These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

++ Stop The Rorqual ++

Author
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#21 - 2017-02-10 07:52:39 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
High-sec incursions are totally off the balance talking risk/reward. And nobody asks for nerf it. Why rorqual?

I make 250m+ ISK/hour in high-sec just missioning - Incursions are not out of whack. Considering what you have to drop on a Rorqual along with fitting it out and the risk it entails - it's not out of line.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Gregorius Goldstein
Queens of the Drone Age
#22 - 2017-02-10 09:30:02 UTC
If you have a big enough Alliance living in a small enough area and fast responding fleets you can risk high amounts of ISK and still be relatively safe. Like the Goons mining with a lot of Roquals that are together worth over a hundred Billions. Spread you Alliance over to much space and you will lose stuff, be to slow when your ships get tackled and you will lose stuff, don’t bring the numbers and you will lose stuff. Simple as that. Roquals are just a nice tool to make a good use of territory superiority. If you didn’t secure your space like that you are better of mining in anything less expensive.
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
#23 - 2017-02-10 10:12:28 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Its exactly like carrier ratting vs. battleship ratting. Rorqs are fine.(for mining, jump hics are pretty bullshit)



yeah the ~750 mill/hr is totally balancedRoll

High-sec incursions are totally off the balance talking risk/reward. And nobody asks for nerf it. Why rorqual?


people are always shouting to nerf incursions

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#24 - 2017-02-10 12:47:17 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
you have to put a 3b ship in belt and siege it, well it better be better than a 300m barge.

So what's the point of the barge again?


The barge is something to do while skilling up for a Rorqual. It takes quite a few months to train all the necessary skills.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2017-02-10 13:48:35 UTC
Don't touch the Rorqual's insane output, but make them more vulnerable to destruction. There should be many Rorquals in belts and many of them shall be destroyed ... this would make me happy. BearPirate

I'm my own NPC alt.

Keno Skir
#26 - 2017-02-10 14:17:38 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
you have to put a 3b ship in belt and siege it, well it better be better than a 300m barge.

So what's the point of the barge again?


Quite obviously the point of a Barge is for situations where a Rorq isn't a good idea. For your education i'll list a few situations, and i'm sure you can think of a few more really Blink

○ In Hisec where Rorq is not allowed to operate.
○ In dangerous space where heavy reinforcements are not available to defend said Rorq.
○ When you don't have the SP for a Rorq.
○ When your corp cannot secure it's space reasonably from aggressors.
○ When you or your corp do not have billions to drop on a mining ship / fleet of mining ships.

Your question implies there is no point in anything except the biggest version of whatever ship, which is so short sighted i'm pretty sure you didn't think through your post at all.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2017-02-10 15:00:51 UTC
P3ps1 Max wrote:
Remove the "no risk" button they currently have.

Once we roamed around and found brave Rorq pilot. He with his friends (couple subcaps + super) forced our small nano gang to leave.

But then we returned with 70 alliance mates Shocked
Panic button delayed death of first Rorq while we were busy killing another one (he tried to help his mate against our tacklers).
Then both Rorqs transformed to killmails + l00t.

That's 'no risk' button....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Salvos Rhoska
#28 - 2017-02-10 15:05:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
TLDR:
-Rorqs with sufficient defense support allows for vast material generation.

Impact:
-A large NS entity that fields them en-mass, can accrue absolutely insane amounts of materials.
-A smaller NS entity, even if previously defeated, can commensurately rapidly rebuild its capacity/relevance, if they redirect/incentivize those materials to that purpose.

The real problem is in the resultant supply/demand of materials, and the free-flow of material to and from NS lucrative production areas and lucrative HS markets.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#29 - 2017-02-10 15:32:12 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Its exactly like carrier ratting vs. battleship ratting. Rorqs are fine.(for mining, jump hics are pretty bullshit)



yeah the ~750 mill/hr is totally balancedRoll

according to pyfa the yield/hr for a max rorq is 816,800m3/hr and fuzzwork has ark as the top ore at 473 isk/m3 giving a yield of 386mil/hr. That seems kinda reasonable to me.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Salvos Rhoska
#30 - 2017-02-10 15:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
giving a yield of 386mil/hr. That seems kinda reasonable to me.


You find 386mil/hr for shooting at rocks, reasonable?

Really?

As I said above, the real problem here is when this enormous mineral generation in the most lucrative sectors of space saturates its own local market demands and begins to flood into HS markets.

386mil/hr is an insane rate, specific to a certain sector and certain hull.
Invariably, this WILL collapse the mineral market, and by extension, all other markets that involve minerals.

Inflation is inevitable.

Rorq yield, compounded by the lucrative space in which they operate, is going to flood the market.
There is nowhere near enough material destruction in NS, or anywhere else, to offset this rate of mineral generation from Rorqs in NS.
Merias Tylar al-Akhwa
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2017-02-10 15:51:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Merias Tylar al-Akhwa
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
giving a yield of 386mil/hr. That seems kinda reasonable to me.


You find 386mil/hr for shooting at rocks, reasonable?


I find 386mil/hr reasonable given the context of the at-risk and in-field asset cost of a Rorqual, yes.

EVE is a game where risk is balanced against reward. If I am risking a ridiculously expensive ship I should be making a heap of a lot of ISK in reward.
Salvos Rhoska
#32 - 2017-02-10 16:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Merias Tylar al-Akhwa wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
giving a yield of 386mil/hr. That seems kinda reasonable to me.


You find 386mil/hr for shooting at rocks, reasonable?


I find 386mil/hr reasonable given the context of the at-risk and in-field asset cost of a Rorqual, yes.


The destruction of a Rorq, interms of material sink from the market, is insignificant compared to how much material that Rorq can introduce to the market.

The more Rorqs there are, the cheaper minerals will be, and the cheaper more Rorqs will be.
But none of that changes the yield Rorqs can achieve.

386mil/hr is madness for a passive activity in EVE.
And it wont be that for long, because Rorqs are going to oversupply the mineral market.

This is a guaranteed systemic spiral into inflation.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#33 - 2017-02-10 16:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Merias Tylar al-Akhwa wrote:
I find 386mil/hr reasonable given the context of the at-risk and in-field asset cost of a Rorqual, yes.

EVE is a game where risk is balanced against reward. If I am risking a ridiculously expensive ship I should be making a heap of a lot of ISK in reward.

I have to agree. This isn't really any different than ratting with Super Carriers as the investment is comparable. To make serious money through Incursions or L4 missioning you also need to invest billions of ISK in various ships and implants - but the payout is obviously less.

Rorquals have moved from the safety and confines of POS and out into the wilderness. Isn't that what everyone wanted?

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Rorq yield, compounded by the lucrative space in which they operate, is going to flood the market.
There is nowhere near enough material destruction in NS, or anywhere else, to offset this rate of mineral generation from Rorqs in NS.

I thought the end-goal was to make null-sec more self sufficient and less reliant on high-sec? It's too early to tell, but I believe this is a step in the right direction.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Cade Windstalker
#34 - 2017-02-10 16:17:04 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Damned if you buff... damned if you nerf.


"Any decision or change you make will **** off some portion of your playerbase, including the decision to change nothing."
Salvos Rhoska
#35 - 2017-02-10 16:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I thought the end-goal was to make null-sec more self sufficient and less reliant on high-sec? It's too early to tell, but I believe this is a step in the right direction.


Neither HS or NS is reliant on the other.
Both HS and NS can be self-sufficient, nominally.
If HS, or NS was suddenly removed from the game, either remaining sector could still survive.

The current situation, is NS exploits HS markets by dumping/leveraging their surplus from sector benefits sourced locally , and returning to NS with competitively priced cheap assets from HS to NS.

The problem with Rorqs, is their stats in addition to the inherent lucrativeness of NS.
They mine so hard they will invariably threaten the economic homeostasis of all of EVE.
Inflation is inevitable (which is particularly bad for players that source their income from other PvE).

TLDR: Rorqs are grossly over-performing.
They just mine too goddam hard, in space that is already the most systemically lucrative.
They got over-buffed,
Cade Windstalker
#36 - 2017-02-10 16:33:51 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I thought the end-goal was to make null-sec more self sufficient and less reliant on high-sec? It's too early to tell, but I believe this is a step in the right direction.


Neither HS or NS is reliant on the other.
Both HS and NS can be self-sufficient, nominally.

The current situation, is NS exploits HS markets by dumping/leveraging their surplus from sector benefits sourced locally , and returning to NS with competitively priced cheap assets from HS to NS.

The problem with Rorqs, is their stats in addition to the inherent lucrativeness of NS.
They mine so hard they will invariably threaten the economic homeostasis of all of EVE.
Inflation is inevitable.

TLDR: Rorqs are grossly over-performing.


Your conclusions are flawed here, as are your inputs. First off, we don't have enough data to know for sure what the Rorqual will do to the markets long-term.

Second, Eve has never been in economic homeostasis, ever. The economy has grown, shrunk, and changed for *years*.

Also it's basically never been the case that HS and Null operated independently of each other. There are some materials that are only found in Null and some that can only be mined in large quantities in Null. Also Null has basically always imported a lot of things from High Sec, and in fact it's only been in the last few years that CCP have taken steps to incentivize more industrial activity in Null outside of things which can only be produced there.

You're also completely ignoring the rather high cost of transporting large volumes of minerals from Null to High Sec. Jump Freighters are expensive, as is fuel, and minerals actually aren't all that value-dense compared to finished goods. That's why if you look at the market you can buy minerals in Null *much* more cheaply than in Jita right now, and the orders are spread out all over.

Lastly you and anyone else in this thread don't really have enough data to say for sure that the Rorqual is over performing right now, especially after CCP recently nerfed the Harvester drones.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#37 - 2017-02-10 16:34:11 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Neither HS or NS is reliant on the other.
Both HS and NS can be self-sufficient, nominally.
If HS, or NS was suddenly removed from the game, either remaining sector could still survive.

The current situation, is NS exploits HS markets by dumping/leveraging their surplus from sector benefits sourced locally , and returning to NS with competitively priced cheap assets from HS to NS.

The problem with Rorqs, is their stats in addition to the inherent lucrativeness of NS.
They mine so hard they will invariably threaten the economic homeostasis of all of EVE.
Inflation is inevitable.

TLDR: Rorqs are grossly over-performing.

I think you're overthinking this.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Salvos Rhoska
#38 - 2017-02-10 16:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Watch and see it happen.

Once local NS markets are saturated for their own needs, surplus minerals and products generated in NS advantaged systems will begin flooding to HS, to the result of inflation.

This is especially problematic for players that source their income from re-sale of non-mineral PVE sourced items, because they cant increase their yield to compete with the buffed yield of Rorqs that provide the fundamental materials required for all of EVEs production chains.

The nature of the relationship between NS and HS, is that NS has greater yields, but HS has the competitive markets.

The problem with the Rorq, is that CCP buffed it so hard, that whereas Rorqs where previously a largely inconsequential element in EVE (which was crap), they are now suddenly the best at resource harvesting, in the systems with the best yields and (arguably) best security.

As long as Rorq stats are as insane as they currently are, it really doesnt matter what the rate of their destruction is (which likely will remain low). Furthermore, the enormous mineral yield Rorqs provide when introduced to the market, will reduce the cost of each subsequent Rorq production, thus proliferating more Rorqs, etc.

It is inevitable, that Rorqs are going to lead to inflation.
They now mine so hard in the most lucrative of space, that there is no way around that conclusion.
Bjorn Tyrson
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#39 - 2017-02-10 16:52:59 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
you have to put a 3b ship in belt and siege it, well it better be better than a 300m barge.

So what's the point of the barge again?


High-sec mining, J-space mining, low-sec ninja-mining. newer miners who can't afford to put a 3b ship in space, "casual" miners who might dabble in it when bored but don't want to invest 3b and all the skills required for something they do casually at most.

whats the point in using a destroyer when you can use a T3D? why use a cruiser when you can use a T3? why use a battleship instead of a capital?

different tools for different jobs.

also I havent checked the numbers recently (since I am one of those casual miners who does it just to alleviate boredom not for profit) but doesn't a hulk with roqual boosts pull in almost as much as the rorq? even if its only half the yield, for the same price as putting out 2 rorqs you could put out a rorq and 10 hulks. and i'd be willing to bet the isk/hr would be much higher for it.
Salvos Rhoska
#40 - 2017-02-10 17:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
for the same price as putting out 2 rorqs you could put out a rorq and 10 hulks. and i'd be willing to bet the isk/hr would be much higher for it.


That would also involve PLEXing, training and multitasking 11 accounts, as opposed to 2.

Im sure you will agree it is cheaper and more pragmatic to fly/train/PLEX 2 Rorqs, rather than 1 Rorq + 10 hulks.