These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#381 - 2017-02-24 19:07:26 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're confident that Post-March Rorquals will still be vastly more powerful than they were pre-Ascension.

TBH that's not saying much.
Brigadine Ferathine
506 Irregulars
#382 - 2017-02-24 19:25:14 UTC
Arenthor Doran wrote:
How high are you right now fozzie? Stop having ideas

Fozzie has single handedly destroyed this game repeatedly the last 2-3 years. its time for him to go.
01d Man
Gallente Federation
#383 - 2017-02-24 19:25:57 UTC
CCP trying there hardest to kill Eve with a nerfbat
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#384 - 2017-02-24 19:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Pesadel0
Quote:
There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.


Maybe if you tied the amount you mine depending on the amount of people mining with hulks and with the support from rourquals ?

But this isn't really a discussion i think if you already changed and posted here it will go live so ...I find it funny that you say you cant influence the escavators price on one hand ,then tell us that the market is crashing because of the amount rourquals are mining, maybe it is a language barrier this isnt my main language , so you wont change the requirements of the Escavators when they got a big nerf but will change them IF you see the market wont price them lower?

So you think it is a good change when a guy will change a static target that can be killed costing 11B to mine the equivalent of two hulks is a good change ?Why would anyone put more than a rourqual on the field with this change , i honestly cant understand.
TeflonMag Usoko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#385 - 2017-02-24 19:28:43 UTC
Why not make Rorqs mine as a Venture? and why not cut one mid and one low???

And why not slow down all fighters to fly as the Excavators do?

Shkiki
MastersCraft
#386 - 2017-02-24 19:38:04 UTC
Don't try to sneak drone nerfs under the radar of panic button nerfs. This is about money. CCP wants more cash flow so they put out something that's going to cost hundreds of dollars to get and then less then 90 days later they nerf it like it was nothing. We know you want people with 12 hulk accounts paying monthly to get the ore needed to build larger ships. Nothing about this has anything to do with game play, they want cash.
milandinia
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#387 - 2017-02-24 19:49:59 UTC


If Panic is such a problem, an easy solution would simply be that if you use any offensive modules or any aggression, there is a cool down timer before you can use PANIC.

Forcing a lock on a rock is just stupid.
Hurrikhan Phact
Aideron Corp
#388 - 2017-02-24 19:52:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Hurrikhan Phact
The alliance who is hosting the current anti-carebear gankfest in Jita is complaining that the #1 carebear activity gets nerfed? How do you call that again?
Cade Windstalker
#389 - 2017-02-24 19:58:21 UTC
milandinia wrote:


If Panic is such a problem, an easy solution would simply be that if you use any offensive modules or any aggression, there is a cool down timer before you can use PANIC.

Forcing a lock on a rock is just stupid.


Fozzie literally just addressed this in a post LolLolLol
Jabbawockee Uta
Temporary Relief Solutions LLC
#390 - 2017-02-24 20:06:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jabbawockee Uta
Deleted
paintballlawss Padecain
Grass Fed Cannibals
The Bastion
#391 - 2017-02-24 20:08:26 UTC
If anything i would think CCP Fozzie would understand the risk vs reward and with these rorq changes for the drones there is no longer a reward like how do you not see that??
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#392 - 2017-02-24 20:24:18 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
milandinia wrote:


If Panic is such a problem, an easy solution would simply be that if you use any offensive modules or any aggression, there is a cool down timer before you can use PANIC.

Forcing a lock on a rock is just stupid.


Fozzie literally just addressed this in a post LolLolLol


"addressing" versus quoting jargon that goes against EVERYTHING they are actually doing in any other scenario are very different.

Maybe not to you with your biases in how you only flame people who want balance, but I mean fundamentally this is askiew for literally all other viewpoints.

Refer to my posts, if they did this blanket nerf to t3s and fozzie came and said "if its an issue we may change t3 requirements dont worry" You wouldn't say "SEE LOOK FOZZIE SAID SOMETHING" you'd flip your **** and would be 100% opposite the mindset you're at now.

Unless you're not really this ignorant and are instead an amazing troll, which would be funny, but fruitless to the insanity that these changes are
Thead Enco
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#393 - 2017-02-24 20:29:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!

I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:

There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
  1. The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets.
  2. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets.
  3. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack.

Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.

Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
  • There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
  • If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
  • Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.

As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. It’s also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module.
We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one.


TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place.
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#394 - 2017-02-24 20:38:19 UTC
*munches popcorn*

First time the nerf bat didn't hit me in the head. I get the rage about it, but something needed to be done. The asteroid requirement is a riot. SPACE IS LAVA, you need to touch an asteroid to be in a safe space.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet

Cade Windstalker
#395 - 2017-02-24 20:51:42 UTC
Thead Enco wrote:
TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place.


How is this even remotely an Eve thing to do to a ship? I guarantee you if you removed the Battle Rorqual from existence you would have ten times the complaints this little joy of a thread is getting... Roll

Iminent Penance wrote:
"addressing" versus quoting jargon that goes against EVERYTHING they are actually doing in any other scenario are very different.

Maybe not to you with your biases in how you only flame people who want balance, but I mean fundamentally this is askiew for literally all other viewpoints.

Refer to my posts, if they did this blanket nerf to t3s and fozzie came and said "if its an issue we may change t3 requirements dont worry" You wouldn't say "SEE LOOK FOZZIE SAID SOMETHING" you'd flip your **** and would be 100% opposite the mindset you're at now.

Unless you're not really this ignorant and are instead an amazing troll, which would be funny, but fruitless to the insanity that these changes are


Lol, first off I'm not flaming anyone. I'm being a little sarcastic, but that's a far cry from flaming.

Second, I'm not against balance, I'm against uninformed people who want something to stay broken because they don't recognize the problem, and people who would rather gain a tiny amount of safety over implementing the actually better and more comprehensive solution to the existing problem.

Also, if you'd read *my* posts, like this one I made 5 pages ago you'd know that I'm actually in favor of T3s getting nerfed because I think they push out too many other ship classes and are generally way too powerful.

paintballlawss Padecain wrote:
If anything i would think CCP Fozzie would understand the risk vs reward and with these rorq changes for the drones there is no longer a reward like how do you not see that??


I'd say he probably does, considering he has far more comprehensive numbers about the volume they've been mining vs the number lost, as well as how many people are mining with them vs how many people are boosting. Judging by the number of kills vs the rough volume of Excavator Drones sold I'd way the game is still running very Rorqual positive at the moment, and everyone I've talked to in Null either knows someone with one, wants to buy one, or has bought one (or several) in the last few months.

For comparison here, the raw build price of a Super Carrier is down to around 12b right now (yay mineral market crashes) and the public sale price is still well above 20b, just to be conservative. The Rorqual currently makes about as much ISK per hour as that Super Carrier while risking less than half the value of the Super and for most users it's not even in that much more danger, because in most larger alliances you're about 1 ping away from rescue.

And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.
Grath Telkin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#396 - 2017-02-24 20:57:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Jura McBain wrote:

2 hulks 600M
1 Rorq 12B.

Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs?
There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.



Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship.

All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Cade Windstalker
#397 - 2017-02-24 21:07:25 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship.

All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all.



Well, I guess that answers the question about whether anyone in PL bought PLEX to buy Rorquals... Lol

Seriously, how has someone who's played as long as the average PL player not figured out that if something looks too good it probably is and is going to get nerfed...
Grath Telkin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#398 - 2017-02-24 21:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship.

All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all.



Well, I guess that answers the question about whether anyone in PL bought PLEX to buy Rorquals... Lol

Seriously, how has someone who's played as long as the average PL player not figured out that if something looks too good it probably is and is going to get nerfed...


I haven't mined since the day they were released, while you're over here leaping to conclusions.


To think I'm some rare fringe case where people bought plex proves you have a tiny zika ravaged mind.


LOTS of people injected rorquals, you can look at the injector market to see that as it calmed down after the rorqual release.


And do you think any of those people would have purchased them if the end result would have been anything near a 10 billion isk version of 2 hulks?

No, so its a simple case of bait and switch, a **** play by CCP and if you think they didn't set out to gouge you like that you're nuts, this is classic CCP digging for pennies in the couch.

Its a trash way to treat your player base after all these years.

EDIT: And as far as 'looks to good to be true' mining still made less than any other profession. Super ratting can net you 400+/hr and yet they go after mining.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Thead Enco
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#399 - 2017-02-24 21:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Cade Windstalker wrote:


And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.


NO killboards ISD Max Trix
Trevize Demerzel
#400 - 2017-02-24 21:25:06 UTC
Please explain how targeting a rock solves this issue:

Tackle rorq jumps into a mining belt. Scrams another rorq, targets a rock and hits panic.

What am I missing? How was that tackle rorq prevented from using its' panic.

-