EVE Information Portal

Sure, I get that. I guess I'm asking if the Rorq is currently central to mining. It wasn't last time I heard anything about it, and the fact your Rorq pilot is unsubbed is telling. Which is to say: it sounds like the rorq changes are effectively a no-op because nobody uses them anyway. The combat link changes, however, are not no-ops, and the discussion of a ship that nobody seems to actually use is overshadowing the discussion of ships that many people use.

-Liang

At this point, why bother with a booster anyway You didn't quite catch the nature of the irony here.
If you are running a boosted mining ops in nullsec or lowsec, then because you have POS nearby or - in rarer cases - bounce through a circle of safespots permanently, which isn't exactly "afk". If you aren't afk, you're active. If you're active, might as well play it right.
The only reason to not tank is because you already own the territory and have the bottlenecks secured. At this pint, it's irrelevant if your booster sits in the belt or in the POS.
If you mine in unsecured territory, the reason to field the tank is so that you can live longer and not get volleyed off the field. The example was brought with bombs and is valid. At least in nullsec. If you do your ops in lowsec you're safe from bombing runs but doesn't mean you can't get other nasty crap thrown at you.
If you do not have guards to protect your ships, and know it's a hostile area, then you do risky mining. If you fly Mining Barges or Exhumers at this point, then that's your thing. Can't play eve wrong. Yet would point you to the Prospect and Endurance. Unless a smartbombing battleship uncloaks directly beside you, chances of survival are much higher in these. They're built for quite these ops.
I could continue spinning the story, but if you already risk fielding a mining ops in hostile territory, you might as well drag the booster on the field too. Wait for the ship announced in the second blog and see how it would add up in your scenario.

Why is everyone so in love with their numbers? Sheesh, why can't you put it into perspective?
You either mine with boost, or you don't. If that means less people boost the average yield is going to decrease which means market prices for ore will increase over time if the number of boosters decrease.
You get more ISK as mineral and ore prices go up in time.
You can sell your manufactured items at higher prices over time as base prices go up.
People ragequitting over afk boost changes means less miners too, so prices go up gradually.
And still you complain about your numbers, instead of waiting for the second devblog and ponder an actual way to be more inclusive of the proposed changes. Way to go.

For some reason X Mayce doesn't seem to think about the possibility of auto-repeat the module. Oh dear, having to check once per hour for reload is likely too much to ask for when people let their computer run while they're off working! Serves them right.

That's funny, I remember about a graph where CCP debunked the so called Incursion income madness which always seems to be be thrown as a tantrum when any price spike occurs. In the general sense of ISK rewards for the player (which includes LP rewards), I remember Incursions being fairly down on the bottom.
And what's that with biggest income of all highsec activities? Doubtful.

Sure about it? Offgrid boosting was never seen as issue by many because it catered to exactly their paradigm of throwing money / ISK at a game to gain more benefits. Does that make it a better game? I doubt so.
Yet I'm not buying the minority bit who demanded ongrid boosting, considering this idea has been toyed with for years now.
To be real, it doesn't make any difference if it was a minority or majority. Objectively speaking, offgrid boosting was bad for the game, but good for the bonus crowd. Sometimes you need to **** off people and do something that's better for the game as a whole. This is CCP as it lives and thrives. The ideas usually are in a good direction, the course of implementation is what often makes these ideas seem like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo.

Not true. You pop the booster and then 60 seconds later or so, all the boosts he gave are gone. Some fights can take longer than that, disengage/warp off to get better positioning or simply run away.

Killing the booster then the logi will work out. The easiest way would be to alpha the booster/s so logi can't do squat then go back to the normal grind of logi or if you just want the fight over, head shot the FC

I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all.

I'd love to see that chart, considerign that there are actually high sec incursion based communities overlyspecialising into setting new records of isk/per hour earned

although if said graph was something like overall income from incursion running players per month [and averaged out] I can totally see it "averaging" quite low - these record breakers does not run them all the time, because you know at some point you have more than enought iskes for any of yoru needs and then willingfullness to ru nthese things drops..... and also these guys are actually quite minor part of all incursion running players with probably quite a few ppl who goes really low with incursion incomes.

and then truth be said - as far as I know incursioners they [mostly] won;t whine - they'll adapt and keep going

I'm sorry but that's just not true. For instance, I have fleet command V on this character so that I can be a fleet commander, not a fleet booster. I have an alt for that.

I will have no use for the puny range bonuses, and being able to pass on boosts from other characters is NOT the same as being able to increase the range of the boosts you are giving out.

There is a profound misunderstanding of the way links currently work, CCP Fozzie. You seem to think that all the skills in the leadership category fill only one role, but in fact they filled two.

One of these two roles (Fleet command) is very explicitly removed from the game, this should be a no brainer that CCP will reimburse those skills.

As for the second role (Fleet boost), while CCP is trying to spin it like it's basically the same thing than off grid links, this couldn't be much further away from the truth. The role is wildly different, the usability is wildly different, the mecanics are nearly the complete opposite (close range vs system wide, need to be unprobable vs need to be tanky, temporary vs permanent, trickle down boosts vs free-for-all, etc...). So, while the first role is a no brainer in term of skill refund, the second is not, but refusing to refund it seems like an act of bad faith.

And how can you say that it "impacts the same type of gameplay"? I thought the whole point was that current links gameplay was terrible. It's NOT the "same type of gameplay" anymore, that's why it's called a revamp.

I hope you reconsider the decision of not refunding the SP.

I disagree with your opinion. Some of us (speaking definitely for myself, probably for others too) aren't great at direct pvp. I do a pretty good job at support roles though. Running links, logi, scouting... that type of stuff is more fun for me and I'm way better at that than brawling. In fact, I'd like to see more support roles.

And as for only having passive bonuses... CCP and I agree that those mechanics are bad. Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity.

Depending on the skills they have your beloved corp mates my simply add to the kill mails by reshipping and coming to help. Only thing they accomplished is to further delay the inevitable destruction of said Rorqual by being a distraction.

It's almost as if CCP doesn't want to be able to measure how many people will not put their SP back into the leadership category. The right move is very simple, when you change a skill enough that you have to change its name and description, then refund the SP. Even for the entierty of leadership skills, it will not be that big of a deal: It's one of the smallest skill categories in the game, and it's not something that most characters have trained a lot.

And even if the amount of refunded SPs were really truly massive, it'd still be a drop of water next to the average SP of people who can afford to invest into leadership skills.

I'm like 80%-90% a PVE player as I only occasionally PVP in NPSI fleets such as Spectre and RvB Ganked and the like when I feel the itch or get advance notice about one of my fave fleet comps coming up (HACs and navy/pirate faction battleships mostly), but I've been in numerous fleets where either the FC + maybe one or two backup pilots were in ships such as the Vulture (for the bulk of the DPS ships being sniper Eagle/Railgus especially), the Damnation, or the Absolution... and on grid, I mean. I've also missed out on a couple of ALL Command Ship fleets due to at the time not having a booster alt and not having trained my two mains into command ships yet (still haven't).

One was all Absos and the other was all Sleipnirs... or was it Vultures?... either way. Either way, I guarantee you plenty of command ship pilots got on tons of killmails those days. I was also in a Nightmare fleet last Halloween (yay for theme fleets!) where we got wrecked by PL Sleipnirs, so... yeah. ;)

On-grid command ships have already been used, they just aren't used all the time.



Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).



Ever since I was a 1 month old Gallente droneboat pilot in a Vexor and then a Myrmidon my dream ships were Ishtars and Eoses... Ishtar I trained into 2 years ago but Eos I've only been able to fly because I got a booster alt. I dream of triple Eos in the somewhat-near future, but... triple (or maybe just double... no drone assist to help with 3 like with Eoses) Sleipnir would be pretty hot, too. EPIC ALL SLEIPNIR ACTION!

Diversity is always going to be there, if not as wide-ranging as some would like. Before sleips everywhere it was all Machs everywhere or all Tengus or all Proteus/Legion blobs or all Ishtars or all Drakes or all original-pre-nerf/"balance"-Hurricanes everywhere. And on and on it goes.