These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Rorq and Barge changes

Author
Crinnfika
Doomheim
#21 - 2016-07-07 00:01:45 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

uhhhh no. why wouldn't they be usable in highsec? Rorqs and orcas are usable in HS. Second, it would make item manufacturing cheaper. Cheaper ships and stuff could be good for the game because it lowers the cost of PvP. More people willing to do more = more action = more press for the game.


Lower PvP cost will increase the amount of PvP, when PvP increases the amount of ships being destroyed increases, more ships being destroyed means more ships that need to be replaced, the more ships that need to be replaced the bigger the demand for minerals to make them, the bigger the demand for minerals the higher the price of minerals goes, the higher the price of minerals the more expensive ships are.

There is a reason that mineral costs are (relatively) constant.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#22 - 2016-07-07 01:44:50 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I still want either the orca or the rorq to be repurposed into a captital mining ship(not boosting). Or create a capital mining barge. I know there was a mention of the rorq getting drones... but that isn't what I had in mind. It is so silly that both the capital mining ships are boosters/support.


Horrible idea.

Either some group (it would be nullsec cuz.....favoritism) would get mining capitals and destroy the market for everyone else or....

Everyone would get them and destroy the mineral market even faster.....Tritianium would be like 0.00000000000001 ISK each in either case.

uhhhh no. why wouldn't they be usable in highsec? Rorqs and orcas are usable in HS. Second, it would make item manufacturing cheaper. Cheaper ships and stuff could be good for the game because it lowers the cost of PvP. More people willing to do more = more action = more press for the game.



1. Unless you know about some change to the Rorqual it connot be used in highsec.

2. A budding miner in a venture is going to be in one sorry state of affairs when the mineral market is crushed by cheap minerals from capital class ships.

3. And most importantly the game is built around the concept of 'risk vs reward', if you start removing the risk you will inevitable start crushing the reward, both in terms of ISK as well as the feeling of victory (since part of that feeling comes from knowing the other guys lost something they cannot cheaply replace).

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#23 - 2016-07-07 02:27:19 UTC
Crinnfika wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

uhhhh no. why wouldn't they be usable in highsec? Rorqs and orcas are usable in HS. Second, it would make item manufacturing cheaper. Cheaper ships and stuff could be good for the game because it lowers the cost of PvP. More people willing to do more = more action = more press for the game.


Lower PvP cost will increase the amount of PvP, when PvP increases the amount of ships being destroyed increases, more ships being destroyed means more ships that need to be replaced, the more ships that need to be replaced the bigger the demand for minerals to make them, the bigger the demand for minerals the higher the price of minerals goes, the higher the price of minerals the more expensive ships are.

There is a reason that mineral costs are (relatively) constant.

What?

If lower costs would increase pvp, why isn't everyone out facing off in rookie ships?

The cost of ships doesn't reduce the amount of pvp. It's ego driven. It's much more personal a decision ingrained in personality.

1 Titan loss is upwards of 100 billion ISK, yet people put them into fights weekly. Other supers and regular capitals even moreso. That has more to do with the people than it does with the cost to build/replace ships.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Elenahina
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#24 - 2016-07-07 10:58:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
Crinnfika wrote:


Lower PvP cost will increase the amount of PvP, when PvP increases the amount of ships being destroyed increases, more ships being destroyed means more ships that need to be replaced, the more ships that need to be replaced the bigger the demand for minerals to make them, the bigger the demand for minerals the higher the price of minerals goes, the higher the price of minerals the more expensive ships are.

There is a reason that mineral costs are (relatively) constant.



Cost may motivate some people when it comes to PvP, but the real fact is, people who want to PvP will, no matter how much it costs, and the people who don't want to won't, even if ships cost roughly the same as a T1 drone.

It's not like it's hard to make money in this game.

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

Anthar Thebess
#25 - 2016-07-07 11:37:15 UTC
Mining can be easily fixed.
What it needs, are mining links working like any other links.
Mining lasers working similar way to siege, and triage - you are sitting still without ability to warp off, but you get ehp boost.
Memphis Baas
#26 - 2016-07-07 11:46:14 UTC
Mining doesn't need to be fixed.

Mineral prices are stable, and there is no shortage of ships or modules, so clearly enough asteroids get mined to support the economy and all the PVP we're currently doing.

As far as balance goes, it's just about perfect.
Anthar Thebess
#27 - 2016-07-07 12:48:19 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Mining doesn't need to be fixed.

Mineral prices are stable, and there is no shortage of ships or modules, so clearly enough asteroids get mined to support the economy and all the PVP we're currently doing.

As far as balance goes, it's just about perfect.

It needs to be less afk.
Maybe some UI that will force you to re aim your mining laser on the rock, or mineral in the rock.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#28 - 2016-07-07 14:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
Prediction:

-AFK mining will still be going, CCP wouldn't hit their own subscription rates by making mining such an effort that you can't multibox it.

-Rorqual will become a capital class mining vessel providing on grid support while hauling some nice yield itself. They will become the new AFK Carriers of Nullsec.

-Mining Boosts will be removed from the game, all existing mining ships will be buffed to compensate for it, and Exhumers will be buffed even further and more differentiated again to give solo-account miners a decent income, but make it very stressfull to multibox these high yield ships.



And if you're mining in nullsec and play the big mineral game i don't know why you'd ever give a **** about jita market prices for minerals. It's effort to haul your ore to Jita, then sell it in an area of space where it has a lower value because of lower refinery yields and would have to get exported into nullsec again by the buyer to actually make sense but, oh, well, they could just mine themselves down there and/or buy from local market. All Jita is useful for is selling Zyd / Mega / Morph to the highsec people.
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
#29 - 2016-07-07 16:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Celeste Coeval
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I still want either the orca or the rorq to be repurposed into a captital mining ship(not boosting). Or create a capital mining barge. I know there was a mention of the rorq getting drones... but that isn't what I had in mind. It is so silly that both the capital mining ships are boosters/support.


Horrible idea.

Either some group (it would be nullsec cuz.....favoritism) would get mining capitals and destroy the market for everyone else or....

Everyone would get them and destroy the mineral market even faster.....Tritianium would be like 0.00000000000001 ISK each in either case.



Perhaps you don't understand how economics works, if tritanium was 0.00000000000001 ISK all the other minerals would plummet to, meaning the relative price of nearly everything in eve would be lower and therefore relatively speaking, the value of isk itself would be different. It would destroy the mineral market for speculators, for everyone else the price of fish will be the price of fish, if someone builds a BS that now only costs 10 mill to produce, they can sell that at say 15-20 mill, all of a sudden everyone and their mum will be pvp'ing like crazy as rat bounties remain static. A mineral price crash might be what high sec needs to get people seeing more of eve. Has it every occurred to you that active players in eve has fallen due to rising prices and therefore the rise in PLEX prices, more people used to pay 440 mill for 90 days game time back in the day when online players could hit 40-50K continuous a day, mineral prices were much lower, Trit was like 1.6-1.8 isk a unit.

Add to this the price of PI won't change much, neither would moon goo materials, nor salvage. Minerals are not the only goods that contribute to production.

Why shouldn't capital mining ships be a thing? You can mine hulls with anti-matter/fighters already using dreads and carriers, there is no larger end game for miners other than creating a billion-gajillion mining alts.
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
#30 - 2016-07-07 16:43:48 UTC
Crinnfika wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

uhhhh no. why wouldn't they be usable in highsec? Rorqs and orcas are usable in HS. Second, it would make item manufacturing cheaper. Cheaper ships and stuff could be good for the game because it lowers the cost of PvP. More people willing to do more = more action = more press for the game.


Lower PvP cost will increase the amount of PvP, when PvP increases the amount of ships being destroyed increases, more ships being destroyed means more ships that need to be replaced, the more ships that need to be replaced the bigger the demand for minerals to make them, the bigger the demand for minerals the higher the price of minerals goes, the higher the price of minerals the more expensive ships are.

There is a reason that mineral costs are (relatively) constant.


This dude does economics Cool
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#31 - 2016-07-07 19:40:10 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Mining can be easily fixed.
What it needs, are mining links working like any other links.
Mining lasers working similar way to siege, and triage - you are sitting still without ability to warp off, but you get ehp boost.

You must not be a Rorqual pilot ... and I'm suspicious not a capital pilot either.

Imagine, you are a lone FAX triaged in an asteroid belt or anom, your sub-cap support fleet is un-armed, but don't worry because you have a flight or two of drones [that are easily eliminated by smartbombs or by just shooting them].

What could possibly go wrong, right?
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#32 - 2016-07-07 21:22:30 UTC
Crinnfika wrote:
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:

uhhhh no. why wouldn't they be usable in highsec? Rorqs and orcas are usable in HS. Second, it would make item manufacturing cheaper. Cheaper ships and stuff could be good for the game because it lowers the cost of PvP. More people willing to do more = more action = more press for the game.


Lower PvP cost will increase the amount of PvP, when PvP increases the amount of ships being destroyed increases, more ships being destroyed means more ships that need to be replaced, the more ships that need to be replaced the bigger the demand for minerals to make them, the bigger the demand for minerals the higher the price of minerals goes, the higher the price of minerals the more expensive ships are.

There is a reason that mineral costs are (relatively) constant.

Exactly, this is why what that one guy said about mining capitals driving the price of trit down to .000000000000000001 isk is nonsense.
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#33 - 2016-07-07 21:25:54 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Crinnfika wrote:


Lower PvP cost will increase the amount of PvP, when PvP increases the amount of ships being destroyed increases, more ships being destroyed means more ships that need to be replaced, the more ships that need to be replaced the bigger the demand for minerals to make them, the bigger the demand for minerals the higher the price of minerals goes, the higher the price of minerals the more expensive ships are.

There is a reason that mineral costs are (relatively) constant.



Cost may motivate some people when it comes to PvP, but the real fact is, people who want to PvP will, no matter how much it costs, and the people who don't want to won't, even if ships cost roughly the same as a T1 drone.

It's not like it's hard to make money in this game.

I mean, cheaper ships means you have to work less to pvp. Either way the argument that capital mining vessels would trash the economy is rubbish.

I would pvp more if I didn't have to be worried about isk as much.
Smendrik Von'Smendle
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2016-07-07 21:51:46 UTC
Elenahina wrote:

Thus far that's all we've gotten. We do know there's some kind of hull polarizer mjodule for the Rorq which will basically make it and any barge in range more of less impervious to damage for a limited time (and also stop them from moving) presumnably so help can arrive, but there's no actually hard details around how any of that works.


This should bring baiting to a whole new level.

Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#35 - 2016-07-08 00:34:48 UTC
Smendrik Von'Smendle wrote:
Elenahina wrote:

Thus far that's all we've gotten. We do know there's some kind of hull polarizer mjodule for the Rorq which will basically make it and any barge in range more of less impervious to damage for a limited time (and also stop them from moving) presumnably so help can arrive, but there's no actually hard details around how any of that works.


This should bring baiting to a whole new level.


idk maybe at first, then people will wisen up.
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
#36 - 2016-07-08 23:22:04 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Smendrik Von'Smendle wrote:
Elenahina wrote:

Thus far that's all we've gotten. We do know there's some kind of hull polarizer mjodule for the Rorq which will basically make it and any barge in range more of less impervious to damage for a limited time (and also stop them from moving) presumnably so help can arrive, but there's no actually hard details around how any of that works.


This should bring baiting to a whole new level.


idk maybe at first, then people will wisen up.



It's more likely they'll cry on reddit and the forums until it gets nerfed so that 6 man nano gangs can again roam nullsec and make dank kills.

Just how it happened to carriers.
Bernard Quinn
Doomheim
#37 - 2016-07-08 23:27:38 UTC
I know it'll be met with hostilities, but I'd love to see not barges changed, but belts. Get rid of the static, repopulating belts, and replace them entirely with ore anoms that have similar respawn mechanics as ice belts, except instead of respawning in the same system, they respawn randomly in the region four hours after they get mined out.

Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#38 - 2016-07-09 04:56:25 UTC
Bernard Quinn wrote:
I know it'll be met with hostilities, but I'd love to see not barges changed, but belts. Get rid of the static, repopulating belts, and replace them entirely with ore anoms that have similar respawn mechanics as ice belts, except instead of respawning in the same system, they respawn randomly in the region four hours after they get mined out.


I don't see what that would accomplish?
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#39 - 2016-07-09 06:28:05 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
Bernard Quinn wrote:
I know it'll be met with hostilities, but I'd love to see not barges changed, but belts. Get rid of the static, repopulating belts, and replace them entirely with ore anoms that have similar respawn mechanics as ice belts, except instead of respawning in the same system, they respawn randomly in the region four hours after they get mined out.


I don't see what that would accomplish?

One of the big changes this would potentially bring is greater immersion.

Instead of having a few to a couple of dozen belts in every system, where each belt is 50-60km across and takes just an hour or so to mine out, you could instead have fewer, but much larger belts spawning in anomolies that take up a whole grid. 10,000 km across.

You could potentially put several warpable points within a belt to make getting around not too painful and bring the benefit that all the miners across a constellation (if it was done at constellation level) would be spread out working their bit of the belt.

The potential is that brings people together in the sense that multiple mining activities would be occuring on the one grid, giving a greater sense of the overall activity going on in the game.

The downside being that a higher concentration of miners on a single grid would also lead to a higher concentration of people looking to shoot them, but the larger grid also adds an element of safety, and (heaven forbid), miners working on the same grid could start sharing intel, etc.

Overall, it's not a bad idea.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
#40 - 2016-07-12 08:59:41 UTC
The new rorq will boost w/o having to use the indy core. Indy core removed from game.
It will also have an aoe jump bridge {think starcraft arbiter recall ability} to whisk the miners away.
Previous page123Next page