These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aliza Cosma Chupinskowa
It Girl Society
#541 - 2017-02-28 10:47:06 UTC
In a time member counts grows up you mess again with stupid game fixes.

Why you do not what the game needs, more opportunities to destroy ships, more oportunitys that need ore (for example for the citadells), or why can't we build our own stargates that need ore to build.... this is an 2 or 3 yeahr old announcement by the way.

Listen to the one or other good tip in this thread to fix ore outcome without bashing your happy customors. You as company allways fogett you have a job because we pay you for the game. A game that lifes and die with the oportunity to destroy things. That should be the way to fix things. thats the way you make money and thats the way eve works. destruction.....
With that in mind, you don't have to do this stupid fix.

But everyone who is playing a bit longer knows CCP give a **** about what we the customer that keep this company and game with our money alive, say. So in this way it's wastet time to say anything...

CCP learns only if the people say good bye, sad but true.

JonasML
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#542 - 2017-02-28 12:25:59 UTC
I was away from the game for 2 years, and happy to stay gone, then I see this awesome mining patch coming out... 6 months later I'm coming back around to "**** you CCP". Maybe you should start small and buff next time, instead of beating the **** out of something with a Nerf bat. BTW, nerfing excavators right when you're also buffing T2 drones.... not amused.

The mineral prices have been high for a while now, and the Rorqual mining is finally putting them back to their lower prices, the same prices that saw huge fleet fights, affordable battleships, etc etc. You made all kinds of changes for "new players", but the biggest complaint I've heard from them is how much grinding they have to do to afford ships. Screwing with the Rorqual is DIRECTLY interfering with the market, no 2 ways about it, and you should keep your hands off for at least another 3 months before you make this change to drone yields. 2 nerfs in 6 months to something people paid billions to use is too damn much.

Regarding the PANIC changes... where do I start? Oh I know, FIRE the IDIOT who came up with it. If you have a problem with Rorqs being used for tackle, remove their ability to fit tackle ffs, leave the damn module alone. I dare say that it would be easier to insert the code into the preexisting system that prevents certain ships from fitting certain mods, rather than inserting all new code that forces an asteroid lock for use. Start with removing the ability to use heavy webs, wait a bit, then maybe go further. See what I'm doing here, baby steps, spelling it right out for you, almost like I'm talking to children.

As a final note, you may want to have a long talk with your lawyer, if you haven't done so already, about what happened to Blizzard a while back. You know, that big lawsuit they got hit with (and LOST) where they got sued for tons of money in a class action suit. Wasn't that over nerfing something people paid big RL money for? You know, kind of like people paying money for PLEX to buy those drones... the ones you're nerfing now? Well damn, hate to be in your shoes if you pull this **** on the Asian server.
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#543 - 2017-02-28 13:19:10 UTC
CCP can you make mining drones more intelligent and have them stop when the asteroid is empty?
Like when they're actually empty and not just when the cycle is ended and a lot of overkill has happened?
Pegs Thiesant
Virtutis Fortuna Comes
#544 - 2017-02-28 14:00:16 UTC
Ahh the joys of being a miner.

Another nerf to the mining community of EVE, would be fun to watch if every miner in the game decided not to mine for a few days see how the ore and mineral prices go.

Either that or actually give the Rorq what it is supposed to have for defense, I mean a bubble to protect it for a few mins, now that's going away as well unless u are actually targeting something, it is a CAPITAL ship with all the capabilities of a Jump Freighter and drone bay of more then most ships in the game.

Try and git it proper defenses i.e. the ability to actually defend itself, guns, rockets etc and the ability to field fighters instead of 5 poxy drones either that or make caps and supers able to mine, that would be fun.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#545 - 2017-02-28 16:19:23 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
Hey CCP - how about a boost to Rorquals/Capital Tractor beams in which they allow the Rorqual to tractor rocks closer, but has to maintain an active tractor on it to keep it close. If they drop the tractor the rock will return to a spot in the belt?

This isn't totally tended to be a single boost for the rorqual. but would allow the rorqual to assist in relocating rocks in the belt to help other mines as well....

At least with an option like this it would add some fun game play to mining.


That's actually not a bad idea. Saves Rorqs from having to slowboat from rock to rock to maintain a perfect sub 10km distance.

I like it. Because you know, the capital tractor really is worthless other than for its range. And that's what we have MTU's for

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

arts scie
somethin' under snow
Ultimate Space
#546 - 2017-02-28 16:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: arts scie
Обещалось:
рорка - 4 халка

получилось:
рорка - 2 халка


Чую наебос от ЦопЦопПэ

Если так продолжиться, то пора завязывать фоззи с исландской травой

WTS rorqual
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#547 - 2017-02-28 16:45:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Algarion Getz
Freelancer117 wrote:
When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense Cool

Excavator drones are supposed to cost 300mill, but the huge demand keeps the price so high. Prices will drop. The Augmented mining drone cost over 200 mill when it was released, now, 3 months later, it costs 51 mill. Something in the price range of the excavator drones: The Nestor cost 1.7 bill when it was released, now it costs ~410mill. Its all a question of supply and demand.
Cade Windstalker
#548 - 2017-02-28 17:16:03 UTC
I appreciate the length and depth of your response, unfortunately I'm going to have to chop it up a bit to poke at specific bits.

Mephiztopheleze wrote:
...
The dreamers came from across New Eden. From deepest nullsec right up to the very borders of HiSec.
....


As I've said a couple of times here, I think this is probably the actual issue. The issue isn't the dedicated miners who have been mining for years, the issue is all the random Carrier and Super ratters who have gone and dumped a ton of skill injectors into 2 or 3 or 10 characters to get into a Rorqual because suddenly there's this ship that makes almost as much as a Super Carrier (or more if your Alliance does minerals for ships directly) and you can multi-box them a lot easier than a Carrier.

Mephiztopheleze wrote:
...
In January, barely two months after the initial changes, tweaks were made to yield. Wise heads nodded sagely and proclaimed "yeah, well, it was sucking up an insane amount of Ore, kinda had to happen...."

...

Then in February came the news that Fozzies Dream was undergoing another set of tweaks. Wise heads nodded sagely and proclaimed "indestructible long range low fatigue Jump HICs are a clearly a problem, CCP is right to fix this".

Then we discovered the extent of the changes and we saw that yet another nerf to mining yield was on the cards. The second serious nerf in as many months.
...


I guess this is where I just sorta scratch my head and shrug a bit. The first round of nerfs weren't particularly controversial, if anything there were just as many people calling for a bigger nerf as for less of one or a different one.

The first nerf clearly didn't stop the slide in the mineral market, and it clearly didn't get many people to change their playstyle, so why is this nerf unjustified when the initial conditions that justified the first one haven't really shifted much?

It feels to me that the reason the second nerf feels unjustified to a lot of people is because it's actually enough of a nerf to make the Rorqual something other than an absolutely certain go-to ship for Null mining, and a better option for buying a Capital or bigger ship than actually getting together the ISK to buy it outright, in basically every instance.

Mephiztopheleze wrote:
...
There is uncertainty over the exact extent of how these changes will affect total yield. This uncertainty leads to fear, which in turn has led to anger that the changes have come so fast, not giving players a chance to alter their plans in time. Anger that the dream we will realise is not the dream we were sold.
...


I feel like everything here is grounded in something irrational. The changes are on Sisi and are fairly easily tested, the extent of and impact of these changes are pretty easily mathematically analyzed, at least in terms of mining yield. Even the PANIC change is pretty small for actual miners.

Also if CCP waited longer on this, either on announcing it or on implementing it, the only thing that would change is more people would invest in the current state of things, and the people already invested would have a little more time to exploit this to the maximum. Neither of those is an actually desirable outcome for CCP, as is the current negative market conditions persisting any longer than necessary.

As to the 'dreams you were sold' should CCP put a disclaimer at the top of each set of patch notes that says "All changes are potentially subject to change. We reserve the right to buff and nerf things as we feel is good for the game. Consider this when making decisions based on upcoming changes." Would that fix this apparent investment issue people have with rushing toward new OP things like lemmings?

Mephiztopheleze wrote:
Anger that apparently he never considered the repercussions of a low-fatigue, long range jump ship that can pack enough heavy scrams to reliably tackle a supercarrier and then giving it an invulnerability mode.


As weird as this might sound this was pointed out as a potential problem. CCP left it in to see what would happen and see if it would actually be a problem. Generally speaking, at least personally, this is something I like about CCP. They don't lock things down from the outset and lock us into only one use for a ship or module. They give us tools and see what we do with them. It's only when a tool creates a significant problem, either in Risk/Reward or in the use of other tools that something gets changed or nerfed.

Personally I'd rather have that approach than have CCP just create things for one very specific use-case and try to restrict anything that might fall outside that.
Cade Windstalker
#549 - 2017-02-28 17:17:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
...
Most of all, we're angry because Fozzie's own reasoning for making the change is self contradictory. Apparently the Mineral market needs CCP intervention, but the value of Excavator Drones is left to the market. A market that is currently in freefall as legions of min-max EVE nerds get out their calculators and pocket protectors to figure out if the risk:reward of using Hulks outweighs the risk:rewards of using a Rorqual.

Does that clear it up for you?


Personally at least the logic here is a bit self-contradictory to me.

The prices of Excavator Drones are almost purely a function of the current demand for them. They're not being destroyed in numbers anywhere near what's being produced, so the price will come down as demand does. CCP even buffed the drop rates of the primary cause of the initial high cost, the Elite Drone AI's to help bring costs down faster. Also the price of these drones isn't actually causing a major problem for anyone beyond those purchasing them. The price of these drones has very little secondary effect on the rest of the game.

The mineral market on the other hand has wide-ranging effects, and from the way supply looks right now we're way past the point of "supply and demand" explaining this, we're at a point where the mineral market simply can't absorb the quantities of ore being produced. The market might eventually catch up, but in the meantime the crash in mineral prices is having adverse affects on every miner who can't afford a Rorqual, which is a not insignificant number of players.

On top of that, and to me the really big difference here, is that the mineral flood was directly caused by CCP. They put in a new ship with a vastly higher mining capacity and that's caused a flood of minerals onto the market. That's directly CCP's fault. They also put the mining drones into the game, but the actual price of them has been largely set by players and their demand for the drones. As demand drops off the cost should drop, which is what we're already seeing, even before these changes.

Does that make sense? I'm honestly not sure I've explained why I see these as such distinctly different things. I could try and post all the econ and stats and crap, but I'm not sure that would help Ugh

Henry Plantgenet wrote:
CCP can you make mining drones more intelligent and have them stop when the asteroid is empty?
Like when they're actually empty and not just when the cycle is ended and a lot of overkill has happened?


You can do this the same way you do a mining laser. Call the drones to return and orbit to end their cycle early and return with whatever they've mined.
Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#550 - 2017-02-28 17:49:25 UTC
Tangent: It's interesting to speculate about why CCP thought the rorqual numbers were reasonable in the first place. Perhaps they expected a spike in mineral demand from alpha clones, who buy/lose ships but have pathetic mining abilities? Or maybe they made predictions based on miners switching from hulks to rorquals, without (sufficiently) factoring in players who had never mined switching into the profession and away from other income streams?

There were posts (like mine Big smile) predicting rorquals would be multiboxed to death within minutes of the changes being announced in October, and I'm sure they saw that coming themselves, but for some reason they underestimated the total economic disruption.

jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#551 - 2017-02-28 18:13:08 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Does that make sense? I'm honestly not sure I've explained why I see these as such distinctly different things. I could try and post all the econ and stats and crap, but I'm not sure that would help.


I seriously considered digging out my analytical measurement equations and feeding the mineral price and supply numbers into excel to see if there really is a 25% drop on prices. Obviously trit's not going to be ideal as it's 4 per unit, so even a slight drop in price will look to have far-reaching effects when the reality is it's not really a 25% shift, so a full analysis of all mineral prices and an extrapolation of future trends would be a great place to start. I've got enough work on at the moment though to add this burden.

Plus there's always going to be a degree of personal bias in whoever decides to punch the numbers. We've already seen on here an argument made using mining comparison between max skill rorquals and hulks that wasn't even close to accurate in real terms, having paid zero attention to drone travel time, repositioning, etc and I've yet to see a viable argument vs the whole massive isk and more importantly time investment made by people to field them when compared to exhumers. Rather it's been said, in not so many words, tough s**t. CCP can do what they want.

As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet.
Cade Windstalker
#552 - 2017-02-28 19:19:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
jizzah wrote:
I seriously considered digging out my analytical measurement equations and feeding the mineral price and supply numbers into excel to see if there really is a 25% drop on prices. Obviously trit's not going to be ideal as it's 4 per unit, so even a slight drop in price will look to have far-reaching effects when the reality is it's not really a 25% shift, so a full analysis of all mineral prices and an extrapolation of future trends would be a great place to start. I've got enough work on at the moment though to add this burden.

Plus there's always going to be a degree of personal bias in whoever decides to punch the numbers. We've already seen on here an argument made using mining comparison between max skill rorquals and hulks that wasn't even close to accurate in real terms, having paid zero attention to drone travel time, repositioning, etc and I've yet to see a viable argument vs the whole massive isk and more importantly time investment made by people to field them when compared to exhumers. Rather it's been said, in not so many words, tough s**t. CCP can do what they want.


Some eyeballing says it's between 5% and 25% depending on which rock you're mining. The real difficulty though is looking at time horizons. If you go back to the start of the Rorqual changes and look to today several of the higher end minerals that ended up being bottlenecks in the Rorqual-powered economy end up higher now than they were before the initial changes. On the flip side if you go back a month or so and look at today there's a distinct downward trend even on these bottlenecks.

All of these bottleneck ores are scarce in High Sec though, and that's where the mineral surplus is going to have the greatest impact, both because it's mostly High Sec minerals being impacted and because High Sec miners don't have the option of going and getting a Rorqual to compete.

Looking at the price for raw 5 and 10% Jaspet in High Sec it looks like we're sitting at around a 7% drop compared to before the changes (ignoring a weird spike in price right before the changes dropped).

Also, regarding the discussion of Hulks vs Rorquals, the only thing that did was serve to contextualize the changes, since the yield of a Hulk isn't changing. No one in that discussion was pretending that those numbers were what a Rorqual would mine in practice. That was purely for context and to debunk the people throwing around the "The Rorq is only going to mine as much as 2 Hulks!" folks.

jizzah wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet.


Personally I agree, but not at the expense of the mineral market as a whole. We're still looking at a ship that's going to mine multiple times more per character than the next ship down when that ship is fully boosted by the ship we're discussing. The change from T1 mining barges to T2 isn't close to that large of a jump. How is a 3x increase in mining potential per ship not enough to make this the king of the mining line?

If the Rorqual is the only thing anyone should be mining in if they can use it then that's not just being a good ship, that's clearly a broken risk/reward tradeoff. That would be like if Capitals suddenly became the only thing anyone should bring to a fight because you no longer need sub-caps. The last time that came close to happening people raged until CCP fixed it.
Aka Evil
Localhost.LL.c..
#553 - 2017-02-28 20:01:21 UTC
Enochia Starr wrote:
I think the nerf is too damn high, ..


https://youtu.be/9TKOmqYLZ2Q
JonasML
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#554 - 2017-02-28 20:27:01 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
jizzah wrote:
I seriously considered digging out my analytical measurement equations and feeding the mineral price and supply numbers into excel to see if there really is a 25% drop on prices. Obviously trit's not going to be ideal as it's 4 per unit, so even a slight drop in price will look to have far-reaching effects when the reality is it's not really a 25% shift, so a full analysis of all mineral prices and an extrapolation of future trends would be a great place to start. I've got enough work on at the moment though to add this burden.

Plus there's always going to be a degree of personal bias in whoever decides to punch the numbers. We've already seen on here an argument made using mining comparison between max skill rorquals and hulks that wasn't even close to accurate in real terms, having paid zero attention to drone travel time, repositioning, etc and I've yet to see a viable argument vs the whole massive isk and more importantly time investment made by people to field them when compared to exhumers. Rather it's been said, in not so many words, tough s**t. CCP can do what they want.


Some eyeballing says it's between 5% and 25% depending on which rock you're mining. The real difficulty though is looking at time horizons. If you go back to the start of the Rorqual changes and look to today several of the higher end minerals that ended up being bottlenecks in the Rorqual-powered economy end up higher now than they were before the initial changes. On the flip side if you go back a month or so and look at today there's a distinct downward trend even on these bottlenecks.

All of these bottleneck ores are scarce in High Sec though, and that's where the mineral surplus is going to have the greatest impact, both because it's mostly High Sec minerals being impacted and because High Sec miners don't have the option of going and getting a Rorqual to compete.

Looking at the price for raw 5 and 10% Jaspet in High Sec it looks like we're sitting at around a 7% drop compared to before the changes (ignoring a weird spike in price right before the changes dropped).

jizzah wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet.


Personally I agree, but not at the expense of the mineral market as a whole. We're still looking at a ship that's going to mine multiple times more per character than the next ship down when that ship is fully boosted by the ship we're discussing. The change from T1 mining barges to T2 isn't close to that large of a jump. How is a 3x increase in mining potential per ship not enough to make this the king of the mining line?

If the Rorqual is the only thing anyone should be mining in if they can use it then that's not just being a good ship, that's clearly a broken risk/reward tradeoff. That would be like if Capitals suddenly became the only thing anyone should bring to a fight because you no longer need sub-caps. The last time that came close to happening people raged until CCP fixed it.


Clearly you know nothing about mining, particularly nullsec mining. When Fozzie fucks with lowsec PVP, I'll be happy to hear from you, until then get a clue. The mineral market has undergone steady inflation over the last 5+ years. There was a drop in prices when the drone regions were released about 8 years ago, which was quickly soaked up by an increase in capitals and supers and has been on the rise ever since - WELL PAST THE ORIGINAL PRICES. CCP didn't go making huge nerfs then though, they only nerfed 1 alloy drop, very slightly, to fix the huge drop in zydrine value. Has anything dropped to less than 50% it's pre-excavator value? No? No problem then. In fact, some minerals like mexallon are going up. Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven?

In nullsec, Rorquals are the only thing to mine in, until Fozzie gets his head out of his ass and finally builds a reasonable damn interceptor that isn't impossible to kill or catch (apologies Fozzie if you really are just the poor bastard who has to announce everything and get screamed at). Hulks or barges are used to clear the mercoxit and maybe ochre, why else would you put them out when a 'ceptor will rip the tin can apart and get away with it?

FYI, carriers are the new cruisers, EVERYONE in 0.0 rats in them, North, South, drone regions, only place you might not see it being common is npc nullsec and even then it happens. In pvp FAX are the new make or break fleet fight ships. Whoever has the most wins. Either way, subcaps are becoming obsolete, only highly specialized T2/T3 ships have value for anything other than "swarm" fleets - ever see the 100+ man tier 3 bc fleets fielded by NC. and others?. Bring your subcap fleet into someone's sov and see what happens.

And seriously, ******* Jaspet? WTF? Who mines Jaspet in nullsec? Jaspet has absolutely nothing to do with Rorqual mining, unless you have some idiot using one in lowsec in which case I will probably **** myself LOLing when he dies. Any drops in the mineral market are coming from primarily the renter groups who export it to pay their bills, and they aren't selling Jaspet. The major groups are doing exactly what they should be doing, stockpiling for war, which is why so many of us are hitting the roof over this. CCP, this is a bad idea, pay attention to those who actually do the damn nullsec mining. Those who hug highsec will always whine about nullsec goodies.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#555 - 2017-02-28 20:27:24 UTC  |  Edited by: jizzah
Cade Windstalker wrote:

jizzah wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet.


Personally I agree, but not at the expense of the mineral market as a whole. We're still looking at a ship that's going to mine multiple times more per character than the next ship down when that ship is fully boosted by the ship we're discussing. The change from T1 mining barges to T2 isn't close to that large of a jump. How is a 3x increase in mining potential per ship not enough to make this the king of the mining line?


I believe the orca mines 1.5 times a fully maxed exhumer. That's almost comparable boosts, a pretty decent amount of yield and all in the relative safety of highsec.


Cade Windstalker wrote:


If the Rorqual is the only thing anyone should be mining in if they can use it then that's not just being a good ship, that's clearly a broken risk/reward tradeoff. That would be like if Capitals suddenly became the only thing anyone should bring to a fight because you no longer need sub-caps. The last time that came close to happening people raged until CCP fixed it.


This is where you really lose me. The vast majority of ore mined in null comes from sites. In order to get a new site to spawn, the old site needs to be cleared-ergo, the mercoxit has to be mined too. Therefore 'rorquals only' is a bit of a blinkered statement.

I can think of 2 different means of dealing with a bloom in an item. The first way is by creating a sink of sorts. I believe someone mentioned and was (pretty unfairly) shot down ammo drops from npc's. Release some faction ammo BPCs that drop from spawns, make the mineral cost of producing said ammo the means of equalising the market surplus.

A much better way of 'balancing' an irregularity in supply would be to tweak the spawn rates of the asteroids. Look at market, see there's too much of one mineral and not enough of another, adjust the anom spawn, see how the market adjusts. Then tweak again accordingly. As I said before the anom needs to be fully mined before another will spawn, so cherry-picking the best roids, then leaving it isn't an option. Baby steps.

With either example, miners are happy as they're still seeing a decent return for their investment, industry is happy as the minerals are available without a surplus of one and not enough of another, so production of ships continues unabashed and I'm happy due to the increase of capsuleers in game, waiting to die. The only thing I can say with any real certainty is if the mining nerf goes ahead, more than a few accounts will go back into hibernation until such a time as the wheel turns full circle and miners get noticed again.

In any case, it will be a real shame to see this revitalised eve return to pre-ascension numbers.

JonasML wrote:
Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven?

\o

As for the rest of you post, I agree. But for the sake of the children and squeamish here, I'm curbing both my temper and pottymouth. Toma will be so proud...
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#556 - 2017-02-28 20:48:32 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Tangent: It's interesting to speculate about why CCP thought the rorqual numbers were reasonable in the first place. Perhaps they expected a spike in mineral demand from alpha clones, who buy/lose ships but have pathetic mining abilities? Or maybe they made predictions based on miners switching from hulks to rorquals, without (sufficiently) factoring in players who had never mined switching into the profession and away from other income streams?

There were posts (like mine Big smile) predicting rorquals would be multiboxed to death within minutes of the changes being announced in October, and I'm sure they saw that coming themselves, but for some reason they underestimated the total economic disruption.



Yes, but they could fix the multiboxing potential for the Rorqual by turning the Excavators into Fighters. That lowers the multiboxing potential for the ship by making it require more input and more attention.

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

Circumstantial Evidence
#557 - 2017-02-28 21:30:10 UTC
JonasML wrote:
Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven?
Both of these ships were affected by Tier-i-cide changes; CCP increased mineral requirements to build all former tier 1 and 2 ships in the Odyssey expansion of 2013
Gemma Skord
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#558 - 2017-02-28 23:03:06 UTC
I like the nerf. For newer players the super strong Rorqual is bad. It makes all other mining ships obsolete. Getting into a Rorqual takes for ever when you have to train 10,000 basic skills first.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#559 - 2017-03-01 01:35:28 UTC
What needs adding to the industrial core and panic modual is on the network sensor array

EW Capacitor Need Bonus 9,999,900 %

this would fix the panic modual without this stupid must have an asteroid to target milarky...
Strange Shadow
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#560 - 2017-03-01 03:25:06 UTC
A bit of lore opportunity wasted here.

PANIC module should not just require asteroid lock, it should also consume said asteroid to power itself.
Just destroy the asteroid you've found with that procedure of yours, doesn't matter how, simple *poof* is enough.
Amount and type of ore in asteroid isn't important, 1 veldspar is enough.

What will this accomplish? Suddenly, asteroid lock is not just abstract requirement, but make sense - PANIC needs a lot of energy, and now you must point it to energy's source.
And seriously who will care about some roid disappearing at the desperate times of PANIC activation.