These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
oresome eyes
Ephesians trading and farming
#661 - 2017-03-03 18:27:33 UTC  |  Edited by: oresome eyes
you know everyone has been dancing around the issue here, ccp has seen a drop in this plex price since the ror got deployed to there current state. CCP must be worried that the plex price is going to drop if the ror keep mining the way they are so they are hitting us with a nurf bat yet again. SO here my question to ccp, then why did you make this ship useful in the first place. Why did CCP give us this massive mining capability and then just say stick it. SO CCP where do you what the ROR mining at a 80 90 or 95% nurf so you can keep your life style, and your plex price high?

CCP if you have not figured out all most everyone disagrees with this but, your open to the buble change but screw the players that think that the mining change is bad.
Cade Windstalker
#662 - 2017-03-03 18:34:14 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
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.


No, the Rorqual is OP because of the very visible and obvious effect it's had on the mineral market and the very obviously skewed cost/benefit equation it's created.

I was simply responding to the claim that some zKill losses mean that the Rorqual is 'easy to kill'.

Also, to respond to your other comment about cost vs reward. Effectiveness has always scaled linearly while cost scales exponentially. For example a fully fitted Dread costs 3-4b, a fully fitted T1 BS costs 3-400m. With HAWs the Dread does between 2 and 4 times the DPS of the Battleship for 10 times the cost.

Iminent Penance wrote:
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?


That same "god hand" made the original Rorqual changes in the first place. By this logic does that mean CCP should never have buffed the Rorqual in the first place? Roll

Also no, ISK in Eve has been undergoing inflation for years before either of these came close to their current volumes. The reason for this is simply because CCP has tuned the Sinks and Faucets in the game to be very slightly ISK positive over time. If they wanted to they could tune the faucets higher and start taking ISK back out of the game if they wanted.

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


We've seen how a 'true Rorqual pilot' would 'fix' things, in this thread, and it largely amounts to a lot of questionable economics and even more 'don't nerf my ship!' which is about what CCP gets every time they nerf something that deserves it, a small minority of users angrily complaining about more nerfs and declaring that there had to be another way.

I've even seen people suggest that *everything else* should be buffed up to the level of their absurd OP ship.

Another guy in this thread said that CCP should create more mineral sinks to soak up the excess minerals created by Rorquals... Lol
oresome eyes
Ephesians trading and farming
#663 - 2017-03-03 18:34:51 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
Currently Cleaning, Please Hold.



the thought police at it again.
oresome eyes
Ephesians trading and farming
#664 - 2017-03-03 18:39:11 UTC
Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact.
Cade Windstalker
#665 - 2017-03-03 18:41:07 UTC
oresome eyes wrote:
you know everyone has been dancing around the issue here, ccp has seen a drop in this plex price since the ror got deployed to there current state. CCP must be worried that the plex price is going to drop if the ror keep mining the way they are so they are hitting us with a nurf bat yet again. SO here my question to ccp, then why did you make this ship useful in the first place. Why did CCP give us this massive mining capability and then just say stick it. SO CCP where do you what the ROR mining at a 80 90 or 95% nurf so you can keep your life style, and your plex price high?

CCP if you have not figured out all most everyone disagrees with this but, your open to the buble change but screw the players that think that the mining change is bad.


This is factually incorrect. PLEX prices have at best dipped a little since the Rorqual was introduced in November of last year, which was in the middle of the yearly winter hump. PLEX prices have gone up every winter for the last four years before settling back down again, and then continuing their steady year over year march upwards in price.
oresome eyes
Ephesians trading and farming
#666 - 2017-03-03 18:42:50 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
oresome eyes wrote:
you know everyone has been dancing around the issue here, ccp has seen a drop in this plex price since the ror got deployed to there current state. CCP must be worried that the plex price is going to drop if the ror keep mining the way they are so they are hitting us with a nurf bat yet again. SO here my question to ccp, then why did you make this ship useful in the first place. Why did CCP give us this massive mining capability and then just say stick it. SO CCP where do you what the ROR mining at a 80 90 or 95% nurf so you can keep your life style, and your plex price high?

CCP if you have not figured out all most everyone disagrees with this but, your open to the buble change but screw the players that think that the mining change is bad.


This is factually incorrect. PLEX prices have at best dipped a little since the Rorqual was introduced in November of last year, which was in the middle of the yearly winter hump. PLEX prices have gone up every winter for the last four years before settling back down again, and then continuing their steady year over year march upwards in price.



the actual price data shows something different.
Cade Windstalker
#667 - 2017-03-03 18:43:54 UTC
oresome eyes wrote:
Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact.


I posted those graphs back on page 15.

The TLDR is basically: The Rorqual was released in November, since then everything that's not a bottleneck is down, and bottlenecks started slipping in the last month.
Cade Windstalker
#668 - 2017-03-03 18:45:25 UTC
oresome eyes wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
This is factually incorrect. PLEX prices have at best dipped a little since the Rorqual was introduced in November of last year, which was in the middle of the yearly winter hump. PLEX prices have gone up every winter for the last four years before settling back down again, and then continuing their steady year over year march upwards in price.



the actual price data shows something different.


It really really doesn't.

Eve MarketData: https://eve-marketdata.com/price_check.php?type_id=29668

Eve Markets: http://www.eve-markets.net/detail?typeid=29668#history

This is the normal February-ish slump after the winter bubble. It's not even a particularly bad one percentage wise.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#669 - 2017-03-03 18:49:04 UTC
oresome eyes wrote:
Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact.

Any ore going direct into projects is ore not being bought from the markets instead.
It doesn't matter if it makes the markets or not as to if it affects the markets.

Looking at Hek for example (since I'm in range of that market), the average volume traded on Tritanium has dropped between 25% & 50%, and the price has dropped about 33%.
oresome eyes
Ephesians trading and farming
#670 - 2017-03-03 18:57:41 UTC
after this march deployment the rorquals will be hit will nearly 60% nerfbat, the 32% in the first round now another 20%, just so CCP can stem this non threat to a market. the the worry by some that they will lose in the metrial market. I know from the start of eve that ccp has ALWAYS dislike the indy people from time to time they would give us a bone but over all it has been mess the miners and indy people. SO the people actual remember then the meteral market for a pace of trit was less than 1 isk. what the pvp people dont understand is the less expense ship are content will sure fallow. So if you like trit around 10 isk a unit then just remove the rorquals from the game so we go back to skifs and hulks, it will solve two issue, ccp will get there money for subs and plex price will go back up, but be warned ALL price will go up.
oresome eyes
Ephesians trading and farming
#671 - 2017-03-03 19:02:44 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
oresome eyes wrote:
Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact.

Any ore going direct into projects is ore not being bought from the markets instead.
It doesn't matter if it makes the markets or not as to if it affects the markets.

Looking at Hek for example (since I'm in range of that market), the average volume traded on Tritanium has dropped between 25% & 50%, and the price has dropped about 33%.



SO 0.0 alliance are more independent then relaying on the trade hub market for minerals. we can actual do are self. OMG what a shock, what a thought. NO importing.

High sec has ALWAYS been for people that dont that to risk, NOT for making good money and being safe that is what an alliance is for.
Leila Pegasus
M.A.D
Pain And Compliance
#672 - 2017-03-03 19:04:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Leila Pegasus
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
oresome eyes wrote:
Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact.

Any ore going direct into projects is ore not being bought from the markets instead.
It doesn't matter if it makes the markets or not as to if it affects the markets.

Looking at Hek for example (since I'm in range of that market), the average volume traded on Tritanium has dropped between 25% & 50%, and the price has dropped about 33%.


and if u look on the mex prices u will notice that they have hardly changed at all. This is to a good part beucase trit pyrit and so on is now firstly comeing from high sec mining and beeing dumped on the market. Secondly form null sec aswell since the quickest way to get the mex u need for your production simply is to flip the belt u mine in. That leaves u with a shitload of trit that is basicly waste for u just because u cant build anything with it without the mexallon that u used for your previous build already.

Long storry short if it where the mining yeld all mins would crash no its only those "Wastematerials". CCP did a good jop on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottelneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something simular for mexallon.

To the panic change it will not change to much combat rorqual will just be used in asteroidbelts change neutralized. But it provides wounderfull potentall to **** the rorqual wich is effective mining because he cleared the last roid.
The requirement to have a asteroid locked is a pretty weak attempt on the problem also a rorqual only survives if its beeing safed dosent matter how u turn it. If u tackle one and neut him he goes panic then u kill him if he doesent get reinforcments. WH gourps like inner hell or Achtung Partizanen are proving it times and times again that.

Well i dont know realy its so blentend obvious a hasty attempt to hotfix something that was brocken now for years but only got visual thourgh the rorqual mining changes.

Edit: But why do i even botter writing since i am sure ccp will just push that nonsense through headfirst without even reading this thread
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#673 - 2017-03-03 19:21:48 UTC
Leila Pegasus wrote:

Long story short if it where the mining yield all mins would crash no its only those "Waste-materials". CCP did a good job on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottleneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something similar for mexallon.

Except for the 'small' design philosophy that all the regions are meant to be interdependent on each others resources. CCP stepping away from that philosophy over the recent years is what is causing a lot of issues.
Though I guess that's a debate for another thread, not this one.

However pointing at a bottleneck mineral and claiming 'It's not changing price, the market is fine' is very disingenuous, and shows you don't get how market forces work, since if it actually was a real bottleneck it would be climbing in price, not dropping. Which means so much is being produced that even that is entering over supply.
Leila Pegasus
M.A.D
Pain And Compliance
#674 - 2017-03-03 19:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Leila Pegasus
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Leila Pegasus wrote:

Long story short if it where the mining yield all mins would crash no its only those "Waste-materials". CCP did a good job on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottleneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something similar for mexallon.

Except for the 'small' design philosophy that all the regions are meant to be interdependent on each others resources. CCP stepping away from that philosophy over the recent years is what is causing a lot of issues.
Though I guess that's a debate for another thread, not this one.

However pointing at a bottleneck mineral and claiming 'It's not changing price, the market is fine' is very disingenuous, and shows you don't get how market forces work, since if it actually was a real bottleneck it would be climbing in price, not dropping. Which means so much is being produced that even that is entering over supply.


I know how market forces work but u cant deny that mexallon is nearly not changing anything in price compared to for ex trit. it does not rise that much since the amount of mined mexallon also increases therefor keeps the movement down.
Denngarr B'tarn
Dolphin Navy Issue
#675 - 2017-03-03 19:28:31 UTC
JonasML wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Denngarr B'tarn wrote:
I would bet this is artificial deflation again. The Excavation market has already had numerous hits to it. If they want to nerf the output, they need to make them cheaper to build. Even at 1.2, that's still 9 billion in assets doing 100MM per hour. Not a good balance.


90% of the price of Excavators is player farmed raw materials. These materials had very little value prior to Excavators and the only thing driving their value right now is demand for Excavators. If the demand for Excavators goes down the price will follow, econ 101 in action. We're already seeing this, the price of these drones has been falling more or less since release, and these nerfs will only drop it further as people get out of Rorqual mining and sell off their ships and drones.



The price of excavator components is being kept high by drone region alliances. The components are bought through alliance buy-orders out there and they then control the release to empire. It's not the first time it's been done nor will it be the last. Once again you display your ignorance of nullsec.

To the CAS guy who was worried that there will be nothing for new players to do... CAS has nullsec, and CAS pilots do use rorqs out there. There's also Providence region. There's plenty of options for nullsec for new players. The reduction in price for minerals allows new players to get into industry easier, things like making their own ships and ammo. For direct isk there's always missions. Exploration makes some nice isk too. The difference between highsec and nullsec is huge, and requires that the risk:reward be appropriate. If all I have to do is park some hulks in highsec to mine veld to make as much as someone out in nullsec, then what's the point of nullsec?

Dear Fozzie, for Christmas this year I would like the devs to remove their heads from their asses. We still have lots of time left before December. If you think that a ship that costs ~2.5b in minerals, plus another 1/2b in T1/T2 fittings, then loaded up with ~9b in drones and giving it a mining income 1.5 times the income of the next best mining ship (cost 300m fitted), you need to be drug tested because you are on some wacky ****. Where is my risk:reward for that kind of investment, especially as I am operating in nullsec where I can be hotdropped at any time? I know the price of the drones is being kept up artificially but this change is going to see less rorqs out there and it has nothing to do with the the PANIC changes. The only ones fielding them will be the guys with 4+ accounts who are the problem with the declining mineral value.

Fozzie I noticed you had no comment about the "bait and switch" when you quoted me. What is the dev blog for the asian server, I want to see what their reaction is to this, maybe I can get in on the class action suit.


Thank you, JonasML. That is precisely what I was attempting to say. Risk vs. Reward, which is what it all comes down to when we undock.

Now, I disagree with Cade Windstalker on a few points. Not only have I seen huge swings in the Elite Drone AI market indicating large buy/sell orders to drive prices up; but I also witnessed the large drive up on the Drone Coronary Units which do drop in Drone Lands quite a bit (I had a very nice collection for a while.) Market manipulation is part of the game, but it's going to directly affect what is fielded and what is not.

Also, the prices of minerals going down is a good thing overall. Yes, in the short term it will drive down the prices of PLEX, but it increase the buy power of an ISK, which is also Econ 101. Ships, be they faction, T1, or T2 all require some amount of minerals, which is going to affect prices of ships and mods everywhere. Overall, I'd like to see the mineral market pushed way down for a while to give those newer members (who are missioning for money) the chance to get a leg-up.

I will certainly concede the point with respect to the timer reduction to 60s as not being part of my calculation, but it's still more of a hit than I think it warranted right now by the whole process. I believe we need the higher yields to justify keeping the Rorqual on grid - else it just goes and ruins all the work you guys did in the first place to make the Rorqual a valid player to begin with.
Cade Windstalker
#676 - 2017-03-03 20:35:22 UTC
oresome eyes wrote:
after this march deployment the rorquals will be hit will nearly 60% nerfbat, the 32% in the first round now another 20%, just so CCP can stem this non threat to a market. the the worry by some that they will lose in the metrial market. I know from the start of eve that ccp has ALWAYS dislike the indy people from time to time they would give us a bone but over all it has been mess the miners and indy people.


Depends which indy people you mean here as to whether or not this change is good or bad.

If you own a Rorqual it's probably bad.

If you mine and you don't it's definitely good.

If you're purely on the construction side of things it's probably bad, because the drop in mineral prices cut your costs, but on the flip side a 10% profit margin goes further when the thing you're selling is worth more.

If you mine to PLEX your account this change is good.

oresome eyes wrote:
SO the people actual remember then the meteral market for a pace of trit was less than 1 isk. what the pvp people dont understand is the less expense ship are content will sure fallow. So if you like trit around 10 isk a unit then just remove the rorquals from the game so we go back to skifs and hulks, it will solve two issue, ccp will get there money for subs and plex price will go back up, but be warned ALL price will go up.


Back then the price of *everything* was lower though, and there was a lot less ISK in the economy.

Also not everything follows the mineral price, so if mineral prices tank then the buying power of miners actually drops since their income goes down but things like faction modules and PLEX don't follow since those aren't directly tied to the mineral market and have other things that impact their supply and demand.

oresome eyes wrote:
SO 0.0 alliance are more independent then relaying on the trade hub market for minerals. we can actual do are self. OMG what a shock, what a thought. NO importing.

High sec has ALWAYS been for people that dont that to risk, NOT for making good money and being safe that is what an alliance is for.


And you're still going to be able to do that post-patch, just not at the same absurd rate.
Cade Windstalker
#677 - 2017-03-03 20:50:03 UTC
Leila Pegasus wrote:
and if u look on the mex prices u will notice that they have hardly changed at all. This is to a good part beucase trit pyrit and so on is now firstly comeing from high sec mining and beeing dumped on the market. Secondly form null sec aswell since the quickest way to get the mex u need for your production simply is to flip the belt u mine in. That leaves u with a shitload of trit that is basicly waste for u just because u cant build anything with it without the mexallon that u used for your previous build already.

Long storry short if it where the mining yeld all mins would crash no its only those "Wastematerials". CCP did a good jop on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottelneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something simular for mexallon.

To the panic change it will not change to much combat rorqual will just be used in asteroidbelts change neutralized. But it provides wounderfull potentall to **** the rorqual wich is effective mining because he cleared the last roid.
The requirement to have a asteroid locked is a pretty weak attempt on the problem also a rorqual only survives if its beeing safed dosent matter how u turn it. If u tackle one and neut him he goes panic then u kill him if he doesent get reinforcments. WH gourps like inner hell or Achtung Partizanen are proving it times and times again that.

Well i dont know realy its so blentend obvious a hasty attempt to hotfix something that was brocken now for years but only got visual thourgh the rorqual mining changes.

Edit: But why do i even botter writing since i am sure ccp will just push that nonsense through headfirst without even reading this thread


This isn't really accurate. Mex prices went up initially as people hit this bottleneck, but they stabilized around the middle of January and have been on a slight downward trend since then, which has accelerated in the last few weeks. The likely explanation here is that the market is hitting mineral saturation, otherwise we would be seeing the price of Mex and other bottlenecks continue to go up as supply of non-bottlenecks increased and people struggled to use the surplus.

Also if you'd read through the responses from Fozzie you'd know that CCP has kept reading this thread and has responded.

The simple fact here is that the mineral imbalance argument doesn't hold up. It doesn't hold up with player-visible data and CCP who can actually see the amount mined and consumed in the game aren't buying it either.

They did note that they'll probably be doing another balance pass on the mineral composition of Anoms though, so that's nice Big smile

Denngarr B'tarn wrote:
Thank you, JonasML. That is precisely what I was attempting to say. Risk vs. Reward, which is what it all comes down to when we undock.

Now, I disagree with Cade Windstalker on a few points. Not only have I seen huge swings in the Elite Drone AI market indicating large buy/sell orders to drive prices up; but I also witnessed the large drive up on the Drone Coronary Units which do drop in Drone Lands quite a bit (I had a very nice collection for a while.) Market manipulation is part of the game, but it's going to directly affect what is fielded and what is not.

Also, the prices of minerals going down is a good thing overall. Yes, in the short term it will drive down the prices of PLEX, but it increase the buy power of an ISK, which is also Econ 101. Ships, be they faction, T1, or T2 all require some amount of minerals, which is going to affect prices of ships and mods everywhere. Overall, I'd like to see the mineral market pushed way down for a while to give those newer members (who are missioning for money) the chance to get a leg-up.

I will certainly concede the point with respect to the timer reduction to 60s as not being part of my calculation, but it's still more of a hit than I think it warranted right now by the whole process. I believe we need the higher yields to justify keeping the Rorqual on grid - else it just goes and ruins all the work you guys did in the first place to make the Rorqual a valid player to begin with.


There's certainly some manipulation going on with the components for the Excavators but prices have been dropping steadily more or less since release, and it's almost impossible to maintain any kind of monopoly on components that are this widely sourced.

I disagree with you that a mineral crash is a good thing though.

First off, it's not going to do anything to the price of PLEX. That's more firmly tied to general income levels and what people can afford to pay for PLEX vs the amount being put on the market by players.

Second not everything is tied to mineral prices. T2, Faction, and Deadspace items are basically completely independent from the price of minerals, and since this mineral boom hasn't touched the Mercoxit market the price of T2 is actually going to increase relative to T1 (T2 stays about where it is, T1 goes down, if that wasn't clear).

What this means is that the buying power of miners actually decreases, and anyone mining without a Rorqual is left at a serious disadvantage.

As to the Rorqual, the other thing that could happen to make the Rorqual more viable to keep on grid is simply a reduction in the price of fielding one, which will happen if demand for them goes down significantly, which is exactly what this nerf seems to be doing. We'll probably also see the price of Excavators continue to fall as well.
Julie Hawke
30plus
Goonswarm Federation
#678 - 2017-03-03 21:43:01 UTC
Cade Windstalker

How is it you know about everything in EVE?

Your an expert on:

Eve Economics
Industry
Mining - in all space
Politics
PVP
and on and on and on

And your walls of text ALWAYS support a CCP position (2500 posts since 2009....)

Again, most of the hardcore Rorqual pilots who waited years for their ship to finally mean something are getting shafted and we still dont understand why

But then again CCP made a ton of money on skill injectors, new skills and resubbed rorqual accounts. For a ship nerfed twice in 4 months.

Go ahead tell me its for the good of the game and that your sorry my game experience has suffered and that I need to just suck it up and live with it.


Prometheus Centuri
Inner Hell
#679 - 2017-03-03 21:46:42 UTC
Doomchinchilla wrote:
WTF I hate CCP now.


We're so used to CCP doing something great and then doing something mental to ruin that great thing so nothing new... The 1st nerf was fair and necessary but now I don't see why I would, in any way, use the rorqual. I'll just cheaply carrier rat while alligned and make liquid isk fast. Hassle-free straight to wallet. A single excavator drone is 1.5 bil. So if and enemy comes in and kills 2 drones, it means I've lost a carrier already let alone the rorqual its self. More killmails, more unnecessary efficiency loss at a greater risk (with panic nerf also) to get nerfed mining... No thanks, I'll pass.
Stragak
#680 - 2017-03-03 21:54:56 UTC
Anyone interested in buying Rorquals? Contact me... Ratting with one is now more profitable then Mining with corps mates.

"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio   https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82