EVE Information Portal

Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.

I suggested this earlier as well.

Can't think of what it would be like to mine in a wormhole.

For what it is worth:

Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!

I don't think the Rorqual's reconfiguration animation is compatible with a 1 minute siege, though I'm all for that, even at the expense of removing the reconfiguration.

So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.

They don't eff the usefulness of your boost alts, they force you to actually put them in harm's way. Heaven forbid you actually have to be actively playing to have any impact on other players.

Man... I wish I could have a FAX sitting safe at a friendly POS repping people's shields far away in the system without actually putting it at risk
Man... I wish I could have my Dread sitting safe at a friendly POS while still pounding away at a hostile POS in system somewhere without putting it at risk
Man... I wish I could have my Rorq sitting safe at a friendly POS vastly increasing the mining yield of every miner in the system without putting it at risk

These are all capital ships which have a big impact on a fleet's performance. Nobody is forcing you to use them, but they are amazing force multipliers. Whether they are killing enemies, repping friendlies, or increasing isk earned, they shouldn't be able to do so from afar where nobody has a chance of stopping them.

Most people using off-grid links in big nullsec fleet engagements where both sides have them didn't have issues with the current system, most people using off-grid links to boost mining, missioning, or incursioning in highsec didn't have issues with the current system.

The main issues people were having with off-grid links seems to have been in the arena of lowsec PVP. Lowsec CSM candidates in the past few years often speak about feeling left out with CCP paying attention to WH/null/highsec concerns, but this change seems catered to lowsec specifically.

Whether or not it was a majority or minority of the entire playerbase (not just lowsec) wanting these changes may not make a difference in the greater scheme of things and in the end as to whether CCP changes things or not, but since Fozzie did say their 4th dev blog would take into account feedback to this first dev blog and then the 2nd and 3rd ones about mining/combat changes specifically... seems to me that while it's not simple CCP putting out a poll saying "yes/no/maybe later in a different way" to these changes where it can just be like an election, they still do care about players' opinions.

But hell, it's their game, we just pay for it and play in it. If 0% of people wanted a change, they could still make it. :::shrugs:::

Just wanted to respond to a lot of people in this forum thread implying (if not flat out saying) that everyone wanted this, as that's just not true, nothing to do with for CCP's benefit.



If they did that, they'd better buff the hell out of command ships tank/DPS/application-wise, then... some sort of unholy HAC/Marauder hybrid. I mean... there's 2 or more tech 2 variants of frigs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships... but just ONE kind of tech 2 battlecruiser, so... if boosts went away, give us better tech 2 battlecruiser action, CCPls! :D

The Rorqual costs about as much as the Moros.

Both are pathetic ships unless anchored in space for five minutes.

Both are extremely powerful ships if used well.

The difference is that fielding a Moros provides intel to other players that want an expensive killmail that their structure is being shot by an expensive ship. Fielding a Rorqual doesn't feed anyone any intel unless you are an idiot about it.

The Rorqual will remain an excellent ship at its niches - providing incredible support to mining operations deep in your space that you are willing to actively defend, and providing high-risk high-impact support to mining operations you are willing to try to hide from your enemies.

And it will remain useless for some niches too. The Moros is a terrible ship for running level 5 missions (which doesn't make it a bad ship). The Rorqual is a terrible ship for providing support to mining operations on the border of your space.

To be clear, you said


"... and if I were a rorqual pilot, I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP"

But what you said in response was much more clear, although very different.

If you want the power boost provided by a Rorqual, you need to undock and use a Rorqual.

If you can't afford to risk a Rorqual, or you are unwilling to risk one, why should you get the benefits of one?

People risk more expensive ships then the Rorqual every minute. Whether it's a ratting Nyx, a transport Erebus or a driveby doomsday Avatar, people are willing to put their expensive ships at risk to reap the rewards.

If the Rorqual isn't at risk it should have no effect in space, just like a docked up Moros.

I like these changes. The advantages given to pilots with OGBs were not proportional to the risk taken by running the OGBs. Putting the boosts on grid improves visibility as to how many pilots someone is engaging which improves small-scale and solo PvP immensely. Thankyou.

That's exactly what they're doing: trying to find a new and better way to revamp boosts. When the devs ask for feedback, giving honest feedback is constructive. Telling people not to give that feedback is expressly working against trying to help the devs get the best exchange of ideas possible.