These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#341 - 2016-11-27 02:26:21 UTC
Shiroe Kumamato wrote:
cyennajewelz wrote:
orca needs about 10 more bandwidth so you can have 2 hobs or 1 hammer out while you ice mine.
other than that it works well ore mining with 4 miners and a hob ice mining is where it falls short.


I agree that ice mining is where it fails. Drop the bandwith needed by ice mining drones enough so the orca can field 2 of them and it would then be balanced to OK.

As a small scale (2 accounts) industrialist, the orca needs to be able to replace an exhumer in the ice belt, for me to use it.

Sorry but NO it doesn't. The single biggest mistake Devs made was giving Orca's and Rorqual's the ability to mine because there will now always be those who complain "they don't mine well enough".


Shiroe; The Orca is not meant to replace an exhumer - With a single Exhumer mining ice and using the Orca to boost and mine, you are getting roughly the same yield (per minute) as you would with 2 Exhumers (with no boosts), with the added bonus of not having to jet can or dock up each time you fill the Exhumers. So you are actually able to mine more in the same time period..

What would happen if Devs reduce bandwidth of Ice mining drones :- Reduce bandwidth for ice mining drones to 25 m/s - Then increase cycle time by 100%.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Cade Windstalker
#342 - 2016-11-28 14:42:17 UTC
Shiroe Kumamato wrote:
cyennajewelz wrote:
orca needs about 10 more bandwidth so you can have 2 hobs or 1 hammer out while you ice mine.
other than that it works well ore mining with 4 miners and a hob ice mining is where it falls short.


I agree that ice mining is where it fails. Drop the bandwith needed by ice mining drones enough so the orca can field 2 of them and it would then be balanced to OK.

As a small scale (2 accounts) industrialist, the orca needs to be able to replace an exhumer in the ice belt, for me to use it.


Then... don't use it? It's a boosting ship, if it's not economical for you to use it then don't use it. Simple as that. The ship isn't meant to be a straight upgrade over an Exhumer.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
The single biggest mistake Devs made was giving Orca's and Rorqual's the ability to mine because there will now always be those who complain "they don't mine well enough".


If you haven't noticed the devs are quite adept at ignoring stupid complaints and suggestions. There are five new ones posted in the PFAID forum every day or less and none of the bad ones get so much as a glance from the devs.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#343 - 2016-11-29 02:38:25 UTC
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:
Roll

Looks like I should invest in an egg-timer in order to do efficient Orca Mining boosting ........

What?


You do not need any third party timer since the buff timers are right there in front of you, assuming you are not AFK.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#344 - 2016-11-29 02:48:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Anne Sol wrote:

so 250mil for killing 700mil worth ship? I call it fair game then.


Now calculate the profit to be made on such a gank.


Now ask the gankers whether they measure profit in ISK or miner tears.
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
#345 - 2016-12-02 22:03:05 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:
Roll

Looks like I should invest in an egg-timer in order to do efficient Orca Mining boosting ........

What?


You do not need any third party timer since the buff timers are right there in front of you, assuming you are not AFK.



The purpose of the egg-timer is to draw attention to time just before, and not after, when they (the residual affect on the miners) will expire (and It is not an issue of AFK) - but rather it is situational awareness and "cockpit workload management" issue. Yes, if I only had two accounts running I probably could bother to move the mouse over, hover for a second, wait for the time left to pop back up again every 15 seconds (or alternatively squint to see when the little meter is getting really close on the first miner), but I'm managing several and don't have time for that. The egg-timer is working great thanks...
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#346 - 2016-12-02 22:12:29 UTC
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:


The purpose of the egg-timer is to draw attention to time just before, and not after, when they (the residual affect on the miners) will expire (and It is not an issue of AFK) - but rather it is situational awareness and "cockpit workload management" issue. Yes, if I only had two accounts running I probably could bother to move the mouse over, hover for a second, wait for the time left to pop back up again every 15 seconds (or alternatively squint to see when the little meter is getting really close on the first miner), but I'm managing several and don't have time for that. The egg-timer is working great thanks...

Or you could just not fuss about 60k per hour additional cost, because if your operation is even slightly efficient that's insignificant next to what you will be bringing in, and just leave the boosts cycling and worry about the mining and looking out for gankers.......
Just a thought.
Cade Windstalker
#347 - 2016-12-03 02:40:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:


The purpose of the egg-timer is to draw attention to time just before, and not after, when they (the residual affect on the miners) will expire (and It is not an issue of AFK) - but rather it is situational awareness and "cockpit workload management" issue. Yes, if I only had two accounts running I probably could bother to move the mouse over, hover for a second, wait for the time left to pop back up again every 15 seconds (or alternatively squint to see when the little meter is getting really close on the first miner), but I'm managing several and don't have time for that. The egg-timer is working great thanks...

Or you could just not fuss about 60k per hour additional cost, because if your operation is even slightly efficient that's insignificant next to what you will be bringing in, and just leave the boosts cycling and worry about the mining and looking out for gankers.......
Just a thought.


While I think this is fair for most people I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to set the auto-cycle to a more useful time, especially when there is a skill that specifically makes the boosts last longer and as things stand the impetus for the majority of pilots to train that skill is going to be pretty minimal.

Basically Eve is about fighting other players, not the UI, and while I agree that it's fair for something like this to not be a major priority for CCP if it's not causing a major inconvenience, it's not fair to say that it's not an issue *just* because it's only 60k ISK per hour or only a few tens of m3 of cargo space to work around it. That's still an issue with the UI and it should be addressed, because an egg timer at your desk doesn't add anything useful or meaningful to the game, it's busy work.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#348 - 2016-12-03 04:18:35 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Basically Eve is about fighting other players, not the UI, and while I agree that it's fair for something like this to not be a major priority for CCP if it's not causing a major inconvenience, it's not fair to say that it's not an issue *just* because it's only 60k ISK per hour or only a few tens of m3 of cargo space to work around it. That's still an issue with the UI and it should be addressed, because an egg timer at your desk doesn't add anything useful or meaningful to the game, it's busy work.

So instead you want to add busy work to everyone else to have to select the auto cycle time they want and add UI complication at the same time?
Your 'fix' is even worse than your problem.
Cade Windstalker
#349 - 2016-12-03 20:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
So instead you want to add busy work to everyone else to have to select the auto cycle time they want and add UI complication at the same time?
Your 'fix' is even worse than your problem.


That's what default values are for.

CCP would be adding nothing to the chores list of anyone who doesn't care, they would get the same experience as they do now if they don't want to fiddle with the new settings. Besides, something like that is literally a one-time thing, and adds nothing outside of another menu option on the right-click menu for these modules. You wouldn't even need to figure out your cycle time, you'd just need to check the cycle time on the module in space.

That is miles away from worse than the problem unless you just *really* hate change, in which case I think you're playing the wrong game...
Sikh Sattva
Vibe Squad
#350 - 2017-01-02 15:00:40 UTC
Am I the only one that is against on-grid boosts? May as-well scrap my Orca and my dream of getting a Rorqual.

At least make it ON GRID... not 30km bursts...
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#351 - 2017-01-07 12:48:20 UTC
The odd thing I find is that you get these huge bonuses to tractor ranges, yet you have only 35km range on the boosts.

That being said, the overall range thing is an issue in larger belts, anomolies where you are often way over 35km apart from the orca, and rather than being able to complete the belts, anoms easily you are having to slowboat an orca around.

Would make far more sense to match the tractor/boost range on these. So you can have someone say 60-80km away from you and then tractor in the can they drop.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#352 - 2017-01-08 04:02:45 UTC
Regan Rotineque wrote:
The odd thing I find is that you get these huge bonuses to tractor ranges, yet you have only 35km range on the boosts.

That being said, the overall range thing is an issue in larger belts, anomolies where you are often way over 35km apart from the orca, and rather than being able to complete the belts, anoms easily you are having to slowboat an orca around.

Would make far more sense to match the tractor/boost range on these. So you can have someone say 60-80km away from you and then tractor in the can they drop.

"Would make far more sense" - Right there is the problem.

What makes sense and would be useful, is not taken into consideration during development.

Bonuses don't match what would be optimal use and never will. From a development point of view, making bonuses and skills useful would be game breaking.
This is after all Eve - Where for Devs, getting it half right is the norm.

I mean take the skill "fleet command" as an example - With optimal remap and +3's going from lvl 4 to 5 is 51 days for a measly 5% extra range on bursts. A rank 12 skill that really adds very little for the time it takes to train it, seriously, 50+ days of training 1 level for 2Km extra range to give a maximum range of 49Km.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Cade Windstalker
#353 - 2017-01-09 15:35:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
The odd thing I find is that you get these huge bonuses to tractor ranges, yet you have only 35km range on the boosts.

That being said, the overall range thing is an issue in larger belts, anomolies where you are often way over 35km apart from the orca, and rather than being able to complete the belts, anoms easily you are having to slowboat an orca around.

Would make far more sense to match the tractor/boost range on these. So you can have someone say 60-80km away from you and then tractor in the can they drop.

"Would make far more sense" - Right there is the problem.

What makes sense and would be useful, is not taken into consideration during development.

Bonuses don't match what would be optimal use and never will. From a development point of view, making bonuses and skills useful would be game breaking.
This is after all Eve - Where for Devs, getting it half right is the norm.

I mean take the skill "fleet command" as an example - With optimal remap and +3's going from lvl 4 to 5 is 51 days for a measly 5% extra range on bursts. A rank 12 skill that really adds very little for the time it takes to train it, seriously, 50+ days of training 1 level for 2Km extra range to give a maximum range of 49Km.


I can almost guarantee you his was taken into consideration, and someone probably went "well, we want the boost range here because that's the bigger balance concern. Should we nerf the tractor range to match?"

At which point someone went "Nah, they'd just complain about that"

So yeah, unless what you're asking for here is for the tractor range bonus to be nerfed I don't think you actually want them to match.

CCP have said very similar things on other questions regarding tractor/salvage/ect bonuses that have very small effects on a ship's overall performance but break conventions like this, and the response has generally been "Well, do you really want us to take this away just to fit convention?"
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#354 - 2017-01-10 10:41:53 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Regan Rotineque wrote:
The odd thing I find is that you get these huge bonuses to tractor ranges, yet you have only 35km range on the boosts.

That being said, the overall range thing is an issue in larger belts, anomolies where you are often way over 35km apart from the orca, and rather than being able to complete the belts, anoms easily you are having to slowboat an orca around.

Would make far more sense to match the tractor/boost range on these. So you can have someone say 60-80km away from you and then tractor in the can they drop.

"Would make far more sense" - Right there is the problem.

What makes sense and would be useful, is not taken into consideration during development.

Bonuses don't match what would be optimal use and never will. From a development point of view, making bonuses and skills useful would be game breaking.
This is after all Eve - Where for Devs, getting it half right is the norm.

I mean take the skill "fleet command" as an example - With optimal remap and +3's going from lvl 4 to 5 is 51 days for a measly 5% extra range on bursts. A rank 12 skill that really adds very little for the time it takes to train it, seriously, 50+ days of training 1 level for 2Km extra range to give a maximum range of 49Km.


I can almost guarantee you his was taken into consideration, and someone probably went "well, we want the boost range here because that's the bigger balance concern. Should we nerf the tractor range to match?"

At which point someone went "Nah, they'd just complain about that"

So yeah, unless what you're asking for here is for the tractor range bonus to be nerfed I don't think you actually want them to match.

CCP have said very similar things on other questions regarding tractor/salvage/ect bonuses that have very small effects on a ship's overall performance but break conventions like this, and the response has generally been "Well, do you really want us to take this away just to fit convention?"
Actually the problem is the lack of range with boosts combined with the rank of the skills and their minimal effect for training time., If you had bothered to read my whole post you would know that.

The tractor beam bonus is all but irrelevant when you can't have your miners far enough away to make use of it - So yeah I suppose leaving a bonus that has little to no use; is right up devs alley and totally inline with current design trends (half baked, not finished).

I have an idea, fix the bonus given for training leadership skills (wing command & fleet command) so they match the rank of the skills - Wouldn't that be "balanced".

Wing & Fleet Command, 0 to 5..
94 hours per KM boost range for a maximum of 19KM (not very efficient use of paid game time)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Cade Windstalker
#355 - 2017-01-11 20:12:08 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Actually the problem is the lack of range with boosts combined with the rank of the skills and their minimal effect for training time., If you had bothered to read my whole post you would know that.

The tractor beam bonus is all but irrelevant when you can't have your miners far enough away to make use of it - So yeah I suppose leaving a bonus that has little to no use; is right up devs alley and totally inline with current design trends (half baked, not finished).

I have an idea, fix the bonus given for training leadership skills (wing command & fleet command) so they match the rank of the skills - Wouldn't that be "balanced".

Wing & Fleet Command, 0 to 5..
94 hours per KM boost range for a maximum of 19KM (not very efficient use of paid game time)


Boosts intentionally have a limited range to force you to make trade offs and to make positioning at least slightly more important. It also forces you to keep the boosting ship closer to the ships it's affecting, which is important in fleet combat.

There's absolutely nothing half-baked about leaving the tractor beam bonus as-is. Yes, it won't see too much use if you're within boosting range of something, but the options there are to take it away or just leave it as-is so as not to break whatever minimal use it might have.

Your numbers for fleet and wing boosts are laughable. You're taking the level 5 trains, which aren't a big impact, and holding those up as the problem. If you ignore the unneeded level 5s, or even just the level 5 on fleet, you get something much more reasonable for the effect.

No one's forcing you to train those to 5. If you don't want to then don't.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#356 - 2017-01-12 13:04:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Actually the problem is the lack of range with boosts combined with the rank of the skills and their minimal effect for training time., If you had bothered to read my whole post you would know that.

The tractor beam bonus is all but irrelevant when you can't have your miners far enough away to make use of it - So yeah I suppose leaving a bonus that has little to no use; is right up devs alley and totally inline with current design trends (half baked, not finished).

I have an idea, fix the bonus given for training leadership skills (wing command & fleet command) so they match the rank of the skills - Wouldn't that be "balanced".

Wing & Fleet Command, 0 to 5..
94 hours per KM boost range for a maximum of 19KM (not very efficient use of paid game time)


Boosts intentionally have a limited range to force you to make trade offs and to make positioning at least slightly more important. It also forces you to keep the boosting ship closer to the ships it's affecting, which is important in fleet combat.

There's absolutely nothing half-baked about leaving the tractor beam bonus as-is. Yes, it won't see too much use if you're within boosting range of something, but the options there are to take it away or just leave it as-is so as not to break whatever minimal use it might have.

Your numbers for fleet and wing boosts are laughable. You're taking the level 5 trains, which aren't a big impact, and holding those up as the problem. If you ignore the unneeded level 5s, or even just the level 5 on fleet, you get something much more reasonable for the effect.

No one's forcing you to train those to 5. If you don't want to then don't.
Ok, sorry but your wrong, level 5's are required for anything close to reasonable range. Oh and the prerequisite for "fleet command" is wing command 5 so close to 40 days there alone, for very minimal gain in range unless you consider 30K range on boosts as enough. 37km with roughly 8 days training for wing command 4, then over a month for the next 1km and to unlock the next skill.

What if anything at all does fleet combat have to do with mining? Which is what we were discussing..
Command ships get a role bonus of 100% to boost, which is ok. Yet industrial command ships only get 50%. That 15km makes a big difference..

I'm not sure of your grasp of the English language or maybe it is just your narrow minded interpretation of what I wrote but I wasn't holding anything up as "the problem" and I certainly didn't say the tractor beam bonus was half baked, I suggested a way to make those lvl 5 skills worth training. A month for 1km of range, just to unlock the next skill that will add minimal range is somewhat a joke - Poor development, poorer implementation of the new boosts.

It is a direct and deliberate nerf to miners.

As for half baked, unfinished things being put into the game - Take a look at Citadels and EC's (EC's especially), there is still more you can't do with them than there is with.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Cade Windstalker
#357 - 2017-01-12 16:53:41 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Ok, sorry but your wrong, level 5's are required for anything close to reasonable range. Oh and the prerequisite for "fleet command" is wing command 5 so close to 40 days there alone, for very minimal gain in range unless you consider 30K range on boosts as enough. 37km with roughly 8 days training for wing command 4, then over a month for the next 1km and to unlock the next skill.

What if anything at all does fleet combat have to do with mining? Which is what we were discussing..
Command ships get a role bonus of 100% to boost, which is ok. Yet industrial command ships only get 50%. That 15km makes a big difference..

I'm not sure of your grasp of the English language or maybe it is just your narrow minded interpretation of what I wrote but I wasn't holding anything up as "the problem" and I certainly didn't say the tractor beam bonus was half baked, I suggested a way to make those lvl 5 skills worth training. A month for 1km of range, just to unlock the next skill that will add minimal range is somewhat a joke - Poor development, poorer implementation of the new boosts.

It is a direct and deliberate nerf to miners.

As for half baked, unfinished things being put into the game - Take a look at Citadels and EC's (EC's especially), there is still more you can't do with them than there is with.


I misspoke, I thought that they'd changed Fleet Command to only require Wing 4, that was my mistake. That said you still don't *need* Fleet 5 to get good range out of these ships. If you do feel you need it, and it's that integral, then it's not that the train isn't worth the time it's that you don't like the time required.

Yes, range does matter, which is why CCP didn't match the boost range to the tractor range. The point of this isn't to make it super easy to cover everyone on grid with a single ship.

If I had to guess mining ships get reduced range because they move less and will have a much easier time positioning meaning they needed the reduced range to cause people to make tradeoffs with their boosting ships and positioning. You could bring another booster, or you could cluster up in a potentially less optimal configuration but trade the second booster for a mining ship.

Combat ships, on the other hand, are more likely to have disparate fleet element in different parts of the grid, so they get a bigger range boost.

By the way I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the personal attacks out of it, thanks, I haven't insulted you so I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.

As far as things being "half finished" I disagree on all points. The boosting changes as a whole, when combined with the changes to the mining ships themselves, were absolutely a buff to mining. You can't free-boost from inside a POS now, but you of all people should be in favor of getting rid of a free-lunch mechanic like that. The range changes affect, at best, 1% of belts in the game and most of those are in Null where you can use a sieged Rorqual if you so choose. Other than that it's just a matter of considering your positioning a little more when mining, and industry is nothing if not an activity about calculations and planning if you want to get optimal results.

Citadels are an intentionally piecemeal implementation. That was written on the tin when they started and it's the only reasonable way to put something of that size into the game. Otherwise they'd be in dev for 2-3 years with the players seeing basically nothing, then getting dumped in, inevitably having bugs and other issues all crop up at once, and both the devs and players scrambling to adjust to such a massive change. You're free to disagree if you like, you're also free to go start up your own game studio where you can do things your way. Let me know how that works out for you if you do.
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#358 - 2017-01-12 21:45:43 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
evel 5's are required for anything close to reasonable range. Oh and the prerequisite for "fleet command" is wing command 5 so close to 40 days there alone, for very minimal gain in range unless you consider 30K range on boosts as enough. 37km with roughly 8 days training for wing command 4, then over a month for the next 1km and to unlock the next skill.

What if anything at all does fleet combat have to do with mining? Which is what we were discussing..
Command ships get a role bonus of 100% to boost, which is ok. Yet industrial command ships only get 50%. That 15km makes a big difference..

It is a direct and deliberate nerf to miners.


That said you still don't *need* Fleet 5 to get good range out of these ships. If you do feel you need it, and it's that integral, then it's not that the train isn't worth the time it's that you don't like the time required.

Yes, range does matter, which is why CCP didn't match the boost range to the tractor range. The point of this isn't to make it super easy to cover everyone on grid with a single ship.

If I had to guess mining ships get reduced range because they move less and will have a much easier time positioning meaning they needed the reduced range to cause people to make tradeoffs with their boosting ships and positioning. You could bring another booster, or you could cluster up in a potentially less optimal configuration but trade the second booster for a mining ship.



A nerf to miners? After the Orca received a massive overhaul; improved tanking, capable Shield RR and huge increase in ore carry capacity. I will gladly trade 50% range. I am still looking at WingCmdr V as a bitter pill. (sugar coated Injectors will still leave bad taste). But it is a decision all fleet boosters have to make, regardless of their discipline. The only time I find that range becomes an issue is with Ore Anoms which can be spread over a significant area.

I would point to the option of Harvester Implants to assist overcoming this issue. Which again raises my point that Outer Ring is only available from Null; when both Sisters (Virtue) and Thukker (Nomad) are directly accessible in High-Sec through their LP. Perhaps with the changes to Deep Core Mining and other NPC mining corps, their LP stores could offer a Resource implant series in Slot 9 for miners to increase harvesting ranges.

Clustering up and sitting still are some of the primary contributing factors to miners being targets of convenience. It was the introduction of the Higgs Anchor intended to relieve these factors. So yes, the reduced range is a nerf which lacks a reasonable explanation.

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2017-01-13 02:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
Penance Toralen wrote:
Clustering up and sitting still are some of the primary contributing factors to miners being targets of convenience

I respectfully disagree. Being spread out is a bad thing. For one, which was just mentioned by you, Orcas now have remote shield rep capability and shield command boost ability, and considering that remote reps operate best in optimal range, yes you should be close to rest of fleet. Also worth noting: drone travel time in regards to defense. I've ganked a few retrievers myself, I freely admit that. The hardest kill I had was a retriever kill smack in the middle of a mining fleet that was almost entirely skiffs. Because they were all clustered together, getting a proper warp-in on him was a nightmare and they almost got me with their defense drones before I could pop him. If the skiffs weren't afk themselves, they would have sent their drones in enough time to save their odd-man-out-in-a-retriever bro. It was their AFK that killed him, not their clustering together. If they were spread out it would have been a piece of cake and no reaction time would have been enough to sic the drones on me due to distance.

So yes, clustering together saves lives. It's the same principle in play for herd animals. There's a reason it's done - it's a good idea.

Now, yes I'm talking about highsec mining. But if we're talking about low or null, I doubt there's anyone fielding a mining fleet with neuts in system or that being spread out is going to save you.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#360 - 2017-01-20 10:42:00 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:
Roll

Looks like I should invest in an egg-timer in order to do efficient Orca Mining boosting ........

What?


You do not need any third party timer since the buff timers are right there in front of you, assuming you are not AFK.



... i use timers for my combat boosts and siege cycles. if you want to be efficient don't go off the in game cycle