These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rorqual - I missed the fanfest stream.

First post First post
Author
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#181 - 2014-07-21 18:25:55 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
If the ship is effectively invulnerable while sieging then people will siege it in belts.

no they wont. Because unless it has reinforce mechincs like a station, then its going to die when it runs out of fuel or when it comes out of invulnerability.

Even if you gave it invulnerability it would be too much. It becomes this power struggle between making a rorqual invulnerable enough to use, then people bring more things, then it gets buffed, even more things come, and goes on and on.

Simply put, there is no sweet spot where the rorqual is strong enough to risk, but not too OP that it can never be killed.

Axure is right. indy core needs to die.


Well, you're commenting on my principle without reading my idea, which contains a get out of jail free card. The idea is here. I've posted it in this thread and others like 50 freaking times. It includes 30 seconds of invulnerability after siege ends at which point the Rorq can cyno out, just like an undocking jump freighter.

So tired of people shooting down what they haven't read.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#182 - 2014-07-21 20:03:57 UTC
You seemed to miss the part where there is no mechanic that is both fair and allows for more safety. Similar to other discussions on this, making the rorqual either invulnerable or insanely tough is both unfair to the attackers who came plenty prepared and too powerful as it makes the ship perfectly safe. No other ship does this, only stations have this ability, and it has been acknowledged that this may one day be removed. If you tried applying this idea to any other ship it would be silly. You don't see carrier and dread pilots asking for an invulnerability mode for those long grinds.

An analogy for this would be: I may be chained to the wall in the basement, but only if the chain was longer then I would be ok.

The simplest and best idea would be to scale down, not up. Remove the industrial core (bake all related bonuses and abilities into hull) and go from there. Almost all other changes would be related to the ships effectiveness at its role rather than trying to justify using it in other-than-perfect conditions.
Zhul Chembull
Universalis Imperium
The Bastion
#183 - 2014-07-21 20:38:11 UTC
Rowells wrote:
You seemed to miss the part where there is no mechanic that is both fair and allows for more safety. Similar to other discussions on this, making the rorqual either invulnerable or insanely tough is both unfair to the attackers who came plenty prepared and too powerful as it makes the ship perfectly safe. No other ship does this, only stations have this ability, and it has been acknowledged that this may one day be removed. If you tried applying this idea to any other ship it would be silly. You don't see carrier and dread pilots asking for an invulnerability mode for those long grinds.

An analogy for this would be: I may be chained to the wall in the basement, but only if the chain was longer then I would be ok.

The simplest and best idea would be to scale down, not up. Remove the industrial core (bake all related bonuses and abilities into hull) and go from there. Almost all other changes would be related to the ships effectiveness at its role rather than trying to justify using it in other-than-perfect conditions.



Unfair to attackers, you have to be joking right ? When you are jumped by 7 supers and a few titans tell me about fair. Industrialist by their very nature are independent thinkers that usually have their own mining operation, usually their own small fleet. There is no fair or unfair. By its very nature eve is unfair, as is real life. Deviant behavior and number stacking is the norm. if I ever get attacked by a single ship, I know for sure there are plenty in range for that player to scream to. Its human nature, to be a coward.

Now that we dealt with the fairness issue, let us talk about what makes sense. The rorqual was set up to bring a mining fleet to null to mine. so lets make it that way, or remove the description. Also removal of the industrial core also means that a lot of us spent some time to train up skills for nothing, not something I think is fair.

What makes sense is give it industrial strip miners, slight combat bonuses for ships in belt and make it invul to EW. Its not overpowered, cant be abused and gives it a legitimate reason to take it out. This whole crazy crap ive been reading about shields, POS ectr, well its laughable. Just give it those features and all is well. If the industrial core is activated, give it a 50 percent bonus on capital strip miners. It is an easy fix, easy code and give it a legitimate place. If they cant do that, leave as is. Im so use to smashing ore in it, I cant imagine doing it in a POS anyhow.
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#184 - 2014-07-21 21:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Paynus Maiassus
Zhul Chembull wrote:
The rorqual was set up to bring a mining fleet to null to mine. so lets make it that way, or remove the description. Also removal of the industrial core also means that a lot of us spent some time to train up skills for nothing, not something I think is fair.


Actually, if the goal is to make the Rorqual a ship that can function in null then ideas about removing the siege would work. This would create a Rorqual that can do its job until a neut shows up in local at which point the Rorq docks up. Therefore, the industrialist need only find a system with a station that is not likely to have many neuts come through or near by. However, my standard of success for the Rorqual is a ship that can do its thing in low sec and NPC null where neuts are always going to be nearby or in the system.

Removing the siege mode would make the Rorq suitable for operating in systems of deep blue null, e.g. far out rental areas or the Goonswarm systems. But to make the Rorqual beneficial to independent groups who are often forced to content themselves with low sec and NPC null, it actually needs the ability to keep functioning with danger truly present. That's what my idea is designed to enable.

And to the other poster above who talks about no other ship having invulnerability, I would like to point out that jump freighters are practically invulnerable if they merely undock and jump to a cyno at zero on their destination. If you don't fly a JF through high sec or misplace a cyno, it is basically unkillable on account of undock and dock mechanics which were implemented because without them capital movements would be effectively impossible through huge quantities of space. There is only one word to describe the mechanics that make the use of JFs in Eve possible: invulnerability. My proposal would basically make the Rorqual unkillable at the level of a jump freighter. Rorqs could still be killed on account of sloppy movement and poor implementation of the siege. But it should be given a measure of invulnerability required for the conduct of its function, just like the JF.

Right now the Rorqual has a mechanic that gives it the required level of invulnerability that it needs to do its job. It's called a POS. However, this is obviously not desirable as the Rorq's tractor, scanning, shield rep, and drone abilities are not used, the Rorq's ore bay does not alleviate hauling concerns and tip the miner toward the Retriever or Mackinaw when they should have the ability to select Hulks or Skiffs depending on situations, and come Crius its compression ability loses a measure of value with POS operations. The stated goal is to make the ship usable in belts. Well, the only way to do that is to give it the mechanic that is has, the POS, without having to have a POS. This would make the Rorq useful in low sec, NPC null, and in stationless systems.

And I would like to reiterate to all those who think the Rorqual will be fixed if the a siege is removed, that this will only make the Rorqual usable in deep blue null. Not in low. Not in NPC null.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#185 - 2014-07-21 22:37:36 UTC
Perhaps the Rorqual is just a dumb ship? CCP have changed the game around it and I don't think the concept really works any more. I haven't heard any idea here that's compelling and some are just silly.

To define a role and equipment for such a ship you first have to define the need and apart from handing out system-wide bonuses from the safety of a POS there isn't one. Well, if that's all it's doing then just officially make it that. There's really no need to add layers of complexity to such a thing and contrive some game-play that's clearly nonsense around it. You don't really do that with other ships.

Sometimes less is more.
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#186 - 2014-07-21 22:57:46 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
Perhaps the Rorqual is just a dumb ship? CCP have changed the game around it and I don't think the concept really works any more. I haven't heard any idea here that's compelling and some are just silly.

To define a role and equipment for such a ship you first have to define the need and apart from handing out system-wide bonuses from the safety of a POS there isn't one. Well, if that's all it's doing then just officially make it that. There's really no need to add layers of complexity to such a thing and contrive some game-play that's clearly nonsense around it. You don't really do that with other ships.

Sometimes less is more.


Can't disagree with you more.

Need: ice systems in high sec are overcrowded. In null they are tightly controlled by the sov owners and are often taxed through rent or other means to be barely profitable and/or have a high barrier of entry. There are scores of ice systems in low sec and NPC null that sit empty. Many of them are in systems with no stations. This is sad and can completely be fixed by a Rorqual that actually works.

Need: currently unless you are in deep blue null mining is a pain in the butt. Even sov alliances, take for example Get Off My Lawn in Delve where NPC null and low sec enemies are always near by make the space hard to exploit in a lot of ways. This isn't a small independent group. This is a significant CFC alliance we're talking about here. They could SO use a Rorqual to give miners more flexibility to keep mining in more various conditions more of the time.

The major push lately is to strengthen null sec industry, which suffers huge challenges, even after Crius, and a large part of this is the concept of collecting resources in null to build in null to sell in null. They've been adding minerals to null sec asteroids in order to reach this goal. But it's so hard to mine in so many areas of null.

The Rorqual is absolutely key to making industry strong in all areas of space other than high sec. For goodness sake this issue is important. That's why I am here constantly posting on this. It's my total soap box. It's not just a casual balance pass on one ship. It's a significant component to how resource collection in New Eden works. The Rorq has a valuable function even now, being a good bonus ship that can cyno around and operate from a POS. It's not a worthless ship even today. I use mine all the time for boosting and hauling. However, with the right changes it can completely change and improve the face of resource collection outside of high sec. It could be one of the most important balance passes of the year, really. For goodness sake let's not throw up our hands and say the balances are too much trouble let's just delete the ship. TOTAL FAIL. It's a totally critical ship.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#187 - 2014-07-22 00:04:31 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Zhul Chembull wrote:
The rorqual was set up to bring a mining fleet to null to mine. so lets make it that way, or remove the description. Also removal of the industrial core also means that a lot of us spent some time to train up skills for nothing, not something I think is fair.


Actually, if the goal is to make the Rorqual a ship that can function in null then ideas about removing the siege would work. This would create a Rorqual that can do its job until a neut shows up in local at which point the Rorq docks up. Therefore, the industrialist need only find a system with a station that is not likely to have many neuts come through or near by. However, my standard of success for the Rorqual is a ship that can do its thing in low sec and NPC null where neuts are always going to be nearby or in the system.

Removing the siege mode would make the Rorq suitable for operating in systems of deep blue null, e.g. far out rental areas or the Goonswarm systems. But to make the Rorqual beneficial to independent groups who are often forced to content themselves with low sec and NPC null, it actually needs the ability to keep functioning with danger truly present. That's what my idea is designed to enable.

And to the other poster above who talks about no other ship having invulnerability, I would like to point out that jump freighters are practically invulnerable if they merely undock and jump to a cyno at zero on their destination. If you don't fly a JF through high sec or misplace a cyno, it is basically unkillable on account of undock and dock mechanics which were implemented because without them capital movements would be effectively impossible through huge quantities of space. There is only one word to describe the mechanics that make the use of JFs in Eve possible: invulnerability. My proposal would basically make the Rorqual unkillable at the level of a jump freighter. Rorqs could still be killed on account of sloppy movement and poor implementation of the siege. But it should be given a measure of invulnerability required for the conduct of its function, just like the JF.

Right now the Rorqual has a mechanic that gives it the required level of invulnerability that it needs to do its job. It's called a POS. However, this is obviously not desirable as the Rorq's tractor, scanning, shield rep, and drone abilities are not used, the Rorq's ore bay does not alleviate hauling concerns and tip the miner toward the Retriever or Mackinaw when they should have the ability to select Hulks or Skiffs depending on situations, and come Crius its compression ability loses a measure of value with POS operations. The stated goal is to make the ship usable in belts. Well, the only way to do that is to give it the mechanic that is has, the POS, without having to have a POS. This would make the Rorq useful in low sec, NPC null, and in stationless systems.

And I would like to reiterate to all those who think the Rorqual will be fixed if the a siege is removed, that this will only make the Rorqual usable in deep blue null. Not in low. Not in NPC null.
you are confusing station invulnerability with ship invulnerability. Every ship has access to station invulnerability. However if you take that jump freighter anywhere other than the station it's extremely vulnerable. Your proposal would allow you to take a rorqual anywhere and have invulnerability.

And like I said before, CCP wants to take away station invulnerability by allowing you to blow them up.
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#188 - 2014-07-22 01:22:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Paynus Maiassus
Rowells wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Zhul Chembull wrote:
The rorqual was set up to bring a mining fleet to null to mine. so lets make it that way, or remove the description. Also removal of the industrial core also means that a lot of us spent some time to train up skills for nothing, not something I think is fair.


Actually, if the goal is to make the Rorqual a ship that can function in null then ideas about removing the siege would work. This would create a Rorqual that can do its job until a neut shows up in local at which point the Rorq docks up. Therefore, the industrialist need only find a system with a station that is not likely to have many neuts come through or near by. However, my standard of success for the Rorqual is a ship that can do its thing in low sec and NPC null where neuts are always going to be nearby or in the system.

Removing the siege mode would make the Rorq suitable for operating in systems of deep blue null, e.g. far out rental areas or the Goonswarm systems. But to make the Rorqual beneficial to independent groups who are often forced to content themselves with low sec and NPC null, it actually needs the ability to keep functioning with danger truly present. That's what my idea is designed to enable.

And to the other poster above who talks about no other ship having invulnerability, I would like to point out that jump freighters are practically invulnerable if they merely undock and jump to a cyno at zero on their destination. If you don't fly a JF through high sec or misplace a cyno, it is basically unkillable on account of undock and dock mechanics which were implemented because without them capital movements would be effectively impossible through huge quantities of space. There is only one word to describe the mechanics that make the use of JFs in Eve possible: invulnerability. My proposal would basically make the Rorqual unkillable at the level of a jump freighter. Rorqs could still be killed on account of sloppy movement and poor implementation of the siege. But it should be given a measure of invulnerability required for the conduct of its function, just like the JF.

Right now the Rorqual has a mechanic that gives it the required level of invulnerability that it needs to do its job. It's called a POS. However, this is obviously not desirable as the Rorq's tractor, scanning, shield rep, and drone abilities are not used, the Rorq's ore bay does not alleviate hauling concerns and tip the miner toward the Retriever or Mackinaw when they should have the ability to select Hulks or Skiffs depending on situations, and come Crius its compression ability loses a measure of value with POS operations. The stated goal is to make the ship usable in belts. Well, the only way to do that is to give it the mechanic that is has, the POS, without having to have a POS. This would make the Rorq useful in low sec, NPC null, and in stationless systems.

And I would like to reiterate to all those who think the Rorqual will be fixed if the a siege is removed, that this will only make the Rorqual usable in deep blue null. Not in low. Not in NPC null.
you are confusing station invulnerability with ship invulnerability. Every ship has access to station invulnerability. However if you take that jump freighter anywhere other than the station it's extremely vulnerable. Your proposal would allow you to take a rorqual anywhere and have invulnerability.

And like I said before, CCP wants to take away station invulnerability by allowing you to blow them up.


OK first, again we have someone commenting on what I am saying without reading my idea. I linked it countless times in this thread. You can scroll up. When you read it you will see that my idea proposes that the Rorq can only siege in an asteroid belt, and the invulnerability is linked to sieging.

Second, I am not talking about station invulnerability. I am talking about the fact that when any ship undocks it gets 30 seconds of invulnerability unless it activates modules or changes direction, and that this mechanic allows jump freighters to perform their function with effective invulnerability.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#189 - 2014-07-22 02:55:03 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Zhul Chembull wrote:
The rorqual was set up to bring a mining fleet to null to mine. so lets make it that way, or remove the description. Also removal of the industrial core also means that a lot of us spent some time to train up skills for nothing, not something I think is fair.


Actually, if the goal is to make the Rorqual a ship that can function in null then ideas about removing the siege would work. This would create a Rorqual that can do its job until a neut shows up in local at which point the Rorq docks up. Therefore, the industrialist need only find a system with a station that is not likely to have many neuts come through or near by. However, my standard of success for the Rorqual is a ship that can do its thing in low sec and NPC null where neuts are always going to be nearby or in the system.

Removing the siege mode would make the Rorq suitable for operating in systems of deep blue null, e.g. far out rental areas or the Goonswarm systems. But to make the Rorqual beneficial to independent groups who are often forced to content themselves with low sec and NPC null, it actually needs the ability to keep functioning with danger truly present. That's what my idea is designed to enable.

And to the other poster above who talks about no other ship having invulnerability, I would like to point out that jump freighters are practically invulnerable if they merely undock and jump to a cyno at zero on their destination. If you don't fly a JF through high sec or misplace a cyno, it is basically unkillable on account of undock and dock mechanics which were implemented because without them capital movements would be effectively impossible through huge quantities of space. There is only one word to describe the mechanics that make the use of JFs in Eve possible: invulnerability. My proposal would basically make the Rorqual unkillable at the level of a jump freighter. Rorqs could still be killed on account of sloppy movement and poor implementation of the siege. But it should be given a measure of invulnerability required for the conduct of its function, just like the JF.

Right now the Rorqual has a mechanic that gives it the required level of invulnerability that it needs to do its job. It's called a POS. However, this is obviously not desirable as the Rorq's tractor, scanning, shield rep, and drone abilities are not used, the Rorq's ore bay does not alleviate hauling concerns and tip the miner toward the Retriever or Mackinaw when they should have the ability to select Hulks or Skiffs depending on situations, and come Crius its compression ability loses a measure of value with POS operations. The stated goal is to make the ship usable in belts. Well, the only way to do that is to give it the mechanic that is has, the POS, without having to have a POS. This would make the Rorq useful in low sec, NPC null, and in stationless systems.

And I would like to reiterate to all those who think the Rorqual will be fixed if the a siege is removed, that this will only make the Rorqual usable in deep blue null. Not in low. Not in NPC null.
you are confusing station invulnerability with ship invulnerability. Every ship has access to station invulnerability. However if you take that jump freighter anywhere other than the station it's extremely vulnerable. Your proposal would allow you to take a rorqual anywhere and have invulnerability.

And like I said before, CCP wants to take away station invulnerability by allowing you to blow them up.


OK first, again we have someone commenting on what I am saying without reading my idea. I linked it countless times in this thread. You can scroll up. When you read it you will see that my idea proposes that the Rorq can only siege in an asteroid belt, and the invulnerability is linked to sieging.

Second, I am not talking about station invulnerability. I am talking about the fact that when any ship undocks it gets 30 seconds of invulnerability unless it activates modules or changes direction, and that this mechanic allows jump freighters to perform their function with effective invulnerability.

You still seem to be missing the point. A JF needs an entire station to be invulnerable when it undocks. You're proposal allows a rorqual to take that invulnerability to any belt in the system. Why should it be allowed to do that? And on top if that you're proposal allows it to operate drones and modules while invulnerable. What other ship can dictate its invulnerability whenever it wants?

And before you try to throw the station invulnerability back at me remember that every ship including the rorqual is capable if the same thing. Even bridged sub caps can do this. That mechanic was not intended to be used as a gameplay tool but rather as something to give the person loading grid a breather. Not all computers can instantly load grid. This is why some JF will bounce to far off station and get killed. And you want to give this ability to a ship via a module and then give it more than that. This is just another way of putting reinforce into a ship, just like the POS bubble ideas. Because apparently the only way to keep a capital safe is to make it invulnerable. Which is wrong.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#190 - 2014-07-22 08:30:18 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:


Can't disagree with you more.

Need: ice systems in high sec are overcrowded. In null they are tightly controlled by the sov owners and are often taxed through rent or other means to be barely profitable and/or have a high barrier of entry. There are scores of ice systems in low sec and NPC null that sit empty. Many of them are in systems with no stations. This is sad and can completely be fixed by a Rorqual that actually works.



I don't believe you're ninja mining with a Rorq, sieging it, so you must have a POS. If it's not your POS or you don't have rights to use the compression array, then yes I could see the point of making the Rorqual do it, but to me this isn't a thing for the Rorqual, it's a problem with the way CCP have implemented POS and roles. If they fix those then that's part of the deal isn't it. Same with clone vat bay. I don't think I've ever used one in my Rorq and I've had one for years.

Again it needs a clearly defined role and if there are multiple possible roles, we need different ships for the different roles. Trying to squeeze all possible roles into the same ship is part of the problem.
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2014-07-22 16:04:05 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
the buffs that would make it worth putting a rorqual in a belt would need to be insane

I agree. if they don't add much bonus you aren't really gaining anything but risk bring that monstrosity into a belt.



Which I think, as others have suggested, is the whole point.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.

Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#192 - 2014-07-22 16:15:45 UTC
Arronicus wrote:

However, I'd never leave it just sitting there, boosting in belt or running tractor beams or any of the silliness CCP thinks they can convince people to do. They'd have to make some ridiculous changes if they want people to sit in belt in a rorqual, with the core deployed.


They would have to increase the profitability of low/null sec mining by a ludicrous amount such that it would be worth it to have a combat escort. That isn't gonna happen, ever.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#193 - 2014-07-22 16:21:59 UTC
Shizuken wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

However, I'd never leave it just sitting there, boosting in belt or running tractor beams or any of the silliness CCP thinks they can convince people to do. They'd have to make some ridiculous changes if they want people to sit in belt in a rorqual, with the core deployed.


They would have to increase the profitability of low/null sec mining by a ludicrous amount such that it would be worth it to have a combat escort. That isn't gonna happen, ever.



CCP is just trying their best to turn this into a Plex to win game, simple as that, they're bleeding new subs and think they can force others into putting everything they own on the line.. for the sake of "fun" or "future of the game" .. there is no future with these IGNORANT idea's.

I find it funny though, how they even come up with this idea when in fact alliances out right BAN anyone who ever thinks of placing a rorqual in a belt.. they're just providing more reasons to not play this game ever again.

so they can continue playing stupid games with folks assets its actually a quick and easy spreadsheet formula

Players will leave and give money to another company..

#dealwithit.

I have never seen this level of detachment from a staff before in my entire life.

Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2014-07-22 16:53:07 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:


I have never seen this level of detachment from a staff before in my entire life.



It's not a question of CCP being detached. It's a question of who CCP chooses to be attached to.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.

Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#195 - 2014-07-22 17:26:05 UTC
And we get this kind of garbage commentary on the day of the Crius release, a totally awesome and innovative approach to industry. I could complain that CCP as a company with hundreds of employees and essentially one game to manage doesn't do enough fast enough. However, when you look at the history of Eve's development, consisting of an initial seven years of incredible expansion from adding wormholes to super caps to all kinds of sov mechanics, followed by three years of refinement, fixes, and balances which have been in just about every case successful when looked at from a general sense and proper perspective, I just can't believe the CCP bashing that invariably turns up. Yeah, maybe it shouldn't have taken so long for the game to get this good, and sure there's still a long way to go, but this has ended up being a damned fine game. Part of the bleeding of subscriptions is simply because in general people don't play MMOs for decades on end and Eve is intentionally supposed to be a complex game with unique parameters that just doesn't fit with the average MMO subscriber's worldview.

Crius is an example of an awesome update that has massively improved industry. If only most Eve players weren't too stupid to realize that. Now one thing that Crius has not paid attention to other than some mineral rebalancing in null is the greater issue of resource collection in null sec and low sec. Kronos gave us incredible improvements to DSTs that greatly benefit PI and moon mining, but the process of mining is largely the purview of the Rorqual, which is really more than just a ship balance but an opportuntity to address low security mining and resource collection in general. So yes, the update to the Rorqual is going to have to be massive and radical in order to address these issues. The stated goals of bringing the Rorqual into belts and giving it the ability to protect itself and its fleets while utilizing its bonuses are not CCP being detached. They are CCP knowing exactly what needs to be done.

The problem, of course, are the players. The players really don't want the Rorq to be updated. If I actually propose the idea of making the Rorq invulnerable in belts while sieged, a million posters come on and say that will make the Rorqual OP and break the game (total rubbish, but they actually say that crap). Then a bunch of other posters come on and say that any change they see as reasonable and that won't make the Rorq OP will fail to reach the stated objectives. The two opposing parties then hold hands and say its all CCP's fault. My recommendation to you all is to please quit the game. Then CCP won't listen to you or try to keep you but rather they'll come up with a null sec mining schema that actually works and new players will join and stay.

I know concurrent logins are down, it's likely that subscriptions are down, and its possible that revenue is down, but really the answer is that Eve was always intended to be a complex game for intelligent players and we just need to accept the loss of a bunch of stupid players so that the game can really grow. The players are Eve's problem, not CCP.

A Rorq that can siege and go invulnerable in a belt will meet every stated goal for the Rorq and open null sec and low sec mining to huge swaths of the player base who would never consider such a thing. It would also contribute mightily to the general philosophy of fostering resource collection in dangerous space, industry in dangerous space, and product sales in dangerous space. It will be consistent with the current wave of expanding and improving industry. It will not unbalance the Rorq or the game as a blow to ganks in asteroid belts won't diminish from rewarding content at all.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#196 - 2014-07-22 17:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Victoria Sin
Paynus Maiassus wrote:

The problem, of course, are the players.


I think you need a little more self-awareness. Nobody likes your idea, therefore "the players are the problem"? Also I'm not sure you've ever flown a Rorq or been in a belt in low or null. If you had you'd absolutely hate the idea of taking an industrial capital ship into one.
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
#197 - 2014-07-22 17:54:51 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
Paynus Maiassus wrote:

The problem, of course, are the players.


I think you need a little more self-awareness. Nobody likes your idea, therefore "the players are the problem"? Also I'm not sure you've ever flown a Rorq or been in a belt in low or null. If you had you'd absolutely hate the idea of taking an industrial capital ship into one.


Child, I rent in deep, deep null. NOBODY comes to where I live. I therefore do occasionally take my Rorq into the belt, and I have sieged it there. I am not speaking for myself. I really don't need a Rorq update to take mine into a belt. But I've been an industrialist for years in high and low, as well as served in sov alliances in areas that are quite hot and active with PvPers, and it's people in these situations that I am advocating for.

And like any typical Eve idiot, I don't agree with you (and your latest fantasy about just deleting the Rorq), so you assume I've never flown one. This is the type of lunacy that I am talking about.

In general, I wouldn't take a Rorq into a belt in 99.9% of situations, pretty much like any other industrialist. Unlike most Eve players, I actually want the Rorq to be fixed, though.

I wouldn't say nobody likes my idea. A version of it was considered (the POS bubble) in previous rounds of Rorqual talks, and it was apparently axed primarily for technical reasons. The only people who don't like the idea or ideas similar to it are those who basically want the Rorq to function as a source of capital ship kill mails and those who prefer ideas that won't actually work. If you're among those two groups (actually deleting the Rorq deserves a category all on its own), I'm sorry. Not my fault. It makes you irrelevant, though.
Clara Trevlyn
Carry on Capsuleering
#198 - 2014-07-22 18:14:13 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
Child, I rent in deep, deep null.

Victoria made a valid point, and it is shared amongst many Rorqual pilots. The CCP guys are not industry experts, sure they recognise the failings of the Rorqual and perhaps understandably believe that putting it into a belt will solve everything.

People are allowed to disagree with that, and therefore with you.

I appreciate your frustration that not everyone agrees your idea is fantastic but the silly name calling doesn't help your cause.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#199 - 2014-07-22 18:34:11 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

However, I'd never leave it just sitting there, boosting in belt or running tractor beams or any of the silliness CCP thinks they can convince people to do. They'd have to make some ridiculous changes if they want people to sit in belt in a rorqual, with the core deployed.


They would have to increase the profitability of low/null sec mining by a ludicrous amount such that it would be worth it to have a combat escort. That isn't gonna happen, ever.



CCP is just trying their best to turn this into a Plex to win game, simple as that, they're bleeding new subs and think they can force others into putting everything they own on the line.. for the sake of "fun" or "future of the game" .. there is no future with these IGNORANT idea's.

I find it funny though, how they even come up with this idea when in fact alliances out right BAN anyone who ever thinks of placing a rorqual in a belt.. they're just providing more reasons to not play this game ever again.

so they can continue playing stupid games with folks assets its actually a quick and easy spreadsheet formula

Players will leave and give money to another company..

#dealwithit.

I have never seen this level of detachment from a staff before in my entire life.


someone doesnt know how PLEX market works.
Someone makes blanket statement s about things they dont know.

...someone has been smoking tinfoil
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#200 - 2014-07-22 19:15:40 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
Arronicus wrote:

However, I'd never leave it just sitting there, boosting in belt or running tractor beams or any of the silliness CCP thinks they can convince people to do. They'd have to make some ridiculous changes if they want people to sit in belt in a rorqual, with the core deployed.


They would have to increase the profitability of low/null sec mining by a ludicrous amount such that it would be worth it to have a combat escort. That isn't gonna happen, ever.



CCP is just trying their best to turn this into a Plex to win game, simple as that, they're bleeding new subs and think they can force others into putting everything they own on the line.. for the sake of "fun" or "future of the game" .. there is no future with these IGNORANT idea's.

I find it funny though, how they even come up with this idea when in fact alliances out right BAN anyone who ever thinks of placing a rorqual in a belt.. they're just providing more reasons to not play this game ever again.

so they can continue playing stupid games with folks assets its actually a quick and easy spreadsheet formula

Players will leave and give money to another company..

#dealwithit.

I have never seen this level of detachment from a staff before in my entire life.


someone doesnt know how PLEX market works.
Someone makes blanket statement s about things they dont know.

...someone has been smoking tinfoil




I know this one fact..

ccp tries to force us into belts with a darn capital and watch how all that time get wasted on developing a bannable offense when it comes to alliance rules..

and im not speaking about those uber power blocs..

you get kicked out if you're stupid enough to even try to place that thing in a belt. which obviously ccp is detached from even thinking about.