Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

ITT butmadd ppl about goons are too idiotic to realize when a change is horrible for the game. You'll burn with the house if it allows you to be smug, won't you?

It's almost like ccp is pretty bad at game design. If only there was someone we could blame for this.

I bet fozzie had his room painted like the Sistine Chapel. Him clad in nothing, reaching to his creator, Greyscale. In the background actually decent game developers sit puzzled at this most (in)competent of genealogies.

The change that was bad for the game was the rorq rework.

Yay and Fozzie screws null sec mining into the ground.

5 hour respawn on colossal is ridiculous and then you reduce the capability of the drones again.

Got into a Rorqual after the first nerf, and you are nerfing them again.

Well, at least I don't need to give you the £30 I was going to spend on PLEX to train up another Rorqual pilot.

CCP, saving you money ...

To be fair listening to 99% of eve's playerbase is probably a terrible idea.

Also kick karmafleet.

*cough Delve, This change isn't directed towards GSF at all, we are fair and balanced and don't play favorites. so basically don't find a way to profit in the game while CCP is looking for actual cash revenue, they need ppl to spend money on PLEX instead of using ISK. Am I wrong?

Very good changes, Fozzie. Keep up the good work.

Alright, so- I'll just reply with actual cogent arguments because there is a great base of players out there looking to laugh and point at people when a change is made they don't like or just because.

1. You want to reduce the movement speed of drones, yet again. I'm not seeing why. If they are on the far side of a large asteroid as it is and let's say.. oh.. a dreadnaught spawns. One of them very well will get popped returning even if you are on your game. Now, it's an even bigger chance to just have a 1 billion isk bill.. because you think it's funny?

1a. So, when the rorquals will be in belt.. which will now be rarer, you want to allow an even larger chance for command destroyers to bumble in and cause a 1 billion dollar hit or better. Got it. 60m > 5b drones. Makes sense.

1b. With the lack of larger belts, you will be asking rorquals to split up and go mine normal belts. Laughable, but there it is. So, they will burn siege cycles on an asteroid and have time to kill.. for every asteroid. Meaning the even slower drones will now get to travel even further? So, you want the rorqual to be a 10b target that generates 20m ticks? Cool.

2. You want to reduce the availability of the larger belts, because less larger belts means less ore? Right? You argue that it's only going to affect the busy systems..

Perhaps you meant to say, it's only going to affect the systems where rorquals mine. Because that's what you said. So, a colossal belt.. 5 hours eh? So if say the average player gets on for 2-3 hours a night, he has a real strong chance of not seeing that belt... ever if the die hards are on all die perma mining it when it pops?

Good decision there. Definitely cater to the micro 1 % which you are.. wait for it.. targetting with this nerf.

Are you planning to make sanctums 4 hour respawns for super capitals? What about making all combat sites have 4 hour respawns. Wouldn't that be WONDERFUL if a system was ratted out and scanned down in 1 hour and then everyone had to migrate for 4 hours.. just think of it. ALL of a region would be devoid of players for an hour or two every few hours. I mean.. let's get that server login number down as low as possible.. right?

You suggest that these rorqual fleets move about, right? So.. the first reason that they cluster together is to be easier to protect, because you are creating a 10 billion dollar stationary target. So, they cluster together.

2a. You said you would have to move to another system. Ok, right.. you want us to keep the ADM high enough in 5-6 systems for colossals.. but doing so without the ore from those large belts to make it happen. Are you planning to adjust ADM requirements? Are you planning to reduce fuel costs (by increasing supply from ice belts) to jump said rorquals because no one in their sane mind is gating them over and over.

3. Are you realistically hoping to put rorquals into normal belts where they produce the same isk per tick/hour as a carrier that costs 1/10th and can GTFO when trouble arrives?

3a. Are you planning to make them able to move when in siege, to compensate for asteroids not dying before siege cycles are over being forced into smaller belts?


Here is some real math from my observations. Given 10-15 rorquals in a system (probably 6-10 at any given time in delve and querious). Each system will be devoid of primary belts within 3 hours. That leaves a good empty void for a few hours. Unless you legit think a rorqual fleet is mining the small.. ha ha.

So, how about you go back to what you wanted to make a rorqual.

Mobile. No siege. No consumption. No beams. 1.5x the mining capacity of a hulk before boosts. 2b isk ship. That's what you are wanting..

..except you want it to be a stationary 10b isk ship with drones to lolsmash by 10m ships. Gud fights all around on that content.

Currently a max skilled rorqual can make between 80 and 150m an hour depending on what ore spawns in a belt and who you are splitting it with. A carrier can make between 90m and 150m an hour, depending on skills and the number of anoms available to split between. Your problem is that one person cannot scale with a carrier well, but you can scale with a rorqual. So you are going to make the 2-3b ship which is doing up to 150m an hour do double the max of the 10b stationary target.

I'm confused on how that is a good decision? I'm also confused on how having less people out in space mining is going to produce more content? I'm sure you have an answer, like.. they will be out in hulks again or haulers.. right? Seriously, what's the thought process there or was it a write off?

I'll be upfront in my personal value proposition. I'm one of those so called "whales" that funds the game. I've got no problem putting my money somewhere else when you are making such a bad judgement call. I'm just glad I saw this before I made 4-5 more accounts and paid the cash down for the first year on each.

I'll throw my cards on the table. If I log in for the evening and there are no colossal belts in the surrounding systems night after night after night because they were mined by my euro brethren.. then I won't have a reason to be playing because I enjoy the production side of the game more than the combat and you will be telling me that "spawn timer says no play for you" was a real and valid answer for your customer base. Actually, if there would be any night I logged on for a 3-4 hour period of time and I didn't get a crack at an enormous of colossal without relocating my fleet through cynos I'd be pissed enough to log into another game. Logging into another game is the beginning of not playing this one.

Be smart. Don't put time tables on anomalies. That does not make more people log on, increase content, or make the game more enjoyable.

we area going to found another way to make that isk again and you?