These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ruby Gnollo
#281 - 2017-02-24 03:08:00 UTC
Sister Bliss wrote:

Surely reduced ore respawn rates or dimished resources which would force territorial conflict is a better answer? Instead we're force fed a mind numbing solution to a problem of I don't know what. We want more tools for self reliance and generating conflict, not more agonizing tedium.


Territorial conflict happens for Ice, in some regions of HS.

Scarcity & profit for those controlling the belts is what drives it. Having to haul it away makes it even more dangerous.

To have this happen for ore, remove one belt per system every month until expected result is achieved
Wut Maschine
Apple Inc.
#282 - 2017-02-24 03:18:36 UTC
Fozzie,

I know you don't mind being the most hated face of CCP. I know it's your job to present us the good and bad news. We talk about eve economy and the impact of these Rorquals. So question, now that I have a huge capital investment in these (100b +) how many man years will it take for me to break even now.

And since these are now nerffed to the point of almost useless, please comp by seeding these drones. Or at least their build components.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback.

These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy.

At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance.

Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment:

Excavator Drones:
We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. I know it never feels good when things get nerfed but we're very confident that the Rorqual will continue to be an extremely powerful mining ship after these changes (not to mention the value provided by its other functions such as foreman links and defenses). We plan on continuing to make changes in this area as necessary over the coming months with the goal of keeping the mineral market healthy and ensuring that a wide variety of mining ships are viable.
  • Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life.
  • Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones.
  • In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread.

PANIC Module:
We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations.
To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change:
  • Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.

Other misc mining changes:
  • Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus.
  • Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km).
  • Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining.
  • We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises.

These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks!
Dawn Harbinger
Order of the Eclipse
Triumvirate.
#283 - 2017-02-24 03:20:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Dawn Harbinger
As a lowly (often solo) miner piloting his exhumer in low sec, I want to thank you for keeping an eye on the ore market!

I mine because I find it fun and relaxing, but at some point I have to ask myself why even bother when people are sucking up belts at an ungodly rate using their own personal rorqual fleet. As much as I love piloting my Skiff I'm not going to do it when my full ore hold is worth < 1 million isk.
Patrice Macmahon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2017-02-24 03:23:12 UTC
""Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.""

You should also extend this to locking an Ice Block, just in case you guys ever decide it's a good idea for a Roqual to boost ice mining fleets (Or use Excavator Ice Harvesting drones)...

Future proof your fixes. ^.^

 "Much of this is crystallised in our philosophy, or as others call it "the Intaki Faith". We simply call it Ida - the literal translation is "to consider", and is a good description of the Intaki." 
MightyGuy
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#285 - 2017-02-24 03:56:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie and another one of his brilliant ideas... get people interested in mining .. making stuff ..then nerf it hard... then came back and nerf it again while screwing the panic button so hard my rorqual will fly funny for a week. Fozzie PLEASE go somewhere else and screw up someone elses game. And leave the Rorquals alone.. in your feedback thread the consensus was to leave it the way it is ... will you do that... will you actually READ the feedback and go with what we tell ya ... Or will you do what you always do and do what you want.
Zeto Prime
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#286 - 2017-02-24 03:57:42 UTC
ANOTHER MINING NERF what the hell are you doing ... Are you trying to make this ship as useless as it used to be. Is that your end goal. Make a multi Billion ISK ship SIEGED in the open for hours less useful the n a barge. Is that your plan? WELL IT SUCKS do not do this NERF we rorqual pilots implore you NOT TO DO THIS. I can not see were having more ore available can be a bad thing anywhere
Suleman Dredger
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2017-02-24 04:04:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Suleman Dredger
It took me awhile to get into a Rorqual - finally get to mine , now another nerf ? I really have one other question - what happened to the estimated price of "Excavator " mining drones - 300 mil by ccp - i saw a post that the 2 drone components were being increased , all i saw was prices skyrocketing .....and one more item , why not let orca's use one or more of the drones ?
Rafau Maco
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#288 - 2017-02-24 04:08:46 UTC
MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
willhelm Azizora
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#289 - 2017-02-24 04:12:05 UTC
this seems like a silly idea because as for the panic button you could just have the same debuf as a network senor array has in order to stop the combat rork and as for the mining nerf it is going to **** off all of the people who have been training in to rorks. Not to mention you are complacently ignoring the gator issue of the skyrocketing price of the drones and salvage. you are effectively making a rork much less competitive with a Hulk group. this is a bad idea and you should not implement these changes.
Willson Azizora
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#290 - 2017-02-24 04:18:22 UTC
Rafau Maco wrote:
MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
Cade Windstalker
#291 - 2017-02-24 04:19:02 UTC
zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz wrote:
Translation: treat indy ships like EVERY OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME when nerfs happen. Imagine if t3 ships all got a 30% ehp reduction, 30% dps reduction, no more instawarp, no more covert ops config, AND more mass for "wormhole balance"

The same people who have their heads up their asses would be crying enough salt to supply every mcdonalds in the world.

And that's NORMAL. "blanket nerfs" where you hit literally every aspect of a ship in terms of its mainuse + survivability, people have issues with it. Because it's ********.


They are treating them like every other ship, which means if something is over-performing it gets nerfed in a way that CCP thinks will lead to a better game state. They've already nerfed it once, that didn't work, so they're nerfing it again to see where it lands. None of this has *anything* to do with percentage change in any stat on any ship.

I'd also like to point out that your hyperbole here pretty badly missed the mark. Most of CCP's changes to combat ships aren't "blanket nerfs" and they haven't touched anything on the Rorqual except for its mining yield, which is out of control, and its ability to be used as absurdly heavy tackle, logi, and entosis, which has also been threatening to get out of control.

Oh, and amusingly if you went ahead with those T3C nerfs you so angrily threw out there you might actually get a halfway balanced ship. Thirty percent less DPS is probably a bit much, but 30% less EHP would still leave them with more than a well tanked T2 Cruiser. Though I don't think they can insta-warp, so there's that. Roll
Zeto Prime
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#292 - 2017-02-24 04:22:36 UTC
MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
Grognard Commissar
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#293 - 2017-02-24 04:23:46 UTC
Dawn Harbinger wrote:
As a lowly (often solo) miner piloting his exhumer in low sec, I want to thank you for keeping an eye on the ore market!

I mine because I find it fun and relaxing, but at some point I have to ask myself why even bother when people are sucking up belts at an ungodly rate using their own personal rorqual fleet. As much as I love piloting my Skiff I'm not going to do it when my full ore hold is worth < 1 million isk.

if they would reblanace the belts, we could use all our ore for local production, instead of shipping it out. besides, mining is not really supposed to be a solo game
Ghillie Troll Askold
Singularity Dynamics
#294 - 2017-02-24 04:24:05 UTC
I don't like to be that guy, but seriously, nullsec finally had a way to make money where the risk vs. reward made sense, and now it's practically being removed. If you're this content to screw us over, then just revert the Rorqual changes. This is not the first nerf, and the way you lot seem to be looking at it, it won't be long before another. I already had plans to put two other characters into Rorquals, but I'm just not sure it's worth my time any more.

It made sense to go to nullsec and have big ships now, and for some of us perhaps things like supercapitals won't go back to being nigh unobtainable, but the Rorqual represented the first big step one could take towards things like owning a supercarrier, or running large scale production without having a ridiculous number of characters, but even if the Rorqual continues to scale well, they will become the same as carriers once were; big ships for ISK grinding that you still needed a lot of to have any hope of owning big or expensive ships that you could undock in and be confident that if lost, they could be replaced.

I have never been one to say that Eve is dying, but I fear changes like this could be the beginning of the downward spiral that so many games take to their graves- changes that are unanimously disapproved of by the majority of the community, but take place nonetheless. It happened to Star Conflict, Robocraft, Rust, and so many other amazing games. Please don't put this one on that list.
Grognard Commissar
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#295 - 2017-02-24 04:25:59 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz wrote:
Translation: treat indy ships like EVERY OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME when nerfs happen. Imagine if t3 ships all got a 30% ehp reduction, 30% dps reduction, no more instawarp, no more covert ops config, AND more mass for "wormhole balance"

The same people who have their heads up their asses would be crying enough salt to supply every mcdonalds in the world.

And that's NORMAL. "blanket nerfs" where you hit literally every aspect of a ship in terms of its mainuse + survivability, people have issues with it. Because it's ********.


They are treating them like every other ship, which means if something is over-performing it gets nerfed in a way that CCP thinks will lead to a better game state. They've already nerfed it once, that didn't work, so they're nerfing it again to see where it lands. None of this has *anything* to do with percentage change in any stat on any ship.

I'd also like to point out that your hyperbole here pretty badly missed the mark. Most of CCP's changes to combat ships aren't "blanket nerfs" and they haven't touched anything on the Rorqual except for its mining yield, which is out of control, and its ability to be used as absurdly heavy tackle, logi, and entosis, which has also been threatening to get out of control.

Oh, and amusingly if you went ahead with those T3C nerfs you so angrily threw out there you might actually get a halfway balanced ship. Thirty percent less DPS is probably a bit much, but 30% less EHP would still leave them with more than a well tanked T2 Cruiser. Though I don't think they can insta-warp, so there's that. Roll

out of control? how so? i'd posit that relatively cheap capitals are good for the game. the only reason the market is crashing, is because the belts are not balanced with the consumption
Cade Windstalker
#296 - 2017-02-24 04:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Iminent Penance wrote:
Dude look up cade's post history. He only posts on forums to flame people for wanting risk vs reward in ANYTHING but pvp ships. Seriously don't bother talking with him on anything regarding balance, he will just sarcastically tell you how you're just greedy/carebear to justify ccp making his life easier.

Which is hilarious.

In regards to these changes: Lol CCP. Lol


You clearly didn't look back far enough. Roll

I was actually quite in favor of the original Rorqual changes and even defended the high yields for a while after, but at this point the mineral market is dropping like, well, a rock, and it's pretty easy to see why. The Rorqual isn't even getting used as a boosting ship, people are going "Excavator drones or bust!" and just using fleets of these things to mine.

I'm all in favor of Risk vs Reward in every area of the game, PvE, PvP, Mining, or whatever else, but it should be balanced risk vs reward, and the Rorqual is pretty clearly out of balance.

Grognard Commissar wrote:
someone did the math, you'll loose fully 25% of ur optimal yield...
http://pastebin.com/8WbfwhGU

i don't think i've ever seen CCP take such massive nerfbats to anything... maybe CCP should try nerfing carriers 25% dps, see how that goes over


You mean like that thing they did to Carriers two months after Citadel dropped that did pretty much exactly what you're saying here? Nerfed Carriers by about 25% and made it so they couldn't alpha sub-caps off the field anymore?

Oh and don't forget the last time they nerfed the Rorqual, all of a month and a half ago. Which has completely failed to halt the slide in mineral prices that started around November when the revamped Rorqual came out...
Grognard Commissar
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#297 - 2017-02-24 04:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Grognard Commissar
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iminent Penance wrote:
Dude look up cade's post history. He only posts on forums to flame people for wanting risk vs reward in ANYTHING but pvp ships. Seriously don't bother talking with him on anything regarding balance, he will just sarcastically tell you how you're just greedy/carebear to justify ccp making his life easier.

Which is hilarious.

In regards to these changes: Lol CCP. Lol


You clearly didn't look back far enough. Roll

I was actually quite in favor of the original Rorqual changes and even defended the high yields for a while after, but at this point the mineral market is dropping like, well, a rock, and it's pretty easy to see why. The Rorqual isn't even getting used as a boosting ship, people are going "Excavator drones or bust!" and just using fleets of these things to mine.

I'm all in favor of Risk vs Reward in every area of the game, PvE, PvP, Mining, or whatever else, but it should be balanced risk vs reward, and the Rorqual is pretty clearly out of balance.

Grognard Commissar wrote:
someone did the math, you'll loose fully 25% of ur optimal yield...
http://pastebin.com/8WbfwhGU

i don't think i've ever seen CCP take such massive nerfbats to anything... maybe CCP should try nerfing carriers 25% dps, see how that goes over


You mean like that thing they did to Carriers two months after Citadel dropped that did pretty much exactly what you're saying here? Nerfed Carriers by about 25% and made it so they couldn't alpha sub-caps off the field anymore?

Oh and don't forget the last time they nerfed the Rorqual, all of a month and a half ago. Which has completely failed to halt the slide in mineral prices that started around November when the revamped Rorqual came out...

they'll never stop the slide, until they fix it so that all the minerals get used. they can nerf mining into the ground, not going to fix it at all.

also, keep ion mind that the (fitted) rorqual costs as much as 4 (fitted) ratting carriers... and is locked in place for 5 minutes
Gamble Aces
Players vs. EVE
Goonswarm Federation
#298 - 2017-02-24 04:39:02 UTC
Here's my tinfoil hat theory.


CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again.
Cade Windstalker
#299 - 2017-02-24 04:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Grognard Commissar wrote:
out of control? how so? i'd posit that relatively cheap capitals are good for the game. the only reason the market is crashing, is because the belts are not balanced with the consumption



Grognard Commissar wrote:
they'll never stop the slide, until they fix it so that all the minerals get used. they can nerf mining into the ground, not going to fix it at all.

also, keep ion mind that the (fitted) rorqual costs as much as 4 (fitted) ratting carriers... and is locked in place for 5 minutes



See above link for the graph on Pyrite prices. The same thing is happening to Tritanium, Isogen, Nocxium, and Morphite. The only reason that Megacyte, Zydrine, and Mexallon spiked after the initial jump was because the impact on all the other more readily available minerals was more immediate. Now that supply is truly starting to out strip demand on even those we're starting to see all of them slide as well, with Mexallon being the last because the primary ores for getting it didn't used to be as valuable as the ABCs but right now it's become a bottle neck.

The reason the market is crashing is because of Rorqual mining. Rorquals and their absurd m3 per minute have created a massive influx of minerals into the market that's massive out stripped demand. CCP can't magically make players consume more minerals, so they have to arrest the supply by nerfing the Rorqual.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't really matter how much a Rorqual costs if they aren't dying, and right now they really aren't, at least not with nearly enough frequency to come close to offsetting the volume of minerals they mine.

Gamble Aces wrote:
Here's my tinfoil hat theory.


CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again.


Lol, no. Just look at this thread or go talk to some miners. All the miners with 10 subs started training them for Rorquals as fast as they could.

If anyone was going to un-sub over the present state of the Rorqual it's the smaller High Sec miners that are watching their chances of making a PLEX each month disappear with the falling price of Trit.
Gamble Aces
Players vs. EVE
Goonswarm Federation
#300 - 2017-02-24 04:53:06 UTC
I agree with so many other people that null sec was just starting to feel right, fielding a 12b isk ship make 250m an hour, field a 22b super, make 300m an hour. Suddenly buy three hulks for 1b and make just as much? Utter bullshit, just trying to get more subs up.

If you field multiple billions to make money, you should make money regardless of how many accounts you're doing it across. CCP is only interested in people paying 10 subs a month making good income

People paid the real money equivalent of 12 months game time for these rorquals and you're going to devalue them with the stroke of a pen because of your own lack of foresight and judgment, you're a lead game designer for crying out loud, in any industry but gaming your actions would be seen as fraudulent.