These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[December] Excavator Mining Drone yield rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#341 - 2016-12-27 22:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: handige harrie
if CCP wanted to make the excavator drones cheaper, they would've just halved the ingredient cost. Which would've solved the actual problem instead of trying some half handed (CCPs favourite way of dealing with things, except heavy missiles) possibly maybe solution.

The only decent thing at this point is decreasing the time the core is cycles to 1 minute, like bastion.

Baddest poster ever
SilKKZ the3rd
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#342 - 2016-12-28 16:38:28 UTC
This was an epic fail , they nerfed them , but the price has actually INCREASED now to 1.45b a pop.

they have no idea what there doing.
Nivek Steyer
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#343 - 2016-12-29 22:38:33 UTC
CCP Fozie,
Can you please make this right. It's not right that miners and industrialists are being penalized at every corner! You may think that is not the case, but it has been this way for many years. Why does CCP fear BS and T1 ships becoming more affordable? Think of the Alpha clones, cheaper ships for all and more fun that leads to more profit in the end for you! There is no reason for BS to cost almost 3x more than when we started this game! Everyone posting is correct risk vs reward. Just like your super carriers that are immune to except to certain scrams. I wonder why you all did that? You know why risk vs reward! 1.4b or so a drone come on! How about fixing that one? No, lets just nerf mining yields really? Been playing since the beginning of this game. Never seen this knee-jerk reaction in less than a month. Wow amazing is all I can say. If carriers can stay mobile and do max damage, then a rorqual should be able to do the same or only be locked down for like a minute. I agree with everyone. If you say pvp well just like going after a carrier buy you get a minute. Please fix what you knee jerked up!
Cade Windstalker
#344 - 2016-12-30 13:52:10 UTC
Nivek Steyer wrote:
CCP Fozie,
Can you please make this right. It's not right that miners and industrialists are being penalized at every corner! You may think that is not the case, but it has been this way for many years. Why does CCP fear BS and T1 ships becoming more affordable? Think of the Alpha clones, cheaper ships for all and more fun that leads to more profit in the end for you! There is no reason for BS to cost almost 3x more than when we started this game! Everyone posting is correct risk vs reward. Just like your super carriers that are immune to except to certain scrams. I wonder why you all did that? You know why risk vs reward! 1.4b or so a drone come on! How about fixing that one? No, lets just nerf mining yields really? Been playing since the beginning of this game. Never seen this knee-jerk reaction in less than a month. Wow amazing is all I can say. If carriers can stay mobile and do max damage, then a rorqual should be able to do the same or only be locked down for like a minute. I agree with everyone. If you say pvp well just like going after a carrier buy you get a minute. Please fix what you knee jerked up!


Okay, first off, this isn't penalizing anything. This is still a big buff over how things were before the Rorqual and other mining booster ships were tweaked.

Second, a little economics 101.

If the mineral balance in the game goes out of whack the result won't be just cheaper T1 ships, the result will be a mineral price crash and no one will be able to make very much money mining unless something changes with supply in the game. This is because if the mineral input massively outweighs the minerals being destroyed in combat then people will be forced to sell their minerals for less, but since other prices won't go down to match except those directly tied to mineral prices the buying power of industrialists is going to drop drastically.

As to the risk and reward for a Rorqual, the Rorqual is not a combat ship and should not be compared to a Carrier. If you want more combat prowess in your mining fleet you are free to bring a Carrier to it but I doubt it'll mine much. The primary reward of its siege mode is the mining yield not the damage and tank boost. If you don't think it's worthwhile then don't use it, it's still a perfectly good support and boosting ship without siege.
Mr Bowers
Doomheim
#345 - 2017-01-01 06:00:48 UTC
Rorqual needs a change in not being stuck. That feature should be removed from the game. Just like a titan can DoomsDay be stuck for 30 secs but after it can't jump, dock or tenor or cloak. It's time we use the same feature on the industrial core I and II.

When you first turn it on you should be stuck for 30 secs in the belt before your able to align out. After that you will lose time it takes the drones to go from and to the belts. Shocked
NeoShocker
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#346 - 2017-01-10 03:51:28 UTC
Unless I am doing it wrong, I don't see how the Rorqual is the ultimate mining solo boat with the excavators ... Other than that, It is a beast when boosting other miners. I would be happy if each drone is comparable as the hulk, if not little better. Yet it is not, especially with the mining cycle between the drones and the hulk in the long run.
Exelious
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#347 - 2017-01-12 11:34:52 UTC
Hi CCP,

All you have managed to do with this change is break the market for these drones even more and made the Russians in drone regions even more wealthy, and thus allowed the market to be manipulated to unreasonable pricing for something that was originally estimated at costing 300M per drone.

That moment you buy a fully fit Rorqual and the Mining drones alone cost 2 x the cost of the fully Faction / Deadspace Rorq...

Thanks for breaking market being stuck for 5 minutes for that cost is unreasonable, being stuck for 5 minutes in something that costs 4.5b is not as bad for the amount you make, but not 8.5B.

Bah.. we will see...
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#348 - 2017-01-13 05:02:53 UTC
michael chasseur wrote:
hisec wins again


LOL good one.

Oh, he was serious......then it is just sad that your extreme level of entitlement has blinded you to anything remotely resembling game balance.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
ugh zug
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2017-01-13 12:10:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ugh zug
rather than nerf them you need to implement a standard, non bpc faction and stupid mats gated, line.

name them Large mining drone/heavy ice mining drone I and II.
Large mining drone/heavy ice mining drone I should come in blue print original flavor and be in line with other standard drones for production mats/price. somewhere around a fighter each.

Hulls that depend on modules shouldn't be gated behind faction bpcs, obscure materials, and outright extortion from market controlling forces, to be viable. By doing so you are penalizing pilots who use these ships to the extreme. it's outright abuse from the developers.

Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post,1B. Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.
Graysanna
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#350 - 2017-01-19 08:41:18 UTC
I haven't played in quite awhile. It looks like CCP hasn't changed their BS while I was away. People are mining solo in just Rory's? Wtf happened to hulks? Wtf happened to boosting a mining fleet of alts? The list of fking ******** changes CCP has forced the player base to endure is disturbing, makes me wonder if anyone I flew with even bothers playing anymore. Just how bad is it to mine as a profession in eve?
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#351 - 2017-01-19 12:44:55 UTC
Exelious wrote:
Hi CCP,

All you have managed to do with this change is break the market for these drones even more and made the Russians in drone regions even more wealthy, and thus allowed the market to be manipulated to unreasonable pricing for something that was originally estimated at costing 300M per drone.

That moment you buy a fully fit Rorqual and the Mining drones alone cost 2 x the cost of the fully Faction / Deadspace Rorq...

Thanks for breaking market being stuck for 5 minutes for that cost is unreasonable, being stuck for 5 minutes in something that costs 4.5b is not as bad for the amount you make, but not 8.5B.

Bah.. we will see...


The Russians live in vale, geminate and insmother these days. only Russians in drones are solar in outer passage.
and if you use a wetu depot, your drones are safe anyways...
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#352 - 2017-02-08 19:23:30 UTC
It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.

Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"

In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#353 - 2017-02-14 12:03:43 UTC
Cearain wrote:
It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.

Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"

In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.

Personaly i think that it needs its damage bonus in siege doubled, but panic mode to turn off everything except tank mods including gang mods, entosis links, e-war and remote reps
Lugh Crow-Slave
#354 - 2017-02-14 15:40:34 UTC
Cearain wrote:
It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.

Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"

In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.




....


but it should need a fleet to defend itself from any committed threat and only have enough to deter randoms.... the entire point of the panic button was so that it could live long enough for a fleet to show.



titans need a fleet
supers need a fleet
dreads need a fleet
carriers need a fleet

and these are dedicated combat ships why do you thing the rorqual should not need a fleet?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#355 - 2017-02-15 13:25:38 UTC
Forum Rules of Conduct wrote:

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.
Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
#

Removed a post for violating the above rule.

ISD Fractal

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#356 - 2017-02-15 15:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Cearain wrote:
It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.

Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"

In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.




....


but it should need a fleet to defend itself from any committed threat and only have enough to deter randoms.... the entire point of the panic button was so that it could live long enough for a fleet to show.



titans need a fleet
supers need a fleet
dreads need a fleet
carriers need a fleet

and these are dedicated combat ships why do you thing the rorqual should not need a fleet?


The ships you mention do not need a fleet. For example a carrier does not need a fleet. But whether a ship in fact needs a fleet is different than whether a ship should need a fleet. The point I am making remains the same. If CCP designs ships to "need a fleet" then they are basically saying only large null sec alliances can use this ship. If that is what they want to do that is fine, but I think most of their playerbase will be less than pleased.



Ncc 1709 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.

Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"

In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.

Personaly i think that it needs its damage bonus in siege doubled, but panic mode to turn off everything except tank mods including gang mods, entosis links, e-war and remote reps





Its certainly possible that rorquals may have an issue where they point something while in panic mode etc.

I agree with you that they should do more dps. I mean they can be tanked indefinitely by a single subcap ship.

They are not allowed in high sec so they are a capital ship intended to only go into dangerous space. The fact that their dps is so anemic is odd.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cade Windstalker
#357 - 2017-02-15 18:24:20 UTC
Cearain wrote:
The ships you mention do not need a fleet. For example a carrier does not need a fleet. But whether a ship in fact needs a fleet is different than whether a ship should need a fleet. The point I am making remains the same. If CCP designs ships to "need a fleet" then they are basically saying only large null sec alliances can use this ship. If that is what they want to do that is fine, but I think most of their playerbase will be less than pleased.


I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. With the right setup a single ship can keep basically any capital ship tackled almost indefinitely unless the capital is in turn set up pretty much specifically to counter that eventuality, which makes it almost useless for anything else. A couple Battleships and 2 Logi Cruisers can tank and kill a Carrier or Dread easily given enough time.

However, "fleet" does not have to mean a massive amount of backup. A Rorqual plus one or two decent support ships can put out an absurd amount of reps and tank an attacking squad almost indefinitely as well as, if setup right, put out enough DPS to likely kill them.

Cearain wrote:
Its certainly possible that rorquals may have an issue where they point something while in panic mode etc.

I agree with you that they should do more dps. I mean they can be tanked indefinitely by a single subcap ship.

They are not allowed in high sec so they are a capital ship intended to only go into dangerous space. The fact that their dps is so anemic is odd.


It's really not, it's a mining ship, it's not supposed to have the DPS of a Carrier or even a high end Battleship. As has been said, repeatedly, these ships are meant to have support at least available to call, that is the point of the panic button. They are not supposed to be a defense fleet, mining god, and impenetrable tank all in one.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#358 - 2017-02-16 01:59:53 UTC
People keep baldly claiming what the Rorqis supposed to be. But that is begging the question.

We are talking about a ahip that when fit out costs about 4xs as much as a fit carrier. And yes cost is a balancing factor.

If you fit a carrier for solo ( like you would if you were not planning on calling in a fleet). Then I would take the carrier over 2 bs and 2 logi. But a rorq would have trouble with a single sub cap.


Bottom line is with that sort isk on the line the only people using it will be those who can out escalate everyone around. If that is the intended purpose I would prefer they just scrap the ship altogether.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Lugh Crow-Slave
#359 - 2017-02-21 20:48:24 UTC
Cearain wrote:


Bottom line is with that sort isk on the line the only people using it will be those who can out escalate everyone around. If that is the intended purpose I would prefer they just scrap the ship altogether.




lol what? there is already a large number of people using them w/o support and they very quickly pay for themselves. unless you are an idiot the excevator drones are never at risk lowering in price of these things substantially

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Oranen
Tax Skippers
#360 - 2017-02-22 13:45:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Oranen
Name something CCP Fozzie has been involved with that turned out like intended or even heading in the right direction.

Waiting.

Eventually I keep hoping someone in charge says enough is enough. Stop throwing darts at a dartboard with no skill at using them.

But hey it has a cool name like PANIC and DICKS. Then the thought train stopped.