These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
AOSA
Atreidun Order
#481 - 2017-02-26 00:09:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:Edit: Posted some more detail on our thought process regarding PANIC restrictions and some initial Q&A here :Edit:

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 (including ice).

I've posted a bit more explanation of why we're leaning towards this solution in a reply here. We're definitely interested in hearing what other options you folks can think of to reach the same goals, but please read that post first for background.

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!


Perhaps the changes to the ship aren't enough. If players abuse the ship by adding modules that it shouldnt even be able use, then maybe the cure is to add restrictions to the modules. Make it so capital warp disruptors can only be fitted to combat capitals, make PANICs only affect industrial ships, etc.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#482 - 2017-02-26 00:13:43 UTC
handige harrie wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
H
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.


add a hull bonus:

Due to its specialized features the Rorqual (or to the panic module):

- can't fit entosis module.
- can't fit ewar modules.

just like intreceptors that with the entosis restriction.

Now both point #1 and #3 are taken care off, while point#2 is still wide available (i don't see how #2 is a bad thing)

Seconding this.

If entosis links and tackle on a Rorqual present a problem, disallow them on the ship entirely. It's a specialized, non-combat ship so this doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility. This is a much cleaner solution than the proposed "must have an asteroid locked" mechanic.

As for the secondary cyno, I think that we're just going to have to live with. The whole point of the PANIC module is to call in reinforcements, and lighting a cyno is kind of important to achieving that goal. Without entosis or tackle/ewar capability, the offensive uses of a PANIC/cyno combo are relatively limited.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Panther X
Dreadnoughtz Conclave
Requiem Eternal
#483 - 2017-02-26 01:06:08 UTC
I think there's also something else that needs to be said about the whole null-sec ores versus empire. We have to build and maintain our own infrastructure. Getting and keeping the industrial index up and buying and moving the upgrades itself. That's not cheap. Plus having the infrastructure to organize our own response fleets, cyno in defensive units etc.

This stuff all costs money, which we have to include in our cost of ownership. Whereas Empire you just warp to belt and chew.

Yes, rorq's should be isk printing machines. But they should cost money and make an appropriate return on investment.

Just though that should be said because no one has brought that up.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#484 - 2017-02-26 03:19:10 UTC
(1) I've seen a few people suggest a post-nerf rorqual will mine an equivalent amount to 2 hulks. That's not true. Post nerf, a max yield rorqual will mine around as much as 3.6 perfectly boosted max-yield hulks. Do the math. Don't believe **** you read from random people in this thread.

(2) The drop in excavator drone price since this was announced suggests the investment:income ratio will remain similar post-nerf. Multiboxers win again!

Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#485 - 2017-02-26 04:16:46 UTC
Hilmar, call me.
Cade Windstalker
#486 - 2017-02-26 04:46:02 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
(1) I've seen a few people suggest a post-nerf rorqual will mine an equivalent amount to 2 hulks. That's not true. Post nerf, a max yield rorqual will mine around as much as 3.6 perfectly boosted max-yield hulks. Do the math. Don't believe **** you read from random people in this thread.

(2) The drop in excavator drone price since this was announced suggests the investment:income ratio will remain similar post-nerf. Multiboxers win again!



Can you post your math? By my check the new Rorqual will mine as much as about 5.25 Rorqual boosted Hulks.

Also investment to income is only really relevant to losses, it still means the overall m3 over time is dropping significantly, which should help arrest the fall of mineral prices for everyone else.

AOSA wrote:
Perhaps the changes to the ship aren't enough. If players abuse the ship by adding modules that it shouldnt even be able use, then maybe the cure is to add restrictions to the modules. Make it so capital warp disruptors can only be fitted to combat capitals, make PANICs only affect industrial ships, etc.


It's not that the ship shouldn't be able to use these modules. Battle Rorquals have a long, storied, amusing, and drunken history in Eve. The problem is the combination of these modules and the new PANIC module.

Also if you missed it PANIC already only affects mining ships.
Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#487 - 2017-02-26 05:29:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Coelomate Tian
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Coelomate Tian wrote:
(1) I've seen a few people suggest a post-nerf rorqual will mine an equivalent amount to 2 hulks. That's not true. Post nerf, a max yield rorqual will mine around as much as 3.6 perfectly boosted max-yield hulks. Do the math. Don't believe **** you read from random people in this thread.

(2) The drop in excavator drone price since this was announced suggests the investment:income ratio will remain similar post-nerf. Multiboxers win again!



Can you post your math? By my check the new Rorqual will mine as much as about 5.25 Rorqual boosted Hulks


Sure! I stopped rounding and using rough numbers and calculated the post-nerf Rorqual to be 3.44x as good as a max-yield max-boosts hulk. Obviously the rorq will lose some yield to drones flight time and re-positioning, but the hulk is a clickfest and needs to move sometimes too. This is just comparing easily calculable yield calues.

~math~

(1) A current max yield rorqual is 1,188,000 m3 per hour (All Vs, T2 core, mining rigs) (source: PYFA).

(2) The nerf will drop that to 75% of current values, or 891,000 m3 per hour

(3) A max yield hulk (MSM II, crystal IIs, 3x MLU lows) is 111,000 m3 per hour before boosts, and ~258,922 m3 per hour after rorqual boosts

(see max boost value here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/ )

(4) 891,000 (post-nerf rorq) / 258,922 (max hulk) = 3.44
Cade Windstalker
#488 - 2017-02-26 05:57:12 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Sure! I stopped rounding and using rough numbers and calculated the post-nerf Rorqual to be 3.44x as good as a max-yield max-boosts hulk. Obviously the rorq will lose some yield to drones flight time and re-positioning, but the hulk is a clickfest and needs to move sometimes too. This is just comparing easily calculable yield calues.

~math~

(1) A current max yield rorqual is 1,188,000 m3 per hour (All Vs, T2 core, mining rigs) (source: PYFA).

(2) The nerf will drop that to 75% of current values, or 891,000 m3 per hour

(3) A max yield hulk (MSM II, crystal IIs, 3x MLU lows) is 111,000 m3 per hour before boosts, and ~258,922 m3 per hour after rorqual boosts

(see max boost value here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/ )

(4) 891,000 (post-nerf rorq) / 258,922 (max hulk) = 3.44


I *think* your numbers for a maxed out Hulk are off somewhere, though I'll certainly admit my earlier numbers were off since I completely forgot to put mining crystals and implants in when checking numbers.

Pyfa is showing me current numbers for a max-boosted Hulk at 226km3 per hour but I'm getting the same Rorqual numbers you are. I'm not factoring in drones because Hulks in Null often can't or won't mine right up against the rocks so the drones lose quite a bit of yield, and also some people may run combat drones instead. Even with drones and drone rigs though I'm still getting 250km3 which is ~9km3 short of your numbers.

Without the drones that puts a Rorqual post-change at ~3.94 fully boosted Hulks, or ~4.33 Orca Boosted Hulks.

Are you using the faction MLUs? Those cost like 700m each, and therefore aren't cost effective for a comparison like this. The whole point of a Hulk instead of a Rorqual is to have less hanging out in the belt.

Also FYI put a space between your URL and the close parens or it'll add the parenthesis to the URL.
Yodik
Dwarfed ORE
#489 - 2017-02-26 12:12:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Heh. No, the code just iterates over the list of locked targets and looks for something in the asteroid category. It doesn't even require the asteroid to be the selected target, just locked.

panic working only on industrial ships, except rorquals. so maybe need lock industrial ship for activating? L - Logic.

В любой непонятной ситуации - качай Prospect.

Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#490 - 2017-02-26 13:14:20 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


I *think* your numbers for a maxed out Hulk are off somewhere, though I'll certainly admit my earlier numbers were off since I completely forgot to put mining crystals and implants in when checking numbers.

Pyfa is showing me current numbers for a max-boosted Hulk at 226km3 per hour but I'm getting the same Rorqual numbers you are. I'm not factoring in drones because Hulks in Null often can't or won't mine right up against the rocks so the drones lose quite a bit of yield, and also some people may run combat drones instead. Even with drones and drone rigs though I'm still getting 250km3 which is ~9km3 short of your numbers.

Without the drones that puts a Rorqual post-change at ~3.94 fully boosted Hulks, or ~4.33 Orca Boosted Hulks.

Are you using the faction MLUs? Those cost like 700m each, and therefore aren't cost effective for a comparison like this. The whole point of a Hulk instead of a Rorqual is to have less hanging out in the belt.

Also FYI put a space between your URL and the close parens or it'll add the parenthesis to the URL.


PYFA is weird about boosts, so I typically don't use it for calculations.

Without command boosts, are we agreed that the hulk is 111,000 per hour (no mining drones)? Just a T2 fit: 3x T2 strip miners fit with T2 crystals and 3x mining laser upgrade IIs.

From there, I just used the max mining boost figure here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/

That says the maximum Mining Laser Optimization bonus is -57.13% cycle time, which must require a perfectly skilled rorqual, with an *active* T2 industrial core, on a mining foreman mindlinked pilot. Any number of those things could be weird in PYFA, but it's been weird for so long (and would so regularly crash my computer when I tried back in the day) that I haven't looked.

110,000 m3/ hour pre-boosts, boosts reduce cycle 42.87% of initial value, end value is 256,589 m3 per hour.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#491 - 2017-02-26 14:40:24 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Mistress Renegade wrote:
To solve the problems stated by CCP over the PANIC mode on Rorq's, why not just get rid of it all together. This solves the problem of invulnerable tackle, entosos or combat cyno etc.
To compensate for this make the industrial core not anchor the ship in place. This way a Rorq mining can align and warp out if needed. The Rorq is a capital class ship so it still has a strong tank which can fend of small gangs which it currently can with out the PANIC mode.


Honestly, it would be a better solution to simply remove the PANIC module completely. That solves the problems associated with it completely, rather than some bizarre hack that will not even address the biggest issues. A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him (and he never even had to PANIC).

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc.
The Bastion
#492 - 2017-02-26 15:53:33 UTC
The whole concept of pulling Roquals into the belts was always going to be a very thorny issue, CCP tempted players into accepting this with the reward of huge yields, apparently always with the intent to Nerf these yields once players had bought them and were happily flying them around like frigates.

It's no use players now hyperventilating over the changes CCP are proposing, there will be more and they will never be in the best interests of miners using them however these changes proposed need a careful appraisal imo, a lot of issues are caused by there imposition and few solved

This said it should come as no surprise to CCP that players took what was offered and ran with it, they individually have little concern of market prices, only the price on the day they sell but with almost everyone flying around in T1 ships, market instability and a host of negative changes in the game trusting CCP with anything right now is also well beyond the players.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#493 - 2017-02-26 15:56:26 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him.

But...mah yields! Ugh

(I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out before someone else does....)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Cade Windstalker
#494 - 2017-02-26 16:14:33 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
PYFA is weird about boosts, so I typically don't use it for calculations.

Without command boosts, are we agreed that the hulk is 111,000 per hour (no mining drones)? Just a T2 fit: 3x T2 strip miners fit with T2 crystals and 3x mining laser upgrade IIs.

From there, I just used the max mining boost figure here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/

That says the maximum Mining Laser Optimization bonus is -57.13% cycle time, which must require a perfectly skilled rorqual, with an *active* T2 industrial core, on a mining foreman mindlinked pilot. Any number of those things could be weird in PYFA, but it's been weird for so long (and would so regularly crash my computer when I tried back in the day) that I haven't looked.

110,000 m3/ hour pre-boosts, boosts reduce cycle 42.87% of initial value, end value is 256,589 m3 per hour.


Yes, with no implants, drones, or other modifiers beyond MLU 2s and T2 crystals I'm getting 111km3 per hour.

Okay, after playing around with the numbers myself it looks like Pyfa is not correctly factoring in (of all things) the 25% bonus from a T2 Mining Foreman Burst, so it looks like your numbers are correct, though you don't seem to have factored in implants on the Hulk pilots, though that would push the ratio down further.
Cade Windstalker
#495 - 2017-02-26 16:18:28 UTC
marly cortez wrote:
The whole concept of pulling Roquals into the belts was always going to be a very thorny issue, CCP tempted players into accepting this with the reward of huge yields, apparently always with the intent to Nerf these yields once players had bought them and were happily flying them around like frigates.

It's no use players now hyperventilating over the changes CCP are proposing, there will be more and they will never be in the best interests of miners using them however these changes proposed need a careful appraisal imo, a lot of issues are caused by there imposition and few solved

This said it should come as no surprise to CCP that players took what was offered and ran with it, they individually have little concern of market prices, only the price on the day they sell but with almost everyone flying around in T1 ships, market instability and a host of negative changes in the game trusting CCP with anything right now is also well beyond the players.


There's literally zero evidence that CCP 'always intended to nerf the yield' here. First off, if that was the case, they'd have nerfed the yield on the Ice drones as well.

What seems to have caused CCP to nerf the Rorqual is the huge number of Null combat and ratting pilots who took one look at the Rorqual, did a bit of math, and immediately jumped ship from their Super ratting to go scoop ore. If I had to guess CCP's original numbers were based at least in part on the proportion of players who were mining when they made the changes, since the number of miners tends to be fairly low and static. The surprise here was a bunch of people who formerly yelled about how boring and unrewarding mining was jumping into the profession.

Also if you think most people using T1 ships is a problem you clearly haven't been paying attention for the last 14 years... T1 ships have always been in the majority.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#496 - 2017-02-26 16:28:40 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him.

But...mah yields! Ugh

(I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out before someone else does....)


You mean like how properly fitted Exhumers are harder to suicide gank? What a concept!

While they are at it, they can also turn Excavator drones into Excavator fighters, so it is harder to multibox them.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#497 - 2017-02-26 16:55:49 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
What seems to have caused CCP to nerf the Rorqual is the huge number of Null combat and ratting pilots who took one look at the Rorqual, did a bit of math, and immediately jumped ship from their Super ratting to go scoop ore. If I had to guess CCP's original numbers were based at least in part on the proportion of players who were mining when they made the changes, since the number of miners tends to be fairly low and static. The surprise here was a bunch of people who formerly yelled about how boring and unrewarding mining was jumping into the profession.


Bingo. We can speculate as to whether or not it should have been surprising, given predictable greedy human behavior, but I think you're spot on.

The more I think about it, the more I think this nerf might actually work quite well: it is likely to drop single rorqual income levels well below single carrier income levels (assuming the fighter signature nerf doesn't kill the profession entirely), which should push the meta closer to where it's always been: multiboxers can earn more mining, single boxers can earn more actively shooting rats.

It will also make the bar higher for rorquals to match supercarrier income, so some people will settle for "just" super ratting instead of firing up 3+ rorqual accounts.

The end result will be fewer total rorquals mining and more pilots creating isk via ratting, both of which should help stabilize ore prices in the short term.

If the problem really was EVERYONE, including single-pilot players, rushing into rorqual mining, then this could smooth things over. Multiboxed rorqual fleets will largely be replacing the large multibox mining fleets that were already possible at massive scale. We'll see...

Cade Windstalker wrote:
Yes, with no implants, drones, or other modifiers beyond MLU 2s and T2 crystals I'm getting 111km3 per hour.

Okay, after playing around with the numbers myself it looks like Pyfa is not correctly factoring in (of all things) the 25% bonus from a T2 Mining Foreman Burst, so it looks like your numbers are correct, though you don't seem to have factored in implants on the Hulk pilots, though that would push the ratio down further.


Thanks for running through the numbers with me! I did neglect implants on the hulks, probably because I've ignored them on my null hulks (which are actually skiffs, because I am lazy). But you're right that they would close the gap a bit more.
Whale Sex
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#498 - 2017-02-26 17:58:32 UTC
Okay so crazy idea, what if after the last asteroid in a belt/anomaly is popped it triggers a 60sec timer that allows you to engage PANIC.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#499 - 2017-02-26 19:58:29 UTC  |  Edited by: jizzah
Let me add one more question to the (almost definitely pointless) argument before I call it quits and endure the changes rather than maintaining the vain hope they'll actually listen.

A speculation that's been made is this-the number of solo miners will drop due to there being more isk to be made super ratting (see Cade Windstalker's point). On the same trend, chars that used to multibox with a mass of hulks (you know who you are) before changes, were training them into rorquals.

What will happen when the rorquals being sold by the solo miners are being bought by the indy pros, and the 25% nerf is cancelled out by 25% more rorquals being fielded overall.

What will happen if ore hitting market stays the same? Will there be another nerf, then another, and another. Until we're back to using them as jump freighters and crushing ore at a pos.

Markets in the real world, and this one doubtless follows similar trends, have a habit of balancing themselves without the need for some omnipresent hand fiddling the books. As the majority of preferred ships out there need more than just ore, there's scope for other materials choking the production of everyday assets. Moon mining, faction and officer drops, PI-none of this is in any way affected by the mineral glut.

Anyways, off back to killing s**t.
o/
Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Digital Vendetta
#500 - 2017-02-26 20:12:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
Hey CCP - how about a boost to Rorquals/Capital Tractor beams in which they allow the Rorqual to tractor rocks closer, but has to maintain an active tractor on it to keep it close. If they drop the tractor the rock will return to a spot in the belt?

This isn't totally tended to be a single boost for the rorqual. but would allow the rorqual to assist in relocating rocks in the belt to help other mines as well....

At least with an option like this it would add some fun game play to mining.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs