run a reinforce for 15-30min (i guess this would prevent you from jumping to another system at the spur of the moment and make you more committed to your current job.) This would give plenty of time to get a defense force ready to save your rorq. Would also give people a place to fight... Including miners who are able to reship and defend their territory instead of just being targets trying to warp away. And you don't have to way for 3 days!

Maybe with this a rorqual can no longer deploy in a PoS?
I say let mining commence from in the shield why not, ships can go through it and they're basically a collection of asteroids anyways. I do say no shooting through shield though.

If you're willing to field a 2.5b+ modules ship, why not get a bit of safety out of it. It takes up all the risk of the other ships. It is immobile. Greater chance to lose a rorq this way. Also greater chance to defend one too.

The thing about eve is that you can't put people on guard 24/7 like you would real life military stuff. Everything in eve is a choice and for fun. You can at any time decided to stop doing something and go do something else. What eve has right now is people who attack and people who either prevent attack or run. What we really need is defending. Right now our castle gates are open and anyone can come in and attack us directly. What we need is to get some closed gates that we can defend when someone comes knocking.

And if you do field a rorq somewhere to bubbleshield, even if it's just a random place somewhere, you have to remember the loss associated with it. Maybe they are saving someone or something but remember, the rorq can't move. You can't ninja jump it out when the shield goes down because it's going to be in an interdiction bubble. Even if you use it for combat, it would still be working as intended.

Anyone have any cons to this idea?
HalfArse
Wixo Trading Co.
#32 - 2013-05-29 12:06:11 UTC  |  Edited by: HalfArse
i think the shield is a good idea. Rorqs just dont get used but this would seriously encourage ppl to move into low sec esp with the odessy ore buffs.


correct me if im wrong but it takes about 10 min to deploy a rorq right? the shield should be a mod that can only be activated when the ship is fully deployed. Activation should take about 1 min. Should have a range of about 6km and cost fuel whilst it is on.

max amount of fuel being able to carry should last about an hour. There should not be any kind of re-enforced and when activated it should take equivalent firepower of about 30 odd battleships to bring it down significantly faster than an hour.

should not be able to add strongt to the strongt bay whilst the shield is active
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#33 - 2013-05-29 15:46:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
HalfArse wrote:
i think the shield is a good idea. Rorqs just dont get used but this would seriously encourage ppl to move into low sec esp with the odessy ore buffs.


correct me if im wrong but it takes about 10 min to deploy a rorq right? the shield should be a mod that can only be activated when the ship is fully deployed. Activation should take about 1 min. Should have a range of about 6km and cost fuel whilst it is on.

max amount of fuel being able to carry should last about an hour. There should not be any kind of re-enforced and when activated it should take equivalent firepower of about 30 odd battleships to bring it down significantly faster than an hour.

should not be able to add strongt to the strongt bay whilst the shield is active


Problem is great ideals (not just your post but many of the posts above) - but realistically thats not going to attract people who own 3.5bn+ Rorquals to deploy them in belts like that, without a fairly reasonable amount of shield and long enough reinforced type mode (which would prevent them jumping out, etc.) to make it possible for them to round up backup they simply won't get used in the way people are proposing.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#34 - 2013-05-29 16:33:59 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
It is if it results in more ice or ore being mined by a single player.


I don't see what the problem is if there is one player multiboxing in null. More active characters are online in null what also means more targets to be shot at.

Usualy everyone screams that we need more people in null... your saying he should go to empire.

And in my opinion the op wants to have a shield in the belts. I don't see what the problem is if it would work like a pos shield. you cant do anything under neath the shilds and hostiles has a real good chance to blow the rorq up cause it's stuck at the belt cause of the module.

More would-be targets, you mean. Hard to consider them at risk when absolute avoidance of risk is so easy.
See, your comment is entirely misleading. You suggest a false possibility as the basis of your point.

The REASON competing is reduced to multiboxing, (as described), is because there is no chance of the PvE pilot being shot. Unless they screw up, of course. I don't want competition limited to just others screwing up, kinda weak.
Now, by multiboxing I am equating 2 hours with 2 accounts to be roughly the same as 4 hours with one account. Technically this is not true, as having more on the field can easily be made to equal more than their independent yield potential. A bonus intended to attract multiple players enjoyed by multiboxers.

Back to my point, with current game mechanics it is possible to avoid all risk and get safe at a POS or outpost before a hostile craft can land on grid. Risk and risk management cease to be the grounds of competition as a result.
I simply cannot outperform a 100% success rate.

I would consider the shielded Rorqual so long as this idea actually resulted in more shooting, not just seeing neuts showing up and leaving in local chat.
Ewersmen
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-05-29 21:53:49 UTC
So Nikk Narrel You don't like the idea because you want to catch more miners unaware and pop them ??? WTF .....Mining is sposed to be safe for ********* who the **** builds your ships .....dam
Laura Dexx
Now Look What You've Made Me Do
#36 - 2013-05-29 23:06:44 UTC
Safe and lowsec / 0.0 don't fit together. Use haulers to transport the ore to a POS so it can then be compressed. If you want to use a Rorqual locally, then you're going to have to invest in some sort of permanent gate camp / scout so nobody can **** you over.

Just because a game mechanic doesn't fit your easy modo lazy view of the game, doesn't mean it should be changed to accommodate it.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#37 - 2013-05-30 02:04:31 UTC
Ewersmen wrote:
So Nikk Narrel You don't like the idea because you want to catch more miners unaware and pop them ??? WTF .....Mining is sposed to be safe for ********* who the **** builds your ships .....dam

You misunderstand.

I am a miner.

I do like your idea, but on the foundation that it can inspire mining away from the safety of outposts and POS, and players will have a reason and an excuse to actually take risks.

I want to compete with other miners, and need to be smarter and more clever so I can survive and prosper where they fail and explode.

See, my ore and ice is worth a lot more if less is out there, and fewer competing miners means less is out there.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#38 - 2013-05-30 02:14:46 UTC
Ewersmen wrote:
So Nikk Narrel You don't like the idea because you want to catch more miners unaware and pop them ??? WTF .....Mining is sposed to be safe for ********* who the **** builds your ships .....dam


I think you misunderstand how PvP players think :-)

Your OP idea is interesting, and I suggested something similar before now, where the shield is only maintained by feeding ore in to the whole thing to keep it up, and damage takes it down etc.

But I could also see a dedicated mini shield ship being interesting in the game, but as in all things, it has to have counters. But honestly, if you want 'safe' then, live in high sec, although, it isn't really safe either.

There are some decent systems to mine in lowsec, that are dead or quiet, that nobody really takes advantage of, that a half organised unit could take advantage of given the changes incoming in Odyssey.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Ewersmen
Perkone
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-05-30 10:55:23 UTC
Laura Dexx you are queen of the obvious ...I have owned a rorqual like many ....use haulers wow genius ....


And its not being lazy ...this fourm area is for ideas ...my idea is at the beginning ....simple idea to make more use of a awesome ship.
Ewersmen
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-05-30 20:55:42 UTC
Big smile
Previous page123Next page