These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP Fozzie Commits Rorqual Genocide
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alex Pendaho
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#41 - 2016-09-15 04:03:39 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Minerva Arbosa wrote:
Sheeth Athonille wrote:
Minerva Arbosa wrote:
Just wait till mineral prices skyrocket, and the Gila goes from being 200m / hull to 600m / hull. Do you all honestly think ship prices aren't going to skyrocket due to mineral prices going up severly? I can't wait until all the minerals I am building up sky rocket in price up to the new normal of double or triple the price. You don't think it will happen then wait and see.


Judging by your apparent knowledge of industry and pirate hulls, I think I might skip on your assessment.

As for OP, I definitely agree that the most logical choice would be to simply remove the immobility. As was said, no other boosting ship has this handicap, so why should the rorq?


It's just a ship name as an example. If mineral prices skyrocket in price, then so do ship prices. Stop reading everything for face value and just get the concept.



If mineral prices were to skyrocket (exceedingly unlikely to happen due to this change, btw), more people will mine minerals, bringing the mineral price back in line.


Not exactly... Miners are special kind of people, they don't mind being bored out of their minds. If ore prices doubled, we wouldnt see double the people mining..
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#42 - 2016-09-15 07:51:00 UTC
JG Wentworth wrote:
Amarrchecko wrote:
Sure, that rorq WILL die eventually. But after insurance, especially in a quiet area of null (which there are a lot of) or in an alliance where a fleet will happily form for some content that might save the rorq sometimes, it won't take very many hours of operation for that rorq to more than pay for itself. Anything after that point is gravy, more isk made than if the pilot had been using a BC or orca for boosts and not lost his booster... but missed out on the advantages the rorq has.


I does not matter how quiet a nulsec region is when thera holes allow for the projection of overwhelming force to anywhere in the game. Once VOLTA (and friends) knows that you are sieging an roqual in x system, they will check that system whenever they get a hole in your region, (or nearby). I've seen them burn 25 jumps to tackle and kill ratting carriers (who are not immobilized for 5 minutes)

Once your system has several rorqual losses on zkillboard (especially in quiet regions where there are not very many targets), even roaming gangs will farm your rorquals. Also elite pvpers will put cloaky alts in your system and drop bombers on your rorqual.


If only there were some way of finding and eliminating these holes.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#43 - 2016-09-15 16:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Cemenotar
Malcanis wrote:
JG Wentworth wrote:
Amarrchecko wrote:
Sure, that rorq WILL die eventually. But after insurance, especially in a quiet area of null (which there are a lot of) or in an alliance where a fleet will happily form for some content that might save the rorq sometimes, it won't take very many hours of operation for that rorq to more than pay for itself. Anything after that point is gravy, more isk made than if the pilot had been using a BC or orca for boosts and not lost his booster... but missed out on the advantages the rorq has.


I does not matter how quiet a nulsec region is when thera holes allow for the projection of overwhelming force to anywhere in the game. Once VOLTA (and friends) knows that you are sieging an roqual in x system, they will check that system whenever they get a hole in your region, (or nearby). I've seen them burn 25 jumps to tackle and kill ratting carriers (who are not immobilized for 5 minutes)

Once your system has several rorqual losses on zkillboard (especially in quiet regions where there are not very many targets), even roaming gangs will farm your rorquals. Also elite pvpers will put cloaky alts in your system and drop bombers on your rorqual.


If only there were some way of finding and eliminating these holes.


when you mention this first thing that came to my mind qould be scannign wh down and jumping with heavy ship back and forth to overload it....

you risk being stuck on the inside though
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#44 - 2016-09-18 04:27:04 UTC
Alex Pendaho wrote:


Not exactly... Miners are special kind of people, they don't mind being bored out of their minds. If ore prices doubled, we wouldnt see double the people mining..


People picked up ice mining during the mining interdictions when the ice price skyrocketed.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#45 - 2016-09-25 06:17:46 UTC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cannot command ships also provide mining boost?

Sure probably not as awesome as a Roc but I would think going down to a cheaper cost hull would be less of an issue when full security is not available.
Arianne Kass
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2016-09-25 08:59:34 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cannot command ships also provide mining boost?

Sure probably not as awesome as a Roc but I would think going down to a cheaper cost hull would be less of an issue when full security is not available.


The normal command ships and strategic cruisers are not bonused for mining boosts, but there will be a new mining command ship for this very purpose. The dev blog on the new boosts gives some details, but mostly everyone is still waiting for another dev post containing the ship details.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2016-09-27 07:56:33 UTC
So apparently the Rorq will give a higher mining boost (+5%/level) than any other ship even while unseiged, or you can opt for an even greater bonus while seiged if you want to risk it. And it'll also be able to mine at whatever rate these alleged "Heavy Mining Drones" allow; presumably those drones will also not require seige mode.

So all you've got to do is align to POS/Citadel at 2/3 speed and keep an eye on local. Cap ships instawarp as well as anything else.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Raindeth
FACTION Inc.
Still Irrelevant
#48 - 2016-09-28 01:48:19 UTC
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#49 - 2016-09-28 16:54:43 UTC
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.



Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#50 - 2016-09-28 17:36:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.

Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

... unless the Industrial Core is active, which is the only reason an Orca wouldn't be boosting instead.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#51 - 2016-09-28 18:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.

Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

... unless the Industrial Core is active, which is the only reason an Orca wouldn't be boosting instead.


True today, but under the new model, the rorqual actually boosts more than the orca even while unsieged, so not necessarily true, then. Plus, those capital mining drones, and at least the potential to rescue a fleet.

For a given fleet of barges, over a given period of time, you would have to consider:

-The earning delta while rorqual boosted Vs. orca boosted.
-The expected frequency of loss of the booster, times the replacement cost .
-The expected frequency of loss of barges, times the replacement cost.
-Earning from cap mining drones against replacement cost of cap mining drones abandoned in panic-warps.

While the gap is certainly wider while fit, for the hulls alone:

Orca:
Price: 723M
Platinum cost: 220.3M
Platinum Payout: 734.4M

So the replacement cost of the hull is only about 209M, provided it blows up at least every 90 days.

Rorqual:
Price: 2.2B (cheapest I see right now)
Platinum cost: 665M
Platinum payout: 2.215B

So a replacement cost of about 650M, again, provided it pops at least every 90 days.


Again, while the difference in replacement cost will certainly go up with fittings, that's not a huge span to bridge, especially when you consider that the rorqual COULD potentially reduce the cost of lost hulls from the remainder of the fleet with its PANIC button. Save a single hulk and you've nearly made up the difference in the hull replacement.

I don't think it's outside the realm of reason at all to think that there are people who will fill in the remaining variables and decide that the rorqual works better for them.

Yeah, it obviously won't be the automatic best answer 100% of the time that it is right now, but that's generally considered a good thing in Eve.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Mai Hantaka
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2016-09-28 19:33:27 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:

True today, but under the new model, the rorqual actually boosts more than the orca even while unsieged, so not necessarily true, then. Plus, those capital mining drones, and at least the potential to rescue a fleet.

For a given fleet of barges, over a given period of time, you would have to consider:

-The earning delta while rorqual boosted Vs. orca boosted.
-The expected frequency of loss of the booster, times the replacement cost .
-The expected frequency of loss of barges, times the replacement cost.
-Earning from cap mining drones against replacement cost of cap mining drones abandoned in panic-warps.


Hardest to quantify is the loss in mining time due to your Rorqual attracting additional cloaky campers and roaming hotdroppers to your area.

Warping out is easy enough (I expect an increased demand in capital Higgs Anchor rigs so Rorquals can stay aligned), the most dangerous time is when warping back to the belt.

EVE Online: Ascension - if you like your bio you can keep your bio
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#53 - 2016-09-28 20:56:57 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.

Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

... unless the Industrial Core is active, which is the only reason an Orca wouldn't be boosting instead.


IIRC, the unseiged Rorq will still give better boosts (+5%/level) than the Orca (+4%/lvl). With the additional benefit of being able to do some mining in its own right via whatever output the "heavy mining drones" yield.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#54 - 2016-09-29 17:49:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.

Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

... unless the Industrial Core is active, which is the only reason an Orca wouldn't be boosting instead.


IIRC, the unseiged Rorq will still give better boosts (+5%/level) than the Orca (+4%/lvl). With the additional benefit of being able to do some mining in its own right via whatever output the "heavy mining drones" yield.



It's actually 5%/lvl Vs. 3%/lvl for the Orca, unless something has changed since the devblog.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#55 - 2016-09-29 23:59:21 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.

Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

... unless the Industrial Core is active, which is the only reason an Orca wouldn't be boosting instead.


True today, but under the new model, the rorqual actually boosts more than the orca even while unsieged, so not necessarily true, then. Plus, those capital mining drones, and at least the potential to rescue a fleet.

It is a 3% difference between an unsieged Rorqual and an Orca.

Even CCP Fozzie has said a Rorqual in a belt is silly, and the proposed changes do nothing to change that.
Andrea Cemenotar
Elena Minasse Operations
#56 - 2016-09-30 18:04:16 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Raindeth wrote:
Only way I see this possibly ok is if Rorquals get infinite point and bubble immunity.

Don't be ridiculous. An aligned Rorq can instantly warp, it's at no greater or even less risk than the mining barges.

... unless the Industrial Core is active, which is the only reason an Orca wouldn't be boosting instead.


True today, but under the new model, the rorqual actually boosts more than the orca even while unsieged, so not necessarily true, then. Plus, those capital mining drones, and at least the potential to rescue a fleet.

It is a 3% difference between an unsieged Rorqual and an Orca.

Even CCP Fozzie has said a Rorqual in a belt is silly, and the proposed changes do nothing to change that.


from the very same quote:

"So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger."
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#57 - 2016-10-01 10:02:40 UTC
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
from the very same quote:

"So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger."

To quote myself, "... and the proposed changes do nothing to change that."
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2016-10-01 16:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhul Chembull
Everyone needs to remember that they want to make the game more entertaining by having miners put their capital ships out to be destroyed. They have hardly any defense and this is why miners have always been attacked. The nature of people is to pick on the weakest and in general these are the weakest ships in eve. The changes are coming and no amount of whining will change it. In case everyone has not missed it, the Dev team could give a rats ass what the opinions of the players are, its that simple.

So there are really two choices, adapt or find something else to do. For us that having been doing mining or industry for years, we will adapt. The cheap command ship and the cheap T1 mining ships will be the way to go. I have made plenty of money over the years and wouldn't mind seeing mineral prices climb, which they should.

After 10+ years of eve, it is simply my paperweight and I enjoy doing fleets on the weekends. There are always other ways of making money and it might be nice to shelve my other accounts for awhile, we will see how they make it. A suggestion from me is to simply increase all the mining ships defensive capabilities to a certain extent. Couple of easy suggestions.

A: Increase drone damage on the mining barges / exhumers, rorqual and orca
B: Allow the rorqual to deploy 10 drones at once, at least give it a chance to swat what is holding it down.
C: Give it a quicker align time

These still would not get me to put any capital ship in a belt, but hell it would be nice to at least have a fighting chance to swat whatever scrub has you locked down. At the end of the day all miners need to remember that you capital will get blown up and your alliance or corp will not be happy with you losing things like this in the belt. In the end if you want to continue to do mining, you will simply have to adapt with the times and go with the small command ship. The rest of the arguments on this are fruitless.

Eve has always been a game that makes you change with the times or find a different game.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#59 - 2016-10-01 17:08:03 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
from the very same quote:

"So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger."

To quote myself, "... and the proposed changes do nothing to change that."


To quote yourself talking about changes being discussed over 2 years ago.

IMO much depends on these mining fighters, and of course whatever functions the Industrial Core can provide. If the Rorqual can mine about as much as an Exhumer while providing markedly better bonuses even while unseiged, then putting it in a belt will not only be a worthwhile, but a no-brainer; none of those things precude being aligned.

I agree a further 1.25x increase on the mining bonuses seems a bit thin on it's own to justify seiging, but if the Rorqual can also do on-site compression and maybe increased production from the fighters too, then yeah people will absolutely do it. 0.0 is risky, but the risks of 0.0 are subject to mitigation. Wormholes aren't indetectible, gates can be bubbled, interceptors can be killed. The unspoken subtext here seems to be not that the Rorqual won't be worth putting into anoms (who belt mines?) but that people will have to put a little effort into that mitigation.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2016-10-01 17:21:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
from the very same quote:

"So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger."

To quote myself, "... and the proposed changes do nothing to change that."


To quote yourself talking about changes being discussed over 2 years ago.

IMO much depends on these mining fighters, and of course whatever functions the Industrial Core can provide. If the Rorqual can mine about as much as an Exhumer while providing markedly better bonuses even while unseiged, then putting it in a belt will not only be a worthwhile, but a no-brainer; none of those things precude being aligned.

I agree a further 1.25x increase on the mining bonuses seems a bit thin on it's own to justify seiging, but if the Rorqual can also do on-site compression and maybe increased production from the fighters too, then yeah people will absolutely do it. 0.0 is risky, but the risks of 0.0 are subject to mitigation. Wormholes aren't indetectible, gates can be bubbled, interceptors can be killed. The unspoken subtext here seems to be not that the Rorqual won't be worth putting into anoms (who belt mines?) but that people will have to put a little effort into that mitigation.


I disagree here most alliances will not tolerate you lose that ship and rest assured you will. It is just too big and juicy of a kill to pass up, plus it really can not defend itself. I mean honestly, if it had some defensive capabilities like a carrier you might be able to defend. I small gang can take one out with relative ease, or even one T3 cruiser. It is what it is, the team has always been at odds with the player base that plays the game. I always adapt to their changes and already sold my rorqual and will sell the orcas