These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rorqual - I missed the fanfest stream.

First post First post
Author
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#141 - 2014-07-14 16:41:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lilith Shea
Christopher Mabata wrote:

Rorqual is a capital, capitals are expensive and shouldn't cost less. If you got a rorqual to AFK boost you knew it wasnt going to be making ISK, instead the ore everyone else mines does it for the rorqual pilot. But i agree when you say that it needs to do something, someone suggested a capital mining mod and a buff to its scan res to make it decent to mine alongside its barge counterparts. And i would say if it did it well enough it would be worth putting it in the belts again.



In short, my post was about 2 things. Cost AND ability to mine.

My Hulk can make its cost + fits 10 times over before it gets boomed. My Orca, can boost and haul in High Sec, which gives it a value and I can sell my refining services to those whom I haul for. My Rorqual..... can take up a lot of space in a POS. By giving it the ability to mine (between a Capital Mining Mod and a fleet of mining drones) it now has the possibility to generate enough revenue to buy a new one should it get destroyed. I denounced giving it god-like abilities with POS shields and align/warp times to compare to a frigate. I think Rorquals should die just as any other ship in eve can... but if the pilot can't afford a new one, whats the point. A Hulk is about 300m, an Orca about 650m... a Rorqual 2.5b. Why? Atm it makes more sense to fit an Orca and fly it out to Null to boost and a Hulk to mine. Improve the Rorqual and you eliminate that skew.

Right now the cost to utility of the Rorqual is like having a Carrier but not allowing it to fly drones, only heal other drones. Or having a Titan but giving it hardpoints, just the Doomsday weapon. A lot of its functions are being taken by other ships/mods. Compression goes to POS, Hauling can be done by an Orca and an MTU, Boosting can be done by Orca.

Every other mining ship has a definite point other than the Rorqual, even with compression still active that's not enough to justify a 2.5b price tag. Bring cost in line with the rest of the ships, but still cap price... 1.5b maybe. Let it mine at least on par with a Hulk in yield. It should be able to warp to a roid field and say to all it's Mack and Hulk friends "Hey guys, I'm an Indy ship too!" and not have them respond "Shut up fatty, go back home. BUBBLE BOY!"
Rex Omnipotens
Terminal Velocity Enterprises
#142 - 2014-07-14 16:49:24 UTC
Unless there's a reasonable reward or reasonable defensive mechanic for moving my rorqual outside of its pos, I won't be moving it. If they force the rorqual out of the pos then i'll just scrap it, and making it cost less to do the same things or even do less is a big middle finger to everyone who owns one now.
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#143 - 2014-07-14 16:55:55 UTC
Rex Omnipotens wrote:
Unless there's a reasonable reward or reasonable defensive mechanic for moving my rorqual outside of its pos, I won't be moving it. If they force the rorqual out of the pos then i'll just scrap it, and making it cost less to do the same things or even do less is a big middle finger to everyone who owns one now.


I agree completely. The Grid boosting is fine IMO, because it isn't forcing you to take a gimped ship out into battle. I'd prolly scrap mine too if that were the case. Cost alone isn't enough, it has to gain utility mostly. Giving it the ability to mine as much as a hulk with the same price still makes me mine with my hulk vs my Rorqual. But cost + utility solves that issue.

Plus if they give it a different way to mine that all other ships it gives it flare, further increasing its desirability. I like seeing a web of mining lasers at a field but seeing a swarm of drones re-enact the scenes from The Langoliers would bring me so much joy in this world!
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#144 - 2014-07-14 17:00:10 UTC
Lilith Shea wrote:


I like seeing a web of mining lasers at a field but seeing a swarm of drones re-enact the scenes from The Langoliers would bring me so much joy in this world!



If good Rorqual changes fail to succeed.... can I petition CCP to make a ship with this? Big smile
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#145 - 2014-07-14 20:06:09 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
CCP has already proposed removing force fields, so they are not going to add more.


Lolwat.

No. CCP are going to replace POS infrastructure. The new anchorables are baby steps in this direction. Whatever they replace it with will have to have the substantially similar property "invulnerable", same as the existing force field. Without it a whole lot of stuff would just die or no longer bother logging in.
Marsan
#146 - 2014-07-14 21:36:48 UTC
The basic issue is that the Rorqual needs to be 2+Billion useful without going into siege mode. Otherwise it will never be used outside a POS, or extremely safe areas.

Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a grumpy small portion of the community.

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#147 - 2014-07-15 05:37:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Victoria Sin wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
CCP has already proposed removing force fields, so they are not going to add more.


Lolwat.

No. CCP are going to replace POS infrastructure. The new anchorables are baby steps in this direction. Whatever they replace it with will have to have the substantially similar property "invulnerable", same as the existing force field. Without it a whole lot of stuff would just die or no longer bother logging in.

There has been a lot of discussion on the topic of removing force fields. For example, this (and mooring in general) caused a lot of discussion: CSM Meeting Minutes - Summer 2012 [comments]

CSM Minutes wrote:
3) Get rid of the force field bubble, partly for technical reasons.

...

3) Force fields (or lack thereof). CCP wants to have docking modules, but they don't want them to be cheap, and they may want to limit the number of ships that can be docked. CCP has been exploring adding mooring modules that would protect a ship that was able to physically get near the module with a small force field around just the ship. This system might replace ship maintenance arrays.

...

Trebor mentioned that not having a force field would be a big change to the way fleets often operate, and Greyscale mentioned that he would be looking into that.

Elise asked about mooring supercaps, and CCP said that that would be allowed, and people could set it so that only the owner or a director of the corp that owned the starbase would be able to un-moor the ship. CCP Greyscale said that he was thinking that people would have to get to 0 meters from the mooring module in order to moor a ship, which would mean that there would be a natural limit of however many ships could fit at the mooring point, and that people would have to carefully consider their starbase layout to take this into account.

UAxDEATH asked about if personal POSes would still allow directors to un-moor ships, and Greyscale said probably not, but that corp POSes would, because corps need to be able to take down a tower.

...

Elise asked about moored ships when a starbase is destroyed, and Greyscale said that they would all un-moor and be able to be stolen.

...

There was some discussion about what the removal of POS force fields would change in things like nullsec fleet fights. Elise pointed out that losing the ability to have a safe(ish) place to park a fleet for 20 minutes or so would be a big change from the current system.

CCP Greyscale suggested that they might look into making an anchorable POS type shield.

Two step pointed out that this would be a big change for all sorts of fights, and might be just a tad controversial. There was some discussion about what exactly might prevent people from mooring at a POS, such as warp scramblers.

The session ended with the CSM urging CCP to "ship it" as soon as possible.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#148 - 2014-07-15 06:02:03 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:

[quote=CSM Minutes]3) Get rid of the force field bubble, partly for technical reasons.


Yea, the CSM talk about all kinds of crap that's never going to happen. That's what they do.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#149 - 2014-07-15 11:23:02 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:

[quote=CSM Minutes]3) Get rid of the force field bubble, partly for technical reasons.


Yea, the CSM talk about all kinds of crap that's never going to happen. That's what they do.



That was CCP talking about it, with the CSM.

Remember, the CSM does nothing /but/ talk.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Clara Trevlyn
Carry on Capsuleering
#150 - 2014-07-15 18:04:47 UTC
If you want a mining booster on grid then it is not the Rorqual. Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes.

The Rorqual is fine, it sits in a POS and provides a stronger mining boost than the Orca.

Create another ship, smaller, cheaper. Battleship cost. Let it boost stronger than a Rorqual when on grid, chuck in a compression capability (with tractor beam) so it can grab containers of ore and compress it so it's doing something useful. Don't let it store much, Miasmos are perfect for moving the compressed ore away.

Heck create a T2 variant, give it cloak/covert cyno capability, weaker boost to compensate. It can wander around boosting and compressing ore with Prospects and a blockade runner...
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#151 - 2014-07-15 18:30:43 UTC
Clara Trevlyn wrote:
If you want a mining booster on grid then it is not the Rorqual. Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes.

The Rorqual is fine, it sits in a POS and provides a stronger mining boost than the Orca.

Create another ship, smaller, cheaper. Battleship cost. Let it boost stronger than a Rorqual when on grid, chuck in a compression capability (with tractor beam) so it can grab containers of ore and compress it so it's doing something useful. Don't let it store much, Miasmos are perfect for moving the compressed ore away.

Heck create a T2 variant, give it cloak/covert cyno capability, weaker boost to compensate. It can wander around boosting and compressing ore with Prospects and a blockade runner...


It's not a matter of forcing a square peg into a round hole. It's a matter of the square peg has no hole. Adding another ship just contributes to the tiericide problem CCP is trying to avoid. The mining boost it gives isn't the issue, its that all it can do is boost. Theres no way for a pilot to make isk in a Rorqual which translates into why use one. Giving a ship compression and tractor also wont fix the problem because of MTUs and compression arrays now. No matter what you're going to have to haul the ore, so what does it matter if you compress now or later.

Makes more sense to use a Miasmos to haul, faster, cheaper, just as big but will result in less downtime than using a Rorqual in field ATM.
Electrified Circuits
Predator Ewoks
#152 - 2014-07-15 19:14:11 UTC
I like the idea of introducing a smaller battlecruiser size vessel with better boosts. Having anything as big as a rorq on belt is ridiculous but i like bold ideas..


Let it boost more than a rorq and also give it the capability of 'enriching ores' in the belt whereby it has to actively use a module that has a very low chance of increasing the current ores quality based on the rocks size in proportion to current ore. This way the booster isnt just sitting there has to pay attention and can increase miners yields.
Clara Trevlyn
Carry on Capsuleering
#153 - 2014-07-15 20:11:13 UTC
Lilith Shea wrote:
The mining boost it gives isn't the issue, its that all it can do is boost. Theres no way for a pilot to make isk in a Rorqual which translates into why use one.

The Rorqual "makes" significant isk. It may not directly translate as isk into your wallet, or ore into your hold, but your fleet is mining considerably more ore than it would have done otherwise.

If you do not feel you are being adequately compensated for that then that isn't an issue with the Rorqual or its abilities.

You're never realistically going to convince Rorqual owners to sit in a belt, even if it could mine like a hulk, or two hulks. Swiftly visit a belt maybe, sit in it no...
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#154 - 2014-07-15 20:41:54 UTC
Clara Trevlyn wrote:
Lilith Shea wrote:
The mining boost it gives isn't the issue, its that all it can do is boost. Theres no way for a pilot to make isk in a Rorqual which translates into why use one.

The Rorqual "makes" significant isk. It may not directly translate as isk into your wallet, or ore into your hold, but your fleet is mining considerably more ore than it would have done otherwise.

If you do not feel you are being adequately compensated for that then that isn't an issue with the Rorqual or its abilities.

You're never realistically going to convince Rorqual owners to sit in a belt, even if it could mine like a hulk, or two hulks. Swiftly visit a belt maybe, sit in it no...


True Rorquals make vast sums of ISK indirectly but the pilot typically doesn't see it. I've never been compensated by a corp for boosting and logistically speaking it'd be very hard to charge isk / cycle in a fleet to anyone willing to pay. There will always be another willing to boost for cheaper or for free. And even if you could, how much can you squeeze out of a miner... 5k isk/cycle to open yourself up to attack. Obviously this goes above the Rorqual and more toward an Orca but the principal is the same.

To be honest I would take a Rorqual to actually mine a belt if the Rorqual could produce at least equal to what it costs to field. That's the nature of ships, use what you can afford to lose. All ships currently in game can make ISK directly and therefore prove their worth. Sure not every time you lose a ship you made enough to field a new one, but they have the capability. Even the Orca makes isk with it's ability to haul... is it the best way to make ISK no, but it's a way. Rorquals, being limited to where they can be used, the ability to haul is not enough, especially with compression being removed from them. That brings be back to my original point, I'd rather use an Orca in Null to boost with 90% effectiveness but 1/5 the price tag. So why Rorqual?
Grognard Commissar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#155 - 2014-07-16 18:14:37 UTC
Lilith Shea wrote:

True Rorquals make vast sums of ISK indirectly but the pilot typically doesn't see it. I've never been compensated by a corp for boosting and logistically speaking it'd be very hard to charge isk / cycle in a fleet to anyone willing to pay. There will always be another willing to boost for cheaper or for free. And even if you could, how much can you squeeze out of a miner... 5k isk/cycle to open yourself up to attack. Obviously this goes above the Rorqual and more toward an Orca but the principal is the same.


that why you should charge by the hour, rounded up
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#156 - 2014-07-16 18:21:38 UTC
Grognard Commissar wrote:
Lilith Shea wrote:

True Rorquals make vast sums of ISK indirectly but the pilot typically doesn't see it. I've never been compensated by a corp for boosting and logistically speaking it'd be very hard to charge isk / cycle in a fleet to anyone willing to pay. There will always be another willing to boost for cheaper or for free. And even if you could, how much can you squeeze out of a miner... 5k isk/cycle to open yourself up to attack. Obviously this goes above the Rorqual and more toward an Orca but the principal is the same.


that why you should charge by the hour, rounded up



I boost for a fee, accept "miner" into fleet... warp to member.... rorqual goes boom. Thats why the logistics of charging per cycle doesn't work. And assigning protection to the rorqual just means more corp members not making any isk. This is why I say giving the Rorq the ability to mine is a much better solution than any of the OP suggestions relating to shields and giving it combat abilities and whatnot
Rialen
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#157 - 2014-07-17 02:38:45 UTC
I'd be happy with the following changes:

- 3 high-slots
- Ability to mine using capital strip miners (high slots) - this means they either use this as a boosting ship or a mining ship but harder to do both as you are using same slots for the module. Mining yield also needs to be better than a hulk since it is a more expensive mining ship.
- remove the need for industrial core
- keep current defense, align time, etc


Basically, just make the rorq the next progression point for mining ships. Mining barges -> Exhumers -> Capital Mining ship

This way you either have more rorqs on grid mining = more risks, better reward, or you have more smaller ships such as exhumers/mining barges but have less reward.
Zhul Chembull
Universalis Imperium
The Bastion
#158 - 2014-07-17 14:15:36 UTC
I have been at this game since its inception pretty much. The rorqual is an interesting ship with a lot of benefits, however the changes in the Crius leads me to believe the best thing we can do with it will be as follows.

Rorqual Purposed Changes:

Non-Siege

A: Capital Strip Miners. This only makes sense and was I originally thought the rorqual would be. Take it in the belt and make it happen. While industrial mode it crushes all ore in its hold into squares.

B: Make it immune to E-WAR. Similar to Supers it can not be locked down, however it is still susceptible to hot drops as being in siege mode would still make you a squishy.

C: Add slight defense bonuses to miners in surrounding area. Honestly, its drone damage at level V is already pretty nasty and no rats or small ships in their right mind would

-Sieged -

20 percent bonus to miners shield
20 percent bonus to drone damage to all mining ships
-mining bonuses of course.
-Constantly crushes ore and puts it in squares.


Just a few ideas. Other than that it stays in a POS as far as I am concerned.
Lilith Shea
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#159 - 2014-07-17 14:48:00 UTC
Zhul Chembull wrote:
I have been at this game since its inception pretty much. The rorqual is an interesting ship with a lot of benefits, however the changes in the Crius leads me to believe the best thing we can do with it will be as follows.

Rorqual Purposed Changes:

Non-Siege

A: Capital Strip Miners. This only makes sense and was I originally thought the rorqual would be. Take it in the belt and make it happen. While industrial mode it crushes all ore in its hold into squares.

B: Make it immune to E-WAR. Similar to Supers it can not be locked down, however it is still susceptible to hot drops as being in siege mode would still make you a squishy.

C: Add slight defense bonuses to miners in surrounding area. Honestly, its drone damage at level V is already pretty nasty and no rats or small ships in their right mind would

-Sieged -

20 percent bonus to miners shield
20 percent bonus to drone damage to all mining ships
-mining bonuses of course.
-Constantly crushes ore and puts it in squares.


Just a few ideas. Other than that it stays in a POS as far as I am concerned.



Man we have dev and CSM response in this thread. I wish we could get an acknowledgement that these are good ideas, that they're still watching, that they like X and Y ideas. Just to reassure us theyre still listening and like what we have to say =\
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#160 - 2014-07-18 01:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Paynus Maiassus
We're running all over the map here. Basically here is what we know:

1 - They intend to make the ship so that you want to use it in a belt.

2 - They intend to beef up its defense extraordinarily, and its offense at least somewhat.

3 - They want to give it not only the ability to protect itself but also to protect its mining fleet.

(The above points were stated, but of course nothing is written in stone.)

4 - They've talked about buffing the Rorqual before, a year ago and even before. They've known it needs a buff for a while, but nothing previously discussed made the cut. (read: if you're proposing something that has obviously been proposed before, say something simple like just removing the siege, if it didn't get approved then it's likely not getting approved now.)

5 - They seriously considered a POS bubble effect, and the reasons that it was not implemented were on the one hand a lack of technical ability to implement it, and on the other hand an uncertainty about the future of POS bubbles even for POSes. The possibility was NOT ruled out because it would make the Rorq OP, however.

Now in order to make us WANT to use the Rorqual in a belt they have two options. They can make its bonuses only usable in belts, or they can make its bonuses work much better if it is in a belt. I am sure the players will prefer the second option and whine if they choose the first option, but in my experience the player base will generally whine and trash CCP no matter what they do, yet the whiners will not do the logical thing for them and just stop paying for the game. They'll just whine and maintain their subscriptions year after year. So CCP can and often does do what is best for the game regardless of what the players will prefer.

There hasn't been any announcement about changing or expanding the Rorqual's role, such as making it a capital mining barge. While this isn't a bad idea for a ship to introduce to the game at some point, this really hasn't been proposed for the Rorqual other than by a subgroup of players. CCP has never responded that they'd be interested in this. Also, there hasn't been any talk of altering the Rorqual's fundamental role, such as shifting it from being primarily a deep space mining/indy base to say an ore hauler or whatever. So it's really unlikely that the Rorq will get high sec access. It may get some ore bay expansion or something as ore will be the material to move come Crius. The Rorq has long been a nice poor man's jump freighter. But in general, I just don't see it anything really major happening. Perhaps it will get some increased jump range as the effects of the post-Crius ore economy is analyzed. But basically, I predict that the Rorqual's reinvention as a mining barge just won't happen (though a capital class mining ship does sound kick ass and may someday happen), and changes to its hauling abilities will likely be incidental and in relation to other game factors besides just balancing the Rorq for its own sake.

Really they seem to want the Rorqual to basically be the same ship that it is, a big, slow, lumbering, massive, deep space operating, mining foreman/boosting vessel. They just want it to be able to do it in a belt and to work together with its fleets. They may introduce something like bridging mining fleets. They may consider changing how it operates with jump clones. But overall making it super cheap, or cloaky, or align like a venture, or a mining barge, just hasn't really been proposed by them. They have not responded positively to any of these sorts of suggestions.

Now in terms of making it pretty much the same ship that it is but be useful in protecting itself as well as its fleet pretty much means it will need to survive a variety of escalation scenarios, and this requires that it will need some sort of god mode. Just boosting HP and DPS won't do it.

Now I have posted this summary on the one hand to draw other posters' attention to what CCP has said and predict what is more likely to happen, and on another hand to pipe my own personal preference for a god mode like the ECM-smartbomb field I recommend or something else that causes similar effect, but also to alert CCP to an understanding of what we know they've said thus far and to ask them to respond with their impressions of what we are saying in these threads. That last bit is the most important.

CCP, are your thoughts about what to do with the Rorqual changing from what you've announced at fanfest and what was discussed at previous round tables about Rorqual changes? What are you guys thinking at this point? What is being looked at? Let us give you our impressions of what you are thinking of doing at an earlier stage instead of waiting until you announce the changes in a late-stage dev blog.