These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Bignose
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#401 - 2017-02-24 21:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Bignose
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.

    • What if P.A.N.I.C. simply cycled off active modules, much like a cloak? You could light the cyno before you P.A.N.I.C and it'd still be running after coming out. All offensive mods would cease working almost immediately and a P.A.N.I.C.ed rorq doesn't require active defensive mods since it's invulnerable.

    you'd lose ewar but i don't know if it's that useful in these situations. P.A.N.I.C. is last resort where you've refit mids with cap/tank and capped yourself out on local reps already. it'd be easier to cyno in caps with capital neuts if you need it or form a subcap support fleet which is how we usually save them.
    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #402 - 2017-02-24 21:33:51 UTC
    Rowells wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    We're confident that Post-March Rorquals will still be vastly more powerful than they were pre-Ascension.

    TBH that's not saying much.


    That's not saying anything.

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #403 - 2017-02-24 21:40:08 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

    I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

    There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
    1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
    2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
    3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

    Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
    In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

    Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
    • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
    • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
    • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.

    As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.


    This is a very reasonable explanation for the strange mechanism you employed to limit the abuse associated with the PANIC module.

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

    Cade Windstalker
    #404 - 2017-02-24 21:49:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    I haven't mined since the day they were released, while you're over here leaping to conclusions.


    To think I'm some rare fringe case where people bought plex proves you have a tiny zika ravaged mind.


    LOTS of people injected rorquals, you can look at the injector market to see that as it calmed down after the rorqual release.


    And do you think any of those people would have purchased them if the end result would have been anything near a 10 billion isk version of 2 hulks?

    No, so its a simple case of bait and switch, a **** play by CCP and if you think they didn't set out to gouge you like that you're nuts, this is classic CCP digging for pennies in the couch.

    Its a trash way to treat your player base after all these years.

    EDIT: And as far as 'looks to good to be true' mining still made less than any other profession. Super ratting can net you 400+/hr and yet they go after mining.


    Hi Grath, if you'd care to re-read my post you'll note that I specifically avoided any language implying you yourself did anything to do with a Rorqual. I assumed you were here posting because PL's boards or slack or whatever you guys use these days are blowing up with people raging over how much they spent chasing Rorqual dreams.

    I'm also perfectly aware that a lot of people injected Rorquals. They made a bet, that bet didn't play out. Nothing CCP did forced them to. That sort of risk/reward setup is, after all, the core of the Eve meta.

    And yes, Super Ratting nets you more raw ISK per hour, but super ratting isn't in danger of crashing some market, one quick glance at the Jita mineral market clearly shows what Rorquals have been doing and the massive surplus of minerals they've created. Then again maybe you can tell me why there's been such a rush to Inject Rorquals by players who clearly already have a ton of ISK kicking around if they're so under powered compared to Super Carriers?
    Cade Windstalker
    #405 - 2017-02-24 21:54:45 UTC
    Thead Enco wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:


    And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.


    Indeed, there's practically no risk at all........


    First off, I said the tiny change in risk from the PANIC changes, not that Rorquals were under no risk.

    Second, those losses don't mean much unless we have a comparison for the number of Rorquals actually deployed currently in Null, and I know just based on the numbers I have access to that the losses there are a tiny fraction of the losses out in Null. Most of the large groups have a lot of Rorquals out right now, and very very few are getting popped.
    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #406 - 2017-02-24 22:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Jura McBain wrote:

    2 hulks 600M
    1 Rorq 12B.

    Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs?
    There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
    We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.


    This sounds reasonable, but your advertising for the Rorqual explicitly stated it was the ultimate mining ship. Not something to be balanced against a ship costing 1/20 of the price. I get that Eve ships usually increase linearly in power and exponentially in price, but this is a bit absurd here. At least make the components more widely available throughout New Eden, not just in a backwater whose access points are controlled by your friends.

    Quote:
    The Rorqual represents the most powerful version of all three mining foreman pillars by itself; capable of providing strong Mining Foreman Bursts, repairing allies and fighting off enemies, and vacuuming up ore faster than any other ship in New Eden.


    While still technically true, your advertising was blatantly false. Imagine any other company convincing consumers to invest in a product, then significantly downgrading the capability of that product two months later. I'm not a Texas lawyer, but that company would be in serious trouble.

    This may not have been such a huge concern before you totally monetized the skill training process with skill injectors, but it certainly is now. You lured a bunch of people to invest extra cash into your game, then switched the product they received. Even if it is within your rights as the developer, it's terrible customer service.

    And, no, I did not purchase a bunch of skill injectors. I trained the skills the normal way (finished Capital Industrial Ships V about 12 hours before you announced this change). I simply made the mistake of resubscribing with cash rather than PLEX. I took the capital changes and Rorqual changes as a sign that CCP was actually invested in making New Eden a better, more fun place to fly. Not simply trying to eke out every last bit of cash from an aging platform. You need to get back on the track of adding content drivers, not removing or penalizing them.

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

    Hellfir
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #407 - 2017-02-24 22:27:30 UTC
    If you are going to change the mining yield and increase the times traveled you seriously need to consider changing the material requirements to produce these drones. The cost is out of control and is pushing up near the cost of a rorq hull per drone.

    I have a rorq i don't use the core its way to dangerous and i certainly don't use the drones at their current price.

    You also need to look at the mex yields per rock that have it, it is almost always the bottleneck for any kind of large scale production.
    Lexia Nova
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #408 - 2017-02-24 22:45:02 UTC
    Balancing mining.... are you having a laugh? Why on earth do you need to spread out ores in sites even more? Its already difficult enough getting everyone close enough for boosting (as rocks die off). Not all of us have rorq's you know....
    Rusty Boon
    Triglavian Menace
    #409 - 2017-02-24 22:45:51 UTC
    That long info post q and a... nothing about the drones/yeild.... everything about the panic mod. Alot of us could give two ***** about the panic mod. Nerf it into the geound... dont touch the damn drones Or atleast q and a the yeild stuff instead of ignoring everyone..

    Also to Grath.

    I had zika... living in a tropical climate has lots of new and exiting virus" to catch and try out. Although the hydrocephely it causes to unborns is funny and al. It does not make one comment poorly. That was all on that dude.
    Cade Windstalker
    #410 - 2017-02-24 22:48:40 UTC
    FT Diomedes wrote:
    This sounds reasonable, but your advertising for the Rorqual explicitly stated it was the ultimate mining ship. Not something to be balanced against a ship costing 1/20 of the price. I get that Eve ships usually increase linearly in power and exponentially in price, but this is a bit absurd here. At least make the components more widely available throughout New Eden, not just in a backwater whose access points are controlled by your friends.


    The current changes don't run counter to that line from the dev blog. It's still going to be a very powerful mining ship, but it might actually see some use from the other pillars now instead of just being a massive mining hoover.

    Also a large part of the current cost of Excavators seems to be as a result of everyone rushing to buy them because the Rorqual is so strong. If this change relaxes demand then the price will likely drop significantly as well.

    I'd also like to ask you how all the people who fund their accounts partially or largely through mining, but can't afford a Rorqual, would be impacted if the mineral market crashes like it seems to be doing. I'd bet they'd feel a lot like their content has been flatly driven out of the game.
    Kain Doran
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #411 - 2017-02-24 23:24:42 UTC
    Funny is that some of my corp members still say the ore is in jita still too expensive.
    So why the market need a fix?
    paintballlawss Padecain
    Polaris Rising
    Goonswarm Federation
    #412 - 2017-02-24 23:42:56 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Thead Enco wrote:
    TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place.


    How is this even remotely an Eve thing to do to a ship? I guarantee you if you removed the Battle Rorqual from existence you would have ten times the complaints this little joy of a thread is getting... Roll

    Iminent Penance wrote:
    "addressing" versus quoting jargon that goes against EVERYTHING they are actually doing in any other scenario are very different.

    Maybe not to you with your biases in how you only flame people who want balance, but I mean fundamentally this is askiew for literally all other viewpoints.

    Refer to my posts, if they did this blanket nerf to t3s and fozzie came and said "if its an issue we may change t3 requirements dont worry" You wouldn't say "SEE LOOK FOZZIE SAID SOMETHING" you'd flip your **** and would be 100% opposite the mindset you're at now.

    Unless you're not really this ignorant and are instead an amazing troll, which would be funny, but fruitless to the insanity that these changes are


    Lol, first off I'm not flaming anyone. I'm being a little sarcastic, but that's a far cry from flaming.

    Second, I'm not against balance, I'm against uninformed people who want something to stay broken because they don't recognize the problem, and people who would rather gain a tiny amount of safety over implementing the actually better and more comprehensive solution to the existing problem.

    Also, if you'd read *my* posts, like this one I made 5 pages ago you'd know that I'm actually in favor of T3s getting nerfed because I think they push out too many other ship classes and are generally way too powerful.

    paintballlawss Padecain wrote:
    If anything i would think CCP Fozzie would understand the risk vs reward and with these rorq changes for the drones there is no longer a reward like how do you not see that??


    I'd say he probably does, considering he has far more comprehensive numbers about the volume they've been mining vs the number lost, as well as how many people are mining with them vs how many people are boosting. Judging by the number of kills vs the rough volume of Excavator Drones sold I'd way the game is still running very Rorqual positive at the moment, and everyone I've talked to in Null either knows someone with one, wants to buy one, or has bought one (or several) in the last few months.

    For comparison here, the raw build price of a Super Carrier is down to around 12b right now (yay mineral market crashes) and the public sale price is still well above 20b, just to be conservative. The Rorqual currently makes about as much ISK per hour as that Super Carrier while risking less than half the value of the Super and for most users it's not even in that much more danger, because in most larger alliances you're about 1 ping away from rescue.

    And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.


    The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining
    Goborn
    Habitual Euthanasia
    Pandemic Legion
    #413 - 2017-02-24 23:50:16 UTC
    According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58% since you first introduced the changes late last year. On top of that you have now destroyed its pvp usage. For some unexplainable reason you did not figure out how stupidly broken it was to power project and perform certain pvp functions, something a certain alliance figured out in less then a day.

    It is my gut feeling that the mining yield as it was had massively positive gameplay effects. Now for some reason you see upper middle class joe having suddenly some cash to spend a bad thing. I'm going to go ahead and call that a good thing.

    You have now in a extremely short amount of time by your standards double nerfed this ship creating uncertainty and probably dented a lot of peoples investment and they are understandably very angry with you.

    What could possibly have happened since you introduced it in just a few months that has made you go wtf i hate mineral price now?
    Nasar Vyron
    S0utherN Comfort
    #414 - 2017-02-24 23:54:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
    2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
    3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.



    1. They have chosen to go invulnerable to bring in a support fleet. Their ability to support or harm any friently/hostile fleet outside of a cyno ends the second they hit that button and make themselves invulnerable to harm.
    2. This is less of an issue as if the fleet coming in lives so will they. If they die, so will they in 5-7.5 minutes.
    3. An entosis modules is effectively an offensive sov module and falls under the same rules. When they chose to make themselves invulnerable, they chose to take themselves out of the fight entirely.


    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array.


    Uh, what? Why? Who but the most experienced players amonst us are even going to think these are going to be allowed. Simply stating hey, this is the most powerful defensive module and while active it prevents all actions from being taken aside from a cyno. Or for all it matters, make the PANIC module require liquid ozone to activate and upon activation lights a cyno! No cyno needed, remove a high slot to compensate.

    There, now you have successfully written off how a cyno can be lit when no actions are supposedly able to occur while in PANIC. While at the same time removed their ability to directly effect the field they have made themselves invulnerable to.



    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.


    I'm sorry, are these hugely expensive PVE hulls and fits not dying often enough for you? Did they need increased risk with reduced possible market based income on top of their already being stuck on field for 5 minutes at a time?

    How about this, look at reducing the IC siege time on top of a reduction in fuel cost to strike a balance with the reduced time? You're wanting them to have to hop between roids spaced out further than before, but still want them to sit there for extended periods.
    Cade Windstalker
    #415 - 2017-02-25 00:09:41 UTC
    Goborn wrote:
    According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58%


    Your math is off. The paper yield got chopped by 25% once, then that remaining 75% got chopped by 25%, which leaves you with ~56.25% of the original post-changes level.

    paintballlawss Padecain wrote:
    The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining


    Yes, and those people in massive coalitions make up the vast majority of Rorqual users and thus the majority of mineral influx that is causing market problems.

    A smaller group that only has 1-2 Rorquals and still uses Exhumers actually benefits from this change because now those boosted Exhumers are mining more compared to a Rorqual, and this will likely push some people out of Rorqual Mining, meaning that demand and price for the Excavators should drop and the mineral price should recover.

    On top of that this makes it more viable, relatively, to just boost with a Rorqual and mine with Hulks, since the hull itself is only ~3B and pays out ~2.2B with full insurance.
    Nove Nuke
    Ascendance
    Goonswarm Federation
    #416 - 2017-02-25 00:13:38 UTC
    This is bull CCP. I have been playing this game for the last 10 years. I have 6+ accounts and have been paying with money all these years. I didn’t use Plex to pay for my accounts I know that your company needs money to pay for people and systems to run the company and to be profitable. I can understand this its economics and I am proud that I have paid over $9600.00 dollars to keep the company up and running EVE is my happy place. I love CCP Seagull and what she has been doing for the game. I can’t what till the Eve Universe gets bigger and better with new star gates come online. I am sick of CCP Fozzie Messing up the universe I am trying to build. I got only one Rorqual I spent 14 billion Isk to upgrade my ship to use it was setting for 3 years not doing a thing for me or my corp. I got home for work and my corp. The guys had sold 6 Rorquals and all Excavator drones so they would not take a loss on them. In one day I lost over 2.5 billion Isk and climbing. This is wrong Fozzie has done more damage to EVE Online than anybody in the gaming industry. For years he has Nerfs more and more stuff and damage the system. Please stop building up player’s hopes and dreams and the Nerfing them in to the ground again and again. CCP you did not give us players a change to pay off the toys that they got and that is wrong. In the next few months the number Rorquals will be parked and not used at all just like before this is sad for all players in the game. This is problem with nerfing the game and a big reason why people get sick and tired and quieting the game. Most of the Eve community still hates Fozzie sov. The last 3 years the number of players has dropped in the Eve this is not a good for the game system and CCP. “We feel that we need to make another fairly significant in order to help keep this area of the Eve economy healthy.” This is bull yes this has dropped the Eve economy will balance out. This happens in the real world. The real problem is that some people are no longer running 4 or 5 account and have gone down to less accounts. CCP is losing money and that is the real problem less accounts means less money that’s what’s going on. I wish I had a plan to help CCP make up lost revenue in the real world. But destroying my hopes and dreams in EVE I was just starting to get ahead in my happy world. Don’t make me sell my Rorqual and drones and loss billions of Isk because Fozzie had another good idea fairy and he did not think it what this was going to do to the game long term. With the new changes Rorquals only 10% will be used in the game most will be parked in week’s sad time for miners and the Hunters too.

    Let’s Make Eve Great Again. CCP Seagull please stop ccp Fozzie and his good idea fairy.

    Make a new class of smaller capital ship just for mining with six strippers on it and can use 2 excavator drones it can cost 2 to 3 billion + drones and can mine at about 70 million Isk per hour with no pain button with a small hold. With a small drone bay to defended itself.

    I would love a T3 type of mining ship that I can reconfigure to what I won’t to mine with at about 30 to 35 million per hour. And cost about 1 to 2 billion.
    Vincent Athena
    Photosynth
    #417 - 2017-02-25 00:50:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!
    .......
    We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.

    For the "Last rock" issue, or losing a "race" in being damped before the PANIC button is pushed:
    When a Rorq loses its lock on a rock, a one minute timer is set. During that time the PANIC mode can still be initialized. Entering warp zeros out the timer immediately.

    Here is another method: When the rorq pilot locks a asteroid, a flag is set. When the Rorq pilot enters warp (including e-warp, downtime, and fleet warps), the flag is cleared. As long as that flag is set, PANIC mode is available.

    Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

    Frozen fanfiction
    MINESVSGANG
    Titans of Doom
    #418 - 2017-02-25 01:00:38 UTC
    there will be 3. nerf of rorqual amount after this nerf. i guarantee it.
    Roger Hallay
    Atlantis Kingdom
    #419 - 2017-02-25 01:29:48 UTC
    Not very bright ideas Fozzie.

    Maybe evaluate the risk vs the profit for your customers rather then looking at overall eve(ccp)economy balance..

    ...or come up with better excuses.
    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #420 - 2017-02-25 01:32:20 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Goborn wrote:
    According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58%


    Your math is off. The paper yield got chopped by 25% once, then that remaining 75% got chopped by 25%, which leaves you with ~56.25% of the original post-changes level.

    paintballlawss Padecain wrote:
    The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining


    Yes, and those people in massive coalitions make up the vast majority of Rorqual users and thus the majority of mineral influx that is causing market problems.

    A smaller group that only has 1-2 Rorquals and still uses Exhumers actually benefits from this change because now those boosted Exhumers are mining more compared to a Rorqual, and this will likely push some people out of Rorqual Mining, meaning that demand and price for the Excavators should drop and the mineral price should recover.

    On top of that this makes it more viable, relatively, to just boost with a Rorqual and mine with Hulks, since the hull itself is only ~3B and pays out ~2.2B with full insurance.


    To get the good boosts you still have to be in Industrial Core mode. The only way to justify that risk is to be mining with the Rorqual as well. Otherwise, you will be boosting while aligned to your citadel or POS.

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.