These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

About the Rorq
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#41 - 2016-08-10 15:06:02 UTC
Doc is not too optimistic that CCP can define and balance a proper role for the poor Rorq.


Doomed forever to be a trailer queen.

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Smendrik Von'Smendle
HighSecers United
#42 - 2016-08-10 15:14:16 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
Smendrik Von'Smendle wrote:
Apples vs Oranges

To defend with ships not designed for defense is like asking a PvP fitted ship to take on level 5 missions.

One option is to have a true defense fleet handy but that is boring and not practical in the gameplay sense.


I'm not seeing the disparity in the argument, nor do I agree with only the two options you give (exclusively for the Rorq, and I'm not commenting on their effectiveness as options, just pointing out some additional ones.)

Look, Miners get hit big in this game because the first thing the vocal ones tend to jump to is 'protect me' from CCP. This really ticks off a lot of other players.

I have to take responsibility for my mining operations, and I *DO* mine. If you are a miner then at the end of the day, it's up to you to deal with the challenges that exist. It doesn't matter if you're solo in a Venture or flying in a massed fleet with an Orca or Rorq, you have to deal with it.

For every 3 ships doing mining in a hazardous area, you should have at least one guard ship, should be cloaked. It can be another account being run by one of the miners. Best result would be to have one combat ship per miner and let it sit cloaked.

I've been doing Null Sec for a few weeks now. I have to take down the rats in a field I intend to mine. That means I have to deal with Battleship class NPC rats by docking, getting my PvP fit warship, kill them, then go back and start operations again. It's a pain but the value is really good for the time spent and I don't mind the combat. So I know the theory can be done solo. With an Orca or a Rorq, your options are even greater.

So you just do what you need to do to defend yourself. If you had your friendly fleet just ratting and running sites nearby when you cried for 'Help' it's far better than doing nothing at all and certainly better than complaining about it.

Please, my appeal to miners everywhere is to get decent at PvP and start handing these guys their heads when they come for yours. Don't think you're stuck in one ship with one option, you have plenty.


Well to be fair, to say anything is a 'requirement' in EvE is ridiculous because of EvE's nature.

There are several aspects to EvE that players look at.

The most common aspect imo is Risk v Reward.

Requiring Rorq's (and Im only talking about mining operations) to be on grid, in their current state, almost NOONE save the crazy players are going to risk have a Rorq on station during mining ops, its just too big a loss for most players, not all but most.

So if you are looking at the Risk v Reward then the Rorq needs to change (see previous post of mine for the changes I believe would bring Risk v Reward in line to use a Rorq on grid)

Another aspect is efficiency or the "Min/Max" game
Players, in general, want to know they are playing/working at peak efficiency, for this reason these players will want to have a Rorq on grid to get the max amt per cycle/strip. This is tightly coupled to Risk v Reward.


We could also look at mining ships being redesigned similar to how T3 dessies are: They have different modes which give them bonuses to things they don't normally do, while seriously depleting their main role abilities. Again see my previous post for the changes I recommend for the Rorq and yes those changes are based solely on R v R as you take away the risk you also seriously hamper its abilities. If it gets a combat bonus while in "combat" mode it cant do much Industrial operation, if you give it the cloak ability, its limited in time because of the special fuel requirement and you cannot load any ore into it without losing the cloak.

Giving choices to players based upon these bonuses and penalties is how CCP should go about implementing changes. For the most part they do a good job but a lot in game is still lacking, but that is just my opinion and OT...
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#43 - 2016-08-10 17:08:31 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
What's a "miner"?


The opposite of major.
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
#44 - 2016-08-10 17:35:01 UTC
In my opinion, the main issue with the Rorqual, and to a lesser extent the Orca, is thar CCP put too many roles in one hull. This results in overly high cost for any one role and conflicts within roles (i.e. boosting and hauling). The only way that a Rorqual will be on grid instead of an Orca (or Stork) is if the yield is high enough to replace the hull in a reasonable time. But with a full fit cost between 2.5 and 3b, the yield required would entice more miners to use Rorquals only and destroy the mineral market.

The other option is to remove useless roles, which would then warrant a reduction of base cost, which would then allow for a lower yield to get the ship on grid. But then it would go from the mobile mining HQ to a mining carrier.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#45 - 2016-08-10 18:09:56 UTC
I'm going to start by saying I know this will be dismissed given no one wants to be in a standing defense fleet when mining, and no one wants to be active at the keyboard. That being said, the rorqual is a capital ship. Fundamentally, capital ships should need subcap fleets to function. If you are going to use a rorqual over an orca, bubble your gates, have scouts in neighboring systems, scan down and scout out any WHs that pop up. Be alert ahead of time for hostiles. If you aren't willing to do that, why should you get the added boosts of a rorqual?
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2016-08-10 18:42:24 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
I'm going to start by saying I know this will be dismissed given no one wants to be in a standing defense fleet when mining, and no one wants to be active at the keyboard. That being said, the rorqual is a capital ship. Fundamentally, capital ships should need subcap fleets to function. If you are going to use a rorqual over an orca, bubble your gates, have scouts in neighboring systems, scan down and scout out any WHs that pop up. Be alert ahead of time for hostiles. If you aren't willing to do that, why should you get the added boosts of a rorqual?

Because there need to be a reason for using a capital. If you need 4-5 additional alts to use a Rorq the Output must be so much higher that you can cover the costs of these players+ the Price of the Rorq (over time). So the Bonus must be huge or else it will simply be more cost efficent to use the Orca. The Rorq is a tool for gaining money so it all ends at the question: is it worth the risk. do you REALLY Need all the Advantages of the Rorq or just the boosts?
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#47 - 2016-08-10 19:15:09 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Because there need to be a reason for using a capital. If you need 4-5 additional alts to use a Rorq the Output must be so much higher that you can cover the costs of these players+ the Price of the Rorq (over time). So the Bonus must be huge or else it will simply be more cost efficent to use the Orca. The Rorq is a tool for gaining money so it all ends at the question: is it worth the risk. do you REALLY Need all the Advantages of the Rorq or just the boosts?


I don't necessarily agree. I have characters on accounts that have zero mining skills. Why not bring them up cloaked and alt-tabbed to listen for gate fire a system or two away? In a large, corp/alliance wide mining fleet (which is where the rorqual is intended to be used) you'd easily be able to find 4-5 similar alts to act as scouts.
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
#48 - 2016-08-10 19:25:00 UTC
The total comparison is based on any one fleets play style. But with boosting alone, every 7 orca boosted ships have the same yield as 6 rorqual boosted miners and 1 defender.

Not to mention the added income from the efficiency of having at least a 20m m3 storage container on site. That would take 160 tanked skiff hours to fill. If each miner is self hauling, that's a decent percentage increase in efficiency, if you have a separate hauler that's one more member that can be defending.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#49 - 2016-08-10 21:25:40 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:

Because there need to be a reason for using a capital. If you need 4-5 additional alts to use a Rorq the Output must be so much higher that you can cover the costs of these players+ the Price of the Rorq (over time). So the Bonus must be huge or else it will simply be more cost efficent to use the Orca. The Rorq is a tool for gaining money so it all ends at the question: is it worth the risk. do you REALLY Need all the Advantages of the Rorq or just the boosts?


In the cold logic of business ROI and Risk/Reward, you're correct, however that's not really how many EVE players think. A lot of this game screams EGO. Many mining firms would get a Rorq just to claim they have one. Right now, I agree the Orca is superior to the Rorq, but we don't know what changes CCP has coming down the pipeline and if the Rorq is actually in their thinking and if so, how much?

This entire thread is speculative and I am hoping everyone realizes that we can all see a ship in dire need of rebalancing, but HOW and WHAT gets rebalanced is the end result we are all guessing at.

Soniya is correct in her assessment of the stereotype of the miner... AFK mining. I can't do that, I'd rather be ratting or site running than AFK. It's a waste of my time. So when I mine, I actively mine. I may be looking at something else on my second screen or petting the cat that invariably wants to be in my lap, but I'm still spamming Dscan, looking out for incoming threats. My ship is ready to respond to them. I don't play to passively earn ISK. I submit that players that do get what's coming to them.

Rorq or no Rorq nothing is or should be ever 'safe' in EVE.

8 Golden Rules of EVE • EVE is entirely PvP
HeXxploiT
Doomheim
#50 - 2016-08-11 21:59:21 UTC
The Rorq should be as expensive as a jump freighter, have exceptional mining bonuses and have the defenses and HP of a small tower or maybe of half a small tower. Make it valuable and interesting enough that people will WANT to risk taking it into the field but make the loss as equally juicy for a killbaord so that medium and large gangs will hunt them.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#51 - 2016-08-11 22:02:11 UTC
Tekla Rousseau wrote:
So some one told me CCP is going to make it so your Rorq will have to be on grid in order to receive the boost from it.... There may have been a news letter which I had missed....

However requiring your rorq to be on grid is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If this is in fact true it is probably the dumbest thing CCP has ever done... Regardless of the ability to tether your fleet. No one will want to fly the rorq after that, if this is the case... if this is in fact true... For the love of god CCP don't kill the rorq. a lot of mines will be totally and fully screwed because of that. I for one will be very unhappy at the amount of time wasted training a ship that alliances will no longer allow us to use because of that. You will not be able to cancel the bastion required for it... even with a 5 min invulnerability you will lose your rorq

So if that is in fact true I would like every one to voice their opinion on that. Please don't do that, allow us to keep our rorqs as an off grid booster

Again requiring the rorq to be an on grid booster is just out right stupid... Please don't do that CCP, keep it an off grid booster AttentionAttention


Is it so important that it's a rorq giving the boosts and not an orca or other misc gang link ship?

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2016-08-12 08:15:32 UTC
Pandora Carrollon wrote:
[quote=Geronimo McVain]
Rorq or no Rorq nothing is or should be ever 'safe' in EVE.

Right. All I'm saying is, that it has to be reasonable. If you are using a Carrier for ratting you are bringing some Billions online but these ships can defend themselves + you income is higher. So there must be an economic reason for bringing a rorq to danger.

I personally can't think of a good reason to use the cloning facility. IMHO that thing would make much more sense on a bowhead which would make the bowhead a moving HQ. Or make a Bowhead T2 which can use jump engines + clone vat. Miners mostly stay in one region or system so there is not really a reason to have a moving clone vat.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#53 - 2016-08-12 16:50:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Right. All I'm saying is, that it has to be reasonable. If you are using a Carrier for ratting you are bringing some Billions online but these ships can defend themselves + you income is higher. So there must be an economic reason for bringing a rorq to danger.

Also carriers don't immobilize themselves for 5 minutes when ratting.
Decaneos
Casalt Corp
CAStabouts
#54 - 2016-08-13 20:43:05 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Viktor Amarr wrote:
Tekla Rousseau wrote:
probably the dumbest thing CCP has ever done.


Now now, that's a bold statement.


In the list of dumb things CCP has done, this doesn't even break the top ten.



Who remebers the Boot.ini thing Roll
Previous page123