These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[November] Rorqual Changes

First post First post First post
Author
Feng Yotosashi
Yamato Inc.
#441 - 2016-11-13 18:39:10 UTC
Olmeca Gold wrote:
Even though the Rorq is a slow aligner it would be impossible for anyone to probe you down, warp to you, land on grid and tackle you before you warp off without a unable to move timer. As long as the timer is balanced this would create the desired variation depending on hunter probing skill, how big the system is, where did you teleport etc.

I rather the chances of Rorq dying depend on the hunter skill than the miner capability. Miners are not PvPers and they shouldn't have to show off PvP skill to avoid unwanted fights. In current PANIC button those who can muster people will, and those who cannot will not. Thus people will hunt Rorqs in the same regions and avoid others, and those regions won't use Rorqs much to begin with. That is not an interesting mechanic.


I think the chances of a Roqual dying should depend on both parties' skills. The PvPers are there to score a well executed, valuable kill, sure, and they deserve that, hands down. But if the miner is capable of getting a slow, 3 billion ship out of a really tight situation, he earned it and no player should be ruled out of that. Maybe not a random teleport, but a "super microjumpdrive" that makes the Rorqual move 10000km away or so. Make everything really tight in a way that the party that takes a split-second longers to react accordingly fails. The Rorqual guy wins if he activate everything in time. The hunters win if they do everything right and the Rorqual guy takes a second longer to initiate warp. Something along this line.

I sugest this as long as the thing is well-balanced, of course, and I even think the scales could be tipped on hunters' favor, because after all we're talking about a slow industrial behemoth versus a pack of swift, especiallized killers.

The point is to at least give smaller entities a chance to win. They'll risk it if the chance is there. The way it is now people will most likely avoid using it at all. I'd suggest a new module, with the escape mechanism but a penallty on ore income, placing the "escape Rorqual" lower then the "PANIC" and "Industrial Core" Rorquals, but higher than an Orca, income-wise.

"The carp and the cutting board" - 忍者産業

Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#442 - 2016-11-14 04:33:46 UTC
"Activating buttons on time'" is not an interesting mechanic tho. It's like paying attention to local. Those who do it right will always survive without any choice of counterplay by hunters.

At any rate, enough discussion on a feature that's never gonna happen I guess.

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

AzTrackGuy
The Intervention
The Watchmen.
#443 - 2016-11-14 05:08:54 UTC
5ly jump range?
why can't we get this back up to where it used to be? or at the very least, 10ly's to be more in line with a JF
trying to move industry 5lys at a time is a major pain, and something needs to be done about that, especially since the rorq's ship bay is specific to indy ships only - please bump the jump range

"If you put forth the effort to succeed... you will"

Dark Lord Trump
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#444 - 2016-11-14 12:05:23 UTC
AzTrackGuy wrote:
5ly jump range?
why can't we get this back up to where it used to be? or at the very least, 10ly's to be more in line with a JF
trying to move industry 5lys at a time is a major pain, and something needs to be done about that, especially since the rorq's ship bay is specific to indy ships only - please bump the jump range

5ly base jump range. Train JDC V for 10ly.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!

Feng Yotosashi
Yamato Inc.
#445 - 2016-11-14 13:11:10 UTC
Olmeca Gold wrote:
"Activating buttons on time'" is not an interesting mechanic tho. It's like paying attention to local. Those who do it right will always survive without any choice of counterplay by hunters.

At any rate, enough discussion on a feature that's never gonna happen I guess.


But basically every known game is about activating buttons; the decision making about which buttons to press and when/how fast you do it is what makes it fun.

Anyway, fair enough. Good hunting out there and let's hope the Rorqual changes bring good content for everybody.

o7

"The carp and the cutting board" - 忍者産業

Cade Windstalker
#446 - 2016-11-14 15:23:40 UTC
Feng Yotosashi wrote:
I bet most people complaining about the P.A.N.I.C button in fact just wanted to say: "I don't want to loose my Rorqual. I want to use it but I don't want to loose it". And I'm saying that because that was the first thought I had while reading this thread.

Took me a lot of time and hard work to get a Rorqual, so personally I wish I had at least a chance of getting away from the belt. That's from my personal point of view (as a solo/micro corp guy) I'd rather it be an escape mechanism.

On the other hand, it sounds good for people who play in medium/large corps/alliances with lots of active players on the system or nearby. In that sense it makes using the Rorqual something that requires everyone to be paying attention, just like PVP and PVE fleets, rather than just having an alt slumbering inside a POS's shield. "OK, lets fire up the Rorqual, everybody stay tunned for possible hotdrops". It definetivelty ain't as "convenient" as before, but it has the potential to generate content.

Thing is, solo/small corp players are also "content". There's a cool thing to a guy able to run of a band of bloodthirsty pirates in a big fat old Rorqual. For those guys, the PANIC button the way it is is simply put useless.

Bottomline about the PANIC button, almost completely useless for me as a solo/small-corp guy, but certainly fun for active groups.

About making the Rorqual an uber-mining ship, I don't know... I kinda like the idea of having the mining output of 5 ships into one, but the risk is so high that I think most people will never do it AND there's the abusive multiboxing thing people pointed out.


You've just contradicted yourself here. You've said that no one will ever use the thing and then pointed out a situation you're concerned about where someone is clearly using the ship in question.

Beyond that I think there's a bit of a conception that every play style should be cleanly open and available to everyone no matter what other conditions they impose on their play. If you want to play completely solo then it makes sense that you're going to be exposing yourself to more risk than a group of players able to pool their collective resources, risk mitigation, and firepower.

Strictly speaking here there's nothing stopping a solo player from using a Rorqual in the same way that there's nothing stopping a solo player from using a Carrier to rat with, but as noted above you're going to be exposing yourself to more risk than someone in a group.

Eve is, at the end of the day, a group focused game. It's perfectly reasonable to make some content require large group cooperation.

Olmeca Gold wrote:
Yeah I wish it was something like a button that instantly teleports you to somewhere random at current system, leaving you unable to move/cloak for some balanced amount of time (20 to 40 seconds perhaps). Then it would rely on the hunters' skill to find/tackle you with combat probes, rather than your corporation's ability to muster numbers at a given time. If your corp can muster a response it does it with a cyno/bridge anyway, like big corps do.

Currently it gives so much unfair competitive advantage to people like NC or Goons, over people like you. Solo Rorq will not be profitable due to losses, but organized Rorq will be profitable to the extent of 30 multiboxing alts per system.


Grouping up will always give an advantage, but that's not unfair that's just the advantage of working with others. If you don't like it go form your own group.

As for the idea to make this a random teleport somewhere in the system, just no. An experienced prober will have you nailed in seconds at which point it's entirely down to the size of the system and the random position you landed as to whether or not you can get away. This makes a "balanced timer" probably longer than 40 seconds and large enough that even a half competent aggressor will catch you 99 times out of 100, making the Rorqual not only useless for small groups but also large ones since it's still going to burn down before help can arrive.

The entire point of this invulnerability period is for combat pilots to be able to support mining pilots without having to babysit them all the time to stop them from dying before help can arrive. If you want to mine solo then either fly an aligned mining barge fleet with Orca support or ninja mine with a Venture or Prospect.
Feng Yotosashi
Yamato Inc.
#447 - 2016-11-14 16:07:36 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You've just contradicted yourself here. You've said that no one will ever use the thing and then pointed out a situation you're concerned about where someone is clearly using the ship in question.



I said that without an escape mechanism, "nobody" (as in "most people") would be able to viably use a Rorqual except for larger groups of players. The situation I pointed out was exactly a suggestion to make it viable (even with risk involved) to those outside of larger groups. No contradiction at all here.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Eve is, at the end of the day, a group focused game. It's perfectly reasonable to make some content require large group cooperation.


I totally agree with that. Eve is a social game and the fact that a single player can't defend himself against a group of players don't mean the game is unfair. But the Rorqual changes simply lock the ship to the "I have friends to defend me" group of players ( (which is not "wrong"), and rules everyone else out. That's the nature of the game, "Swim with the big fish" they say. Smile

My whole point is just that, as a solo/small corp player, I'd still like to be able to use a Rorqual somehow, and the current changes makes it very, very hard to do that. Again, I don't mean it's necessarily "unfair", but i'd still would like to see a middleground option for people like me.

"The carp and the cutting board" - 忍者産業

Cade Windstalker
#448 - 2016-11-14 17:36:16 UTC
Feng Yotosashi wrote:

I said that without an escape mechanism, "nobody" (as in "most people") would be able to viably use a Rorqual except for larger groups of players. The situation I pointed out was exactly a suggestion to make it viable (even with risk involved) to those outside of larger groups. No contradiction at all here.


The only people who can use a Rorqual at all are people mining in Low and Null, and almost everyone in Low and Null who is mining is part of some group or other. Between that and the current jump range restrictions you don't have to worry too much about someone dropping massive numbers of caps on your Roqual, so even a moderately sized group (say, large enough to have both Miners and other players active at the same time) should be able to bring reinforcements to help besieged miners, even if all they can do is jump in Griffins to jam the points and let the ships warp off as soon as the PANIC effect drops.

If you're not in a group that's large enough for that then... find more friends? Honestly if you're not in a group large enough for that I'm kind of questioning what you're even doing mining out in Low and Null in the first place. Renting maybe, I guess, but even then you could potentially make friends with neighboring renters enough that if you say "hey, something to shoot here! Next 10 minutes only!" they'll jump over at least at the prospect of something to kill.

Feng Yotosashi wrote:
I totally agree with that. Eve is a social game and the fact that a single player can't defend himself against a group of players don't mean the game is unfair. But the Rorqual changes simply lock the ship to the "I have friends to defend me" group of players ( (which is not "wrong"), and rules everyone else out. That's the nature of the game, "Swim with the big fish" they say. Smile

My whole point is just that, as a solo/small corp player, I'd still like to be able to use a Rorqual somehow, and the current changes makes it very, very hard to do that. Again, I don't mean it's necessarily "unfair", but i'd still would like to see a middleground option for people like me.


There is never going to be something that makes the Rorqual feel worthwhile to the larger group that also makes it viable for you without making it functionally unkillable when used by the larger group.

If it's powerful, like it is now, then it needs to be high risk to deploy. The best way to mitigate risks like siege timers is to bring lots of friends, either to make people wary of dropping you in the first place or to be able to bring aid in the event that a drop does occur.

If it's relatively weak then making it "safer" becomes more viable, but then it becomes just a thing people have rather than this big ball of risk vs reward, except for the smaller groups because so much of the risk mitigation is now built into the hull.

On top of that there are two things working against the sort of design you're talking about.

The first is a decision that's been explicitly if not loudly stated by CCP a couple of times and that's that they would like for end-game content to be group content. That's why the end-game for High Sec PvE is currently Incursions, as opposed to solo Level 4 missions. It's also come up with respect to Null PvE and how CCP aren't happy that the current end-game is basically solo farming sites and belts.

The second is just the inherent N+1 nature of a game like Eve that tries to avoid arbitrary brick walls and player limits. More players will always have an inherent advantage over less players. That doesn't mean that more players will always win, but it does mean that more players will probably win the vast majority of times if all other things are equal (especially the level of incompetence on both sides).

If you want a middle ground then either don't Siege the Rorqual and mine aligned, which significantly increases your safety and ability to warp off quickly, or use an Orca.
AzTrackGuy
The Intervention
The Watchmen.
#449 - 2016-11-15 03:14:09 UTC
Dark Lord Trump wrote:
AzTrackGuy wrote:
5ly jump range?
why can't we get this back up to where it used to be? or at the very least, 10ly's to be more in line with a JF
trying to move industry 5lys at a time is a major pain, and something needs to be done about that, especially since the rorq's ship bay is specific to indy ships only - please bump the jump range

5ly base jump range. Train JDC V for 10ly.


i have JDC5, but currently is only 5lys, so after the patch WILL the rorq be 10lys?, there's been no mension of the rorq's jump range getting buffed that i have found

"If you put forth the effort to succeed... you will"

Dusty Meg
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#450 - 2016-11-15 08:12:22 UTC
AzTrackGuy wrote:
Dark Lord Trump wrote:
AzTrackGuy wrote:
5ly jump range?
why can't we get this back up to where it used to be? or at the very least, 10ly's to be more in line with a JF
trying to move industry 5lys at a time is a major pain, and something needs to be done about that, especially since the rorq's ship bay is specific to indy ships only - please bump the jump range

5ly base jump range. Train JDC V for 10ly.


i have JDC5, but currently is only 5lys, so after the patch WILL the rorq be 10lys?, there's been no mension of the rorq's jump range getting buffed that i have found


Base jump drive range: 5ly (+2.5)

Its literally in the dev blog you are posting on the thread for.
A base jump range of 5ly will give you 10 ly at JDC5

Creater of the EVE animated influence map http://www.youtube.com/user/DustMityEVE

Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#451 - 2016-11-16 04:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Olmeca Gold
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Grouping up will always give an advantage, but that's not unfair that's just the advantage of working with others. If you don't like it go form your own group.


Absolutely. I explicitly stated that grouping/organization should be rewarded. But if we talk fairness, the relevant question is what kind of advantage will best possible grouping and organization give to players. Will it give a properly balanced decrease in risk taken, or will it reduce all the risk to approximate zero. Right now it is the latter, and approximate zero risk does not suit Eve nullsec.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the idea to make this a random teleport somewhere in the system, just no. An experienced prober will have you nailed in seconds at which point it's entirely down to the size of the system and the random position you landed as to whether or not you can get away. This makes a "balanced timer" probably longer than 40 seconds and large enough that even a half competent aggressor will catch you 99 times out of 100, making the Rorqual not only useless for small groups but also large ones since it's still going to burn down before help can arrive.


You realize I avoided talking numbers, but since its a time factor you can easily achieve a balance. CCP can just have 10 hunters with different levels of experience and make them try and catch randomly teleported Rorquals in systems with different radius. Let's say CCP can decide if the timer gives a consistent %25 chance of getting caught across all variables the timer is balanced. This is really achievable by just one or two days experimentation. The system radius, the hunters' capability, the spot that the Rorq lands, all these add additional interesting flavor based on luck or skill.

I agree that my proposal wouldn't reward capability of a PvP response, but you know what, if you are capable, you can fit a cyno to your Rorq and counter-drop the gank group like organized groups already do, or at least undock some ships in the time you gain by that capital tank and teleportation which is at least 5 minutes anyway. Hell you can even bait. So ability of a PvP response is currently already rewarded in nullsec gank situations.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
The entire point of this invulnerability period is for combat pilots to be able to support mining pilots without having to babysit them all the time to stop them from dying before help can arrive. If you want to mine solo then either fly an aligned mining barge fleet with Orca support or ninja mine with a Venture or Prospect


Yeah, and we have argued this is a bad approach, since it gives too much advantage to the organized groups, and people with hundred titans waiting in case a Rorq gets tackled. The entire point of nullsec PvE is that there is a chance that you can get ganked no matter which corp you are from, or should be anyway.

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Fey Artwik
Doomheim
#452 - 2016-11-17 13:15:36 UTC
Initial reaction so far.

Not a chance in hell I'd put my Rorqual into siege. You never know what a hot dropper is going to drop.

What a windup...
Cade Windstalker
#453 - 2016-11-17 22:01:49 UTC
Olmeca Gold wrote:
Absolutely. I explicitly stated that grouping/organization should be rewarded. But if we talk fairness, the relevant question is what kind of advantage will best possible grouping and organization give to players. Will it give a properly balanced decrease in risk taken, or will it reduce all the risk to approximate zero. Right now it is the latter, and approximate zero risk does not suit Eve nullsec.


Only with a ton of organization and effort on the part of the players though, and at the end of the day that's just as much a result of the attacking players as the defenders. You're looking at it, as a potential aggressor, and saying "I don't think this is worth it" and there will *always* be a point where players can group up and organize to the point where they can only be seriously inconvenienced by an almost equally sized and organized group of players.

I firmly believe there is nothing CCP can do to avoid a limit like that existing while still leaving Eve as an open and player driven sandbox, and I don't think they should try.

Olmeca Gold wrote:
You realize I avoided talking numbers, but since its a time factor you can easily achieve a balance. CCP can just have 10 hunters with different levels of experience and make them try and catch randomly teleported Rorquals in systems with different radius. Let's say CCP can decide if the timer gives a consistent %25 chance of getting caught across all variables the timer is balanced. This is really achievable by just one or two days experimentation. The system radius, the hunters' capability, the spot that the Rorq lands, all these add additional interesting flavor based on luck or skill.

I agree that my proposal wouldn't reward capability of a PvP response, but you know what, if you are capable, you can fit a cyno to your Rorq and counter-drop the gank group like organized groups already do, or at least undock some ships in the time you gain by that capital tank and teleportation which is at least 5 minutes anyway. Hell you can even bait. So ability of a PvP response is currently already rewarded in nullsec gank situations.


Couple more problems with this.

First, teleporting away leaves the mining fleet high and dry. Part of the point of the PANIC button is that it doesn't just protect your Rorqual it also protects the billions of ISK in T2 mining ships you have on grid with it. After insurance those ships represent a far larger capital loss than the Rorqual does, assuming you're filling up at least one Squad with T2 mining ships.

Second you're assuming a flat level of 'experience' and that difficulty can be graded on a curve like that. In practice these things end up pretty binary in most cases, with the hunters either having a strategy that they feel is very very very likely to succeed at catching the target or they just won't drop.

You saw the same sort of thing with unprobable boosting ships for years. Yes, it was theoretically fairly easy to scan one down and nail him, but in practice it happened quite rarely because the time and effort aren't worth it. You'd likely see something similar with a "random teleport" system. Either the gankers determine that it's easy enough to beat that it's not a worthwhile defense or they decide that it's not going to result in kills or fun often enough to be worth attacking.

At least with the current system the attackers are almost guaronteed to get a fight, even if that fight kills them. People have been dropping on obvious bait for years, but now there's an entire hull that deserves a SKIN with "OBVIOUS BAIT" written on the bumper. Except that ship is worth ~3B ISK, plus the other ships on the field, and it's designed to start a fight. From a player interaction perspective that's fantastic. A "run away teleport module" does the exact opposite, it removes players from conflict and interaction and basically turns whether or not you get the kill on the target into a chore of scanning and warping rather than a fight or an anxious 7 minutes while you wait to see if you get dropped.

Olmeca Gold wrote:
Yeah, and we have argued this is a bad approach, since it gives too much advantage to the organized groups, and people with hundred titans waiting in case a Rorq gets tackled. The entire point of nullsec PvE is that there is a chance that you can get ganked no matter which corp you are from, or should be anyway.


I pretty much addressed this above.

If you feel that someone has so many friends that they're "gank proof" then go get more friends and start the next B-R over someone's pink Rorqual.
Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#454 - 2016-11-18 07:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Olmeca Gold
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Only with a ton of organization and effort on the part of the players though, and at the end of the day that's just as much a result of the attacking players as the defenders. You're looking at it, as a potential aggressor, and saying "I don't think this is worth it" and there will *always* be a point where players can group up and organize to the point where they can only be seriously inconvenienced by an almost equally sized and organized group of players.

I firmly believe there is nothing CCP can do to avoid a limit like that existing while still leaving Eve as an open and player driven sandbox, and I don't think they should try.


I usually lead blops fleets, and blops is the epitome of being able to snatch kills in places where you could not have contended the victims otherwise. I can safely say what you say above is simply not true. A nullsec entity, if it wants to PvE sufficiently, will be spread to a multiplicity of systems and will not be able to cover all its area with active fleets. Sure you can't contest PL titan fleet, but those who own such fleets have to spread around to rat properly. The only way you can defend all your sov is having a capital counterdrop force ready at all times. Some alliances do that and are pretty good at it. And there is almost no way to frag a carrier or a rorqual of them. Then again with small tweaks, like making mobile cyno inhibitor relevant again, CCP can take steps to make sure even they lose Rorquals every now and then.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

First, teleporting away leaves the mining fleet high and dry. Part of the point of the PANIC button is that it doesn't just protect your Rorqual it also protects the billions of ISK in T2 mining ships you have on grid with it. After insurance those ships represent a far larger capital loss than the Rorqual does, assuming you're filling up at least one Squad with T2 mining ships.


This is entirely right, but can be solved by teleporting the fleet together. Given MJFGs or Hand of God doomsday it shouldn't be so hard to code. It is actually the reverse of Hand of God.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Second you're assuming a flat level of 'experience' and that difficulty can be graded on a curve like that. In practice these things end up pretty binary in most cases, with the hunters either having a strategy that they feel is very very very likely to succeed at catching the target or they just won't drop.

You saw the same sort of thing with unprobable boosting ships for years. Yes, it was theoretically fairly easy to scan one down and nail him, but in practice it happened quite rarely because the time and effort aren't worth it. You'd likely see something similar with a "random teleport" system. Either the gankers determine that it's easy enough to beat that it's not a worthwhile defense or they decide that it's not going to result in kills or fun often enough to be worth attacking.


You see, the luck factors (sytem radius, where does the fleet actually get teleported to etc.) in my proposal make it sure that even most experienced hunters fail at times, and mediocre ones get their capture at times. Other than that, players' probing skill is indeed a scale and not a binary.

Your example is not analogous, because in that case you need a virtue t3 which you will never ever use again, so most people deem its worthless to get one just to probe OG boosters. Meanwhile in my approach Rorqual hunting is accessible to every combat prober, and most hunters are hunting in combat prober ships anyway. And if not, they can get a prober hunting ship, still do their main job, and still hunt Rorquals if they wanted to as well. But in your example you need an expensive dedicated ship for just a niche job.

Now whether you can take down the Rorq itself or not is often a binary, but that is the case for every ratting ship and not relevant.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
At least with the current system the attackers are almost guaronteed to get a fight, even if that fight kills them. People have been dropping on obvious bait for years, but now there's an entire hull that deserves a SKIN with "OBVIOUS BAIT" written on the bumper. Except that ship is worth ~3B ISK, plus the other ships on the field, and it's designed to start a fight. From a player interaction perspective that's fantastic. A "run away teleport module" does the exact opposite, it removes players from conflict and interaction and basically turns whether or not you get the kill on the target into a chore of scanning and warping rather than a fight or an anxious 7 minutes while you wait to see if you get dropped.


I recognize the advantage above, and we will fully make use of it. But it gives complete immunity to organized group Rorquals and non-organized groups will not use them much (just see my next message). I think giving people risk-free PvE is more loss than the hypothetical gain from the fights that a PANIC button will start. Most of the times if a defender entity has stuff to defend their capitals from the attacking fleet, they manage to warp them in before the capital dies. If not they won't engage anyway. The first Rorq died after patch died in 40 minutes, vs a not so big fleet, in which time no defender fleet came in. PANIC button will just give people in Delve who didn't even fit cynoes one more chance to survive.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you feel that someone has so many friends that they're "gank proof" then go get more friends and start the next B-R over someone's pink Rorqual.


They will just jump out and evac, and go stage in another nullsec whenever they see me coming.

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Berengar Barnes
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2016-11-18 07:36:38 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

At least with the current system the attackers are almost guaronteed to get a fight, even if that fight kills them.


Thats a good point. We all know that attackers love engaging into battles that they might not win.

And this is also the reason why miners love to fight in their exhumers instead of proper combatships. Its all about the challenge.
Olmeca Gold
Democratic Space Socialism
#456 - 2016-11-18 07:37:02 UTC
Fey Artwik wrote:
Initial reaction so far.

Not a chance in hell I'd put my Rorqual into siege. You never know what a hot dropper is going to drop.

What a windup...


I will just leave this here: http://i.imgur.com/YUZawWk.jpg

So exactly as I anticipated above, those who can drop 100 titans to defend their Rorqauls will abuse them to the fullest, and those who can't will not bother.

Covert Cloaky FC. Sustainable Whaler.

Youtube channel.

Berengar Barnes
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#457 - 2016-11-18 07:48:37 UTC
Olmeca Gold wrote:


I will just leave this here: http://i.imgur.com/YUZawWk.jpg

So exactly as I anticipated above, those who can drop 100 titans to defend their Rorqauls will abuse them to the fullest, and those who can't will not bother.



Where is the abuse? This looks like an slightly above avarage sized mining-operation and this is absolutly fine. If you are not able to protect your mining-fleet with at least a super-carrier and 2 Minokawas you probably should not field expensive stuff like rorquals.


Calimity
State War Academy
Caldari State
#458 - 2016-11-18 11:31:14 UTC
Any chance ccp plans on fixing the current excavator drone prices? You have failed to take into account the ability of manipulating the entire production chain and now the startup cost of any rorqual mining ship, even without backup drones is 8 bil. Some number crunch can maybe step in here and figure out how many hours of successful mining results in breaking even but, in any case, the mining drones are more than five times the estimated production cost. Prior to the extortion of elite drone ais maybe there was some argument that the bpc price (ORE/concord lp) would have the largest price variance, but in fact, price gouging is and always has been part of new content release. In light of that could ccp punish these ridiculous market and game content manipulator by making the drones themselves and/or the components for them npc items for whatever fixed price was intended.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#459 - 2016-11-18 12:38:15 UTC
Calimity wrote:
Any chance ccp plans on fixing the current excavator drone prices? You have failed to take into account the ability of manipulating the entire production chain and now the startup cost of any rorqual mining ship, even without backup drones is 8 bil. Some number crunch can maybe step in here and figure out how many hours of successful mining results in breaking even but, in any case, the mining drones are more than five times the estimated production cost. Prior to the extortion of elite drone ais maybe there was some argument that the bpc price (ORE/concord lp) would have the largest price variance, but in fact, price gouging is and always has been part of new content release. In light of that could ccp punish these ridiculous market and game content manipulator by making the drones themselves and/or the components for them npc items for whatever fixed price was intended.

There are missions that drop them, and plenty of sites, run them and fix the price.
Cade Windstalker
#460 - 2016-11-18 18:00:16 UTC
Calimity wrote:
Any chance ccp plans on fixing the current excavator drone prices? You have failed to take into account the ability of manipulating the entire production chain and now the startup cost of any rorqual mining ship, even without backup drones is 8 bil. Some number crunch can maybe step in here and figure out how many hours of successful mining results in breaking even but, in any case, the mining drones are more than five times the estimated production cost. Prior to the extortion of elite drone ais maybe there was some argument that the bpc price (ORE/concord lp) would have the largest price variance, but in fact, price gouging is and always has been part of new content release. In light of that could ccp punish these ridiculous market and game content manipulator by making the drones themselves and/or the components for them npc items for whatever fixed price was intended.


We're also, what, two days after release? Prices for new items are always high right after release and then drop as supply increases and the market finds a price most are able to pay.

Beyond that you should know that CCP generally keeps their hands out of the market. It's possible to count on one hand the number of times CCP have stepped in to curtail player market actions in any kind of overt and direct way, and the only time they've stepped in and stopped anything that could be considered "price gouging" was when PLEX was involved.

In short your expectations here are unrealistic, CCP will likely only adjust the build requirements for these drones if they're still massively expensive after a few months, not after three days, and even that's unlikely.