These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#641 - 2017-03-02 20:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Pesadel0 wrote:
So no data to back up your claims then , you suppose what will happen .


I have some basic data in the form of what a Rorqual mines per hour, what a Carrier, Super, or Titan gets ratting, and the cost of a Super or Titan in ISK vs the cost in minerals within a Corp or Alliance.

If you really need sources for any or all of the above just ask here, but I won't be able to dig them up until later tonight.

I also have anecdotal evidence from various friends in different and sometimes opposed Null groups telling me how many Rorquals you can multi-box vs Carriers or Supers. This I can't provide a source for beyond those in this thread that have said similar things.

Beyond that yes, there is some supposition here, since I'm trying to predict future behavior, but so far we've seen quite a significant dip in the price of minerals and no significant change in behavior from Rorqual miners, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that this will continue, and some quick math on the payout of Super Carrier ratting vs multi-boxing Rorquals can give us a value breakpoint for a given number of Rorqual accounts between ratting and Rorqual Mining.

Overall though I'd say that I'm not assuming very much here beyond that people will continue to behave in the way that got us to this point in the first place, and that a few people in Eve can use a spreadsheet to calculate income over time, neither of which are particularly far reaching assumptions. Blink

EDIT: oh, if you want data on mineral price vs inflation then just look at the MPI over the last 8 years vs the price of PLEX and the amount of liquid ISK in the economy. That data is in the QER though I think those only go back to around 2012 or so, after that you need to extrapolate from things like the price of PLEX.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#642 - 2017-03-02 21:25:02 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Pesadel0 wrote:
So no data to back up your claims then , you suppose what will happen .


I have some basic data in the form of what a Rorqual mines per hour, what a Carrier, Super, or Titan gets ratting, and the cost of a Super or Titan in ISK vs the cost in minerals within a Corp or Alliance.

If you really need sources for any or all of the above just ask here, but I won't be able to dig them up until later tonight.

I also have anecdotal evidence from various friends in different and sometimes opposed Null groups telling me how many Rorquals you can multi-box vs Carriers or Supers. This I can't provide a source for beyond those in this thread that have said similar things.

Beyond that yes, there is some supposition here, since I'm trying to predict future behavior, but so far we've seen quite a significant dip in the price of minerals and no significant change in behavior from Rorqual miners, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that this will continue, and some quick math on the payout of Super Carrier ratting vs multi-boxing Rorquals can give us a value breakpoint for a given number of Rorqual accounts between ratting and Rorqual Mining.

Overall though I'd say that I'm not assuming very much here beyond that people will continue to behave in the way that got us to this point in the first place, and that a few people in Eve can use a spreadsheet to calculate income over time, neither of which are particularly far reaching assumptions. Blink

EDIT: oh, if you want data on mineral price vs inflation then just look at the MPI over the last 8 years vs the price of PLEX and the amount of liquid ISK in the economy. That data is in the QER though I think those only go back to around 2012 or so, after that you need to extrapolate from things like the price of PLEX.


What i was trying to get at (my reply was eaten by the forum) , is that we dont have the data Fonzie and the rest of the devs have so i think people would understand this nerfs to rourquals better if they knew why it is getting nerfed .
Cade Windstalker
#643 - 2017-03-02 21:56:12 UTC
Pesadel0 wrote:
What i was trying to get at (my reply was eaten by the forum) , is that we dont have the data Fonzie and the rest of the devs have so i think people would understand this nerfs to rourquals better if they knew why it is getting nerfed .


We've already got that in general terms from Fozzie himself (emphasis mine):

CCP Fozzie wrote:
...

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.

...

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.

...


As much as I'd like to see more detailed numbers I'd also be generally against CCP releasing them, especially for something as economically important as mineral mining. The best Fozzie could possibly give us without dropping a motherload of economic data would be some unlabeled and obfuscated graphs, and even that would be risky since if you can construct enough context you can get a lot out of a graph.

Even the data we the players have access to paints a pretty obvious picture though. Supply of minerals is up, prices are down, and the Rorqual is replacing every other mining ship in Null and Wormholes. Anecdotally we also know that quite a few people who have not previously considered mining to be worth their time are taking up the profession, which has compounded the supply issue.
Aleverette
Bag ol' Dciks
#644 - 2017-03-03 00:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleverette
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Even the data we the players have access to paints a pretty obvious picture though. Supply of minerals is up, prices are down, and the Rorqual is replacing every other mining ship in Null and Wormholes. Anecdotally we also know that quite a few people who have not previously considered mining to be worth their time are taking up the profession, which has compounded the supply issue.


Present Rorqual spanning comes from bad design concept and we players are simply using what can benefit ourselves the most.
If Fozzie and his team really have tones loads of economy data to analyse, combining with everything they know in the past decade, then they shouldn't have given us that ridiculous drones back in Ascension release.





To Fozzie: Simply changing numbers won't help at all, Rorqual fleet will still roam after the patch.
The problem is that you gave Rorqual exceeded amount of utilities that almost everybody living in nullsec have to buy one.
My suggestion remains unchanged, divide it into two ships:
1)A fleet booster/mining carrier combo that can use panic, best suited for solo/small mining fleet or pvpppppp which are played actively, drawback cannot compress ore.
2)A fleet booster/drone miner/compression combo but no panic, very good utility flagship to large mining fleet.
Cade Windstalker
#645 - 2017-03-03 02:14:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Aleverette wrote:
Present Rorqual spanning comes from bad design concept and we players are simply using what can benefit ourselves the most.
If Fozzie and his team really have tones loads of economy data to analyse, combining with everything they know in the past decade, then they shouldn't have given us that ridiculous drones back in Ascension release.


They do, but that data is only valid under the conditions it was collected. The one thing that's remained constant in the ~10 years I've played Eve now is the general disdain miners are held with by combat pilots, and that mining is generally seen as a boring and unrewarding profession.

Given that I don't think it's unreasonable for Fozzie and co to have assumed that the primary user base of the new Rorqual would be people who were already mining, as opposed to the then occupants of Carriers, Supers, and Titans ratting around the back end of Null.

Also if you look at the feedback thread for the original Rorqual changes you'll note that the ratio of "Why would anyone ever put a Rorqual on grid!?!?!" posts to "OMG this is OP!" posts significantly favors the former.

Aleverette wrote:
To Fozzie: Simply changing numbers won't help at all, Rorqual fleet will still roam after the patch.
The problem is that you gave Rorqual exceeded amount of utilities that almost everybody living in nullsec have to buy one.
My suggestion remains unchanged, divide it into two ships:
1)A fleet booster/mining carrier combo that can use panic, best suited for solo/small mining fleet or pvpppppp which are played actively, drawback cannot compress ore.
2)A fleet booster/drone miner/compression combo but no panic, very good utility flagship to large mining fleet.


Couple of points on this. I don't think it's a terrible back-pocket solution for Fozzie and co, but I think we're a few more iterations away from anything this drastic.

For a start this kind of split would be a lot of work, both for the art department and in terms of balance.

On top of that the problem with the Rorqual isn't that it mines well, and boosts well, it's that the only part people are really using is the mining. Ore Compression has basically been a non-issue ever since that was added to Citadels.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#646 - 2017-03-03 11:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
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:


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.

The Rorqual certainly has a significant set of defenses - Just a pity none of it really matters when you look at how easy they are to kill
Keep nerfing mining drone amount, they wil once again find themselves being a worst option.

Also on faction mining drones - you really do need to look at build requirements, even at current prices and limited supply there is still not a lot of profit in building them. Demand isn't driving the prices of the drones, build cost is.


-- - -- - -- - --
A simple elegant fix - disallow use of offensive modules (entosis, scrams, webs, etc) unless an asteroid is locked. The Rorqual is primarily a mining machine with the ability to boost and defend other miners. Its use outside mining while interesting (and fun) isn't intended to be so strong, so simply limit where it can use its abilities solves most issues.
You're still going to get players complain about the Rorqual being too strong but they will mostly be those trying to killl one unprepared.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Atum' Ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#647 - 2017-03-03 11:26:34 UTC
PANIC nerf is a good nerf.
Everything else - isn't good at all... such stational platform like rorqual must generate more isk per hour
FairyDrakonchik
MyLittleDragon
#648 - 2017-03-03 13:05:08 UTC
rorq mines too much and now nerfs again - and again if that wasnt enough - nice
but still have some questions - when CCP give new drones they dont know that people will massively mine in it?
and drone components wont grow that much?

by the way - i am not a miner and now sure that wont be it
Tobias Frank
#649 - 2017-03-03 13:12:10 UTC
Atum' Ra wrote:
PANIC nerf is a good nerf.
Everything else - isn't good at all... such stational platform like rorqual must generate more isk per hour


Hey! Your Rorqual is generating zero isk per hour regardless of nerfs/buffs.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#650 - 2017-03-03 14:42:30 UTC
Keep up the great work CCP... thank you for watching over us all. no sarcasm here.

"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
Cade Windstalker
#651 - 2017-03-03 15:21:09 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The Rorqual certainly has a significant set of defenses - Just a pity none of it really matters when you look at how easy they are to kill
Keep nerfing mining drone amount, they wil once again find themselves being a worst option.


The problem with referencing zKill losses is that it only shows the ships that die, not the ships that live. I know several people who have had their Roquals dropped unsuccessfully, and I know at least one major Null Alliance has FAXes sitting around on standby (paid for by tips) to respond to drops on ratters and miners, with the result that you basically need a dread-bomb or better to successfully drop a Rorqual in their space.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Also on faction mining drones - you really do need to look at build requirements, even at current prices and limited supply there is still not a lot of profit in building them. Demand isn't driving the prices of the drones, build cost is.


Look at the cost history on the components though, the four biggest drivers of cost on the Excavators are all dropped components that weren't worth very much prior to Ascension. The whole reason they're expensive right now is because demand has pushed the prices up on those components. Prices will drop as supply increases and demand drops.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
A simple elegant fix - disallow use of offensive modules (entosis, scrams, webs, etc) unless an asteroid is locked. The Rorqual is primarily a mining machine with the ability to boost and defend other miners. Its use outside mining while interesting (and fun) isn't intended to be so strong, so simply limit where it can use its abilities solves most issues.
You're still going to get players complain about the Rorqual being too strong but they will mostly be those trying to killl one unprepared.


Couple of issues with this. First off, just hard limiting the Rorqual like this isn't really in the spirit of Eve. On top of this Battle Rorquals have a long and storied tradition in this game, and it would be a shame to lose that, because the Rorqual on its own isn't OP, it's just Rorqual plus PANIC that's causing problems. If you just disallow offensive module activation while PANIC is active then you create the current Entosis situation. If you make it so you can't PANIC while an offensive module is active then you basically cripple the Rorqual's ability to defend itself or its friends even if it does have offensive modules fitted because it can't risk getting caught and unable to PANIC while a module is cycling.

Overall I think the PANIC restrictions end up being better overall and cause fewer issues. If CCP really needs to they can add an offensive module restriction while PANIC is active on top of the new changes.
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#652 - 2017-03-03 15:41:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Iminent Penance
Look at cost history on the minerals though. They have risen from years of supreme isk deflation and the components to build excavators are extremely hefty. If you nerf anything needing rare drops, "supply and demand" is irrelevant when some omnipotent beings "decide" demand by influencing primary use viability.

Arguing "Ships that die dont show those that live" is the most simplistic logic in the game. It's like arguing theoretical fallacies that, since nobody can "disprove" make them automatically true. Titans dont die frequently by this ass-backwards logic, nerf titans /s

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Couple of issues with this. First off, just hard limiting the Rorqual like this isn't really in the spirit of Eve.

Sure. Show me how good missile boats are at mining again? Oh wait they're specialized for fighting? Oh.... AND that's "different" since it isnt a mining ship? Right. Typical ignorance at this point.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

On top of this Battle Rorquals have a long and storied tradition in this game,

LOL DOCK UP IN POS AND BUFF BECAUSE THEY SUCK ELSEWHERE. BRILLIANT TRADITION. Do you just come here to argue what you've never tried nor even been influenced by? Stop. This is ridiculous



Cade Windstalker wrote:

and it would be a shame to lose that, because the Rorqual on its own isn't OP, it's just Rorqual plus PANIC that's causing problems.

Better nerf mining amirite? 10bil in a ship should be easier to kill... typical entitled pvper mentality "IT SHOULD BE EASY TO KILL" Reminds me of the whine threads where people go on "roams" and actually cry about not being able to win fights or catch ratters. The game is built around effort in pvp, not handouts. Pick your targets and engage accordingly like inner hell, don't throw a few frigates at a capital then moan for nerfs when it fails (or as you put it... "call it op because its creating "problems".... ignoring that the only problems are that they can actually DEFEND themselves)


Cade Windstalker wrote:

If you just disallow offensive module activation while PANIC is active then you create the current Entosis situation.


You're right. This situation is something that has nothing to do with PANIC and is a flawed design because of how it can be abused. Nothing to do with PANIC being relevant to the flawed system.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

If you make it so you can't PANIC while an offensive module is active then you basically cripple the Rorqual's ability to defend itself or its friends even if it does have offensive modules fitted because it can't risk getting caught and unable to PANIC while a module is cycling.


You ever hear of the rorqual using its warp scrambler to fight off the 50 man t3 gang? Me neither.
Jacques Arkaral
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2017-03-03 15:48:33 UTC
Cade Windstalker lays out a sound case as to the economics.

Normally I tend to rage on about any nerfs to my mining ships. It has been way too long and way to little on the buffs until the Rorqual. That being said, I do see some need for some balancing

Nerfing the Invulnerable pointing Battle Rorqual is perfectly fine. This is easy to see as not intended.

Continued nerfing of the Excavators was initially infuriating to me but I now see a benefit. I WAS going to stand up a fleet of 12. With this latest nerf, that plan is now cancelled, I will still have my booster mine and use my other Rorquals as replacement spares while continuing as always have with Exhumers.

The new bright light for me is Rorqual prices are tanking as many of them are hitting the market or contracts again. Acquiring replacements is getting cheaper by the day.

CCP Fozzie "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."

That last part means even more Rorqual replacement discounts are in my future as further nerfs are applied. Looks like the Rorqual market is getting shorted [Stock Market Term] and I get to cash in!
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#654 - 2017-03-03 16:01:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Iminent Penance
Jacques Arkaral wrote:
Cade Windstalker lays out a sound case as to the economics.


Anyone can claim "SUPPLY N DEMAND *****" over and over and over, but that doesnt change the fact that demand is being artificially smacked around by a god-hand deciding what the supply should yield in "risk vs reward" which is a favored term.... for any other aspect in the entire game

Minerals have inflated because of the deflation of isk by the MASSIVE volumes magically pumped in by ratting and wormhole escalations (ladder being nerfed eventually). But let's all ignore that because nobody is using buzzwords to pretend to be smart eh?

Jacques Arkaral wrote:

Normally I tend to rage on about any nerfs to my mining ships. It has been way too long and way to little on the buffs until the Rorqual. That being said, I do see some need for some balancing

Nerfing the Invulnerable pointing Battle Rorqual is perfectly fine. This is easy to see as not intended.

Continued nerfing of the Excavators was initially infuriating to me but I now see a benefit. I WAS going to stand up a fleet of 12. With this latest nerf, that plan is now cancelled, I will still have my booster mine and use my other Rorquals as replacement spares while continuing as always have with Exhumers.

The new bright light for me is Rorqual prices are tanking as many of them are hitting the market or contracts again. Acquiring replacements is getting cheaper by the day.

CCP Fozzie "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."

That last part means even more Rorqual replacement discounts are in my future as further nerfs are applied. Looks like the Rorqual market is getting shorted [Stock Market Term] and I get to cash in!


As someone who was going to do a rorqual fleet and only uses them as boosting backups, but still mines with a fleet of exhumers because of the cost vs benefit of mining with the excavators... you are the prime example of the flawed logic of the nerfs.

Imagine if they nerfed supercarriers to be worth maybe 2-3 ratting ishtars. Well, you'd see massive armadas of afk ratting drone boats instead, and the carrier pilots would EXPLODE. Same concept.

Just because people choose to mass multibox cheaper ships in larger scale when bigger ships get nerfed doesn't mean the nerfs are balanced. It just means there is either an ulterior motif (Fozzie you can deny this all you want, but pushing people to 40 exhumer alts instead of 10 rorquals can only be for plex numbers nothing more), OR there is an extremely negative bias towards "pve"
Cpt Buckshot
i420 Inc
#655 - 2017-03-03 16:03:21 UTC
This is why Eve is struggling with low player base. These changes are just stupid for the most part, there were other ways to fix this. I wonder did they even ask a true rorqual pilot what he thinks about the changes or what changes would he make .............

I love Eve <3 but wow your ignorance even impresses me P
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#656 - 2017-03-03 16:07:56 UTC
Cpt Buckshot wrote:
This is why Eve is struggling with low player base. These changes are just stupid for the most part, there were other ways to fix this. I wonder did they even ask a true rorqual pilot what he thinks about the changes or what changes would he make .............

I love Eve <3 but wow your ignorance even impresses me P


The deflation of isk makes the grind for new players harder. Deflating minerals would help newer players get into ships earlier.

But helping new players is NOT the goal of these nerfs. The old vets will just go back to boosting a 40 man exhumer fleet at the same cost of 2 rorquals using the new buffs, nothing will change except new players will need to grind multiple accounts to compete just like old days
Rina Cotte
Doomheim
#657 - 2017-03-03 17:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Rina Cotte
You say the mining is becoming unhealth? So is the cost of the mining drones! Lets nerf them down and get the cost down too. No one will use a rorqual any more if the drones are HIGH LIMITED WITH THE COST SO HIGH!

RORUAL - 4B FIT
5 MINING DRONES - 7.5B


I mind losing a rorqual as it can insure! But losing the damn 1 . 5 B per drones is just crazy. CCP needs to fine a way now to correct this and fasted. Or people will not be using the rorqual much longer period. I say just put mining lasers on it with option of mining drones as a extra income feature.


LET'S GET THIS DONE!


I want to mine with it but can't if it's going to risk me 12b per fit in t2 industrial mode! If this dose not change then I will just fly a T2 battle ship and go back to hunting for half the cost and still make 30m + HOUR!
Flashmala
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Memento Moriendo
#658 - 2017-03-03 17:17:14 UTC
Sooo.... simply jam Rorqual, break target lock, PANIC unusable and generally of no value now.

Sorry, I didn't take the time to search the forum to see if this point has been made yet.

Age does not diminish the extreme disappointment of having a scoop of ice cream fall from the cone.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#659 - 2017-03-03 17:41:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
JonasML wrote:
From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 ‘Excavator’ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up.
After these changes the Rorqual absolutely maintains its title as the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden. Nothing else comes close to its mining ability (not to mention all the other things it does).



Really?

so CCP sees nothing wrong with barely triple the yield for something that costs 20+ times as much? All this change does, is make it so the major alliances that already could defend their mining fleets, will continue to be able to afk mine, and it's the little guys that will get screwed out mining. Not to mention, makes HS mining be safe and profitable again.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#660 - 2017-03-03 17:44:32 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The Rorqual certainly has a significant set of defenses - Just a pity none of it really matters when you look at how easy they are to kill
Keep nerfing mining drone amount, they wil once again find themselves being a worst option.


The problem with referencing zKill losses is that it only shows the ships that die, not the ships that live. I know several people who have had their Roquals dropped unsuccessfully, and I know at least one major Null Alliance has FAXes sitting around on standby (paid for by tips) to respond to drops on ratters and miners, with the result that you basically need a dread-bomb or better to successfully drop a Rorqual in their space.


So because people are prepared, the ship is OP?

Interesting mechanic.. better nerf all titans and Supercarriers, because generally those that field those are prepared thus the ships must be OP.