These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#61 - 2017-02-12 07:01:23 UTC
If the price of everything comes down further - how is that necessarily a bad thing?

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

Keno Skir
#62 - 2017-02-12 10:51:40 UTC
Going out on a limb here.

If the magical "save the drones" method was made impossible somehow but the mining income of Rorq stays the same, would it be acceptable?
Salvos Rhoska
#63 - 2017-02-12 11:41:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If the price of everything comes down further - how is that necessarily a bad thing?


Taking this to an extreme, if everything costs nothing, there is no reason to do anything, or inversely, no risk in doing anything. +PLEX market would become extinct.

The stats on resource harvesting ships, matter. If their yields, especially in specific sectors with high potential (as is the case with Rorqs) are too high, it causes a systemic collapse of the yield value of lesser resource harvesting ships elsewhere.

Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem.
The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS.

There is not nearly enough destruction/obstruction of material transit between these two fundamentally different sectors.
Salvos Rhoska
#64 - 2017-02-12 12:03:39 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
Going out on a limb here.

If the magical "save the drones" method was made impossible somehow but the mining income of Rorq stays the same, would it be acceptable?


Good and well intended suggestion.

But the problem is not in how defensible or expensive Rorqs or their drones are, its in their overall yield from lucrative space.

Rorqs are like super cows, feeding off the most lucrative fields in all of EVE, yielding enormous amounts of milk, far beyond the capacity of other cows in different less lucrative fields.

I think their defensive options are fine, its their yield that is the problem.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#65 - 2017-02-12 12:03:41 UTC
Ugh

Roll

Smile
Keno Skir
#66 - 2017-02-12 12:20:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
Going out on a limb here.

If the magical "save the drones" method was made impossible somehow but the mining income of Rorq stays the same, would it be acceptable?


Good and well intended suggestion.

But the problem is not in how defensible or expensive Rorqs or their drones are, its in their overall yield from lucrative space.

Rorqs are like super cows, feeding off the most lucrative fields in all of EVE, yielding enormous amounts of milk, far beyond the capacity of other cows in different less lucrative fields.

I think their defensive options are fine, its their yield that is the problem.


Indeed, though there are a few separate reasons for Rorq hatred depending who you ask. I just mean that the risk vs reward calc for Rorqs in space is kind of broken due to an un-forseen (i think) work around to save the majority of the ISK in the event of death. If the ISK outlay is put in the necessary amount of risk we should see less Rorqs deployed and less ore mined, while keeping the function and capital stats the same.

There would still be complaints, but the least of any solution i can think of. I don't mine or anything but a multi billion ISK mining ship should make sh*t loads of ISK, however should also be risky enough to justify the income. I'm not sure if CCP saw the drone saving mechanic before it happened or if it's all working as intended so if anyone would like to enlighten me go for it Pirate
Salvos Rhoska
#67 - 2017-02-12 12:31:55 UTC
Rorqs mining in deep blue territory have almost zero risk, alongside the greatest mining yield by far, in the most lucrative space by far.

Changing Rorqs defense stats or drone issues will not correct that, although it certainly would hurt less secure Rorq operations.

Thus changing defense/drone stats on Rorqs, would only hurt smaller entities fielding them.

Thus the yield is the remaining issue. Rorqs just mine too goddam hard.
Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
#68 - 2017-02-12 13:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Belt Scout
Nothing wrong with Rorq's :P

They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake.

**This IS my main so STFU.

Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#69 - 2017-02-12 16:35:55 UTC
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.

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.

Risk? What risk do you have deep inside blue space with a captial fleet on stand by?
Highsec is more dangerous.
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#70 - 2017-02-12 16:48:29 UTC
Algarion Getz wrote:
Risk? What risk do you have deep inside blue space with a captial fleet on stand by?

https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#71 - 2017-02-12 16:51:52 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?

Only a limited amount of people can do highsec incursions at the same time. Right now for example there is a 2h queue to get into a fleet. The people with bling ships and with bling implants get picked first of course.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#72 - 2017-02-12 16:54:51 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem.
The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS.

Well, I'm glad we've removed one nail from the Rorqual's coffin... I really can't comment on the underlying mineral and ore mechanics as I'm not well-versed enough to really understand it.

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

Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
#73 - 2017-02-12 16:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Algarion Getz
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Algarion Getz wrote:
Risk? What risk do you have deep inside blue space with a captial fleet on stand by?

https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/

Hahaha. I guess thats what you get when you dont mine for Goonswarm or PL.

Are there dedicated Rorqual hunting groups?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#74 - 2017-02-12 17:04:08 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?



ppl have called for a nerf to hs incursions repeatedly
Salvos Rhoska
#75 - 2017-02-14 08:57:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem.
The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS.

Well, I'm glad we've removed one nail from the Rorqual's coffin... I really can't comment on the underlying mineral and ore mechanics as I'm not well-versed enough to really understand it.


My point being that the enormous volume of undestroyed material to and from HS-NS is a greater problem, and not the Rorqs fault.

But I still think the yields on Rorqs are too high, especially considering the lucrativeness of the sectors they operate in.
Mr Bignose
State War Academy
Caldari State
#76 - 2017-02-14 12:32:05 UTC
Some of the numbers stated here are a bit daft. muh ticks in a rorqual probably work out at 200-300M p/h depending on how lazy i'm being, with T2 core/reasonable skills and considering buyback margin/shipping and fuel consumption costs. I think that's a pretty reasonable return for the risk of sieging an 11Bn asset in null security space.

And yes it is a risk. Follow zkillboard and you'll see who are actively and successfully hunting these capital ships along with super-carriers. Deep blue null and intel mean nothing when wh based groups roll their static into your mining system. You can P.A.N.I.C. but the ship will simply die when the invulnerability cycle ends unless the pilot and alliance are properly prepared and organised.

active modules cycling while in P.A.N.I.C. is complete BS though, agreed.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#77 - 2017-02-14 12:36:27 UTC
The numbers I'm seeing are all in the 200-300m ISK/hour range. Not sure where this 750m ISK/hour originated from...

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

Katsuya Kobayashi
#78 - 2017-02-14 13:10:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Katsuya Kobayashi
Roquals are fine.

I very much enjoyed reading through this thread just to see how disconnected people are from how the game works.

First of all, Rorquals don't make anything even remotely close to 750m/hour.

Secondly, Rorquals die left and right every day. https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/

Thirdly, a lot more Rorquals should be dying, but unfortunately the vast majority of EVE's population are a bunch of pathetic risk averse carebears that don't have the balls to field anything close to 1/10 of the value a Rorqual pilot risks when starting his siege cycle.
Salvos Rhoska
#79 - 2017-02-14 14:06:07 UTC
Mr Bignose wrote:
Deep blue null and intel mean nothing when wh based groups roll their static into your mining system. You can P.A.N.I.C. but the ship will simply die when the invulnerability cycle ends unless the pilot and alliance are properly prepared and organised..


.....

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2017-02-14 15:55:12 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem.
The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS.

Well, I'm glad we've removed one nail from the Rorqual's coffin... I really can't comment on the underlying mineral and ore mechanics as I'm not well-versed enough to really understand it.


My point being that the enormous volume of undestroyed material to and from HS-NS is a greater problem, and not the Rorqs fault.

But I still think the yields on Rorqs are too high, especially considering the lucrativeness of the sectors they operate in.


This does not matter as long as the final product get destroyed. The amount that move and is produced don't really change anything as long as the destroyed totals keep up.