Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

The relatively small volume increase is because most of the increase in minerals is happening out in Null and they aren't being transported in to High Sec, they're being traded and consumed out there, because transporting even compressed ore is expensive and risky relative to its value.



This is not correct, the maximum achievable mining yield on a Hulk did not change significantly between before the mining support ship changes and after, and the Orca went from basically sitting off a station or in a safe AFK to take the spot of an active mining ship on-grid.

The possible yield of High Sec mining also didn't change enough to account for the drop in mineral prices.

Lastly we see changes and fluctuations in mineral price around the time of the first Rorqual nerf, which we wouldn't see if your theory here was correct.

You're looking at too narrow a slice of the data here, and you're assuming that the Rorqual isn't a problem and then looking for evidence to support that. Remember, CCP has access to raw mineral yield data and therefore has a much clearer view of market activity than players can ever achieve. So when the data we do have is murky there should be at least a slight bias toward CCP's conclusions since they have more data and better analytics.



The game literally could not make guns aimable in space if it tried. A 2000 person fleet fight with collision detection on weapons would melt CCP's servers to a puddle.

If you're not understanding what I'm saying I could try simplifying it for you. I tried to keep most of the jargon out of what I was saying, which was the cause of some of the length, but if I've been unclear I could try clarifying. I think I'll need a more specific question or complaint than this to take a stab at doing so though...

Also nothing I've said here is about how PvE is bad for the game, it's about why a mineral over supply is bad for the game. I'm actually quite a fan of good and rewarding PvE content. The better the PvE is in the game the more people will stick around and blow each other up with the ISK they've earned in PvE.

Kinda makes me feel like you may not have actually read my posts much



Actually if CCP wanted to reduce the ISK supply in the game they'd leave the Rorqual as-is. Per Eve Prosper on the o7 show we've seen a drop in the ISK supply since the Rorqual was introduced as people have moved from ISK generating activities to ISK neutral or ISK negative activities like mining or selling things on the market.

ISK thing come and come back all the time,
Now take BS like Raven, it have some DPS,
I will be non accurate but this is just for general figures,
DPS of 800, and it cost 1b,
now progres for this Raven would be better fit, and there are options available,
like 4% more dps on module from officer ballistics,
but those cost 4-5b each, and u want 4 of them,
so you have ship costing now 20b,
for progress in DPS from 800 to what 860?
That said this is how much more Rorqual, should mine over Hulk, anything above is over performing in this game environment.

Please place the excavator mining drones in LP store. With reducing the need for parts they should not cost 1.5b each. They should cost around one hulk. Let the orca use them as well ffs.

Give the Industrial core bonus's to local armor and hull reppers, just mirror the current shield bonus.

I refuse to believe the folks at CCP are stupid or lack intelligence, so what's going on?

*shrugs*

Ice market isn't crashing like a rock. Personally I think they should probably nerf those a little too, but ice is more supply limited than mining rate limited, so the impact of the Rorqual is going to be pretty minimal compared to the ore market.

Heck, maybe CCP are hoping that Ice Belts will start generating more conflict over their use.

The thing is that i saw a lot of rorquals till today that use Warp Scrams to prevent their excavators from getting booshed so I don't think this would solve the problem. Maybe it could be solved by saying you can't use scrams while having PANIC activated because a Rorqual who needs to prevent his Drones from getting Booshed and has to PANIC at the same time deserves to lose them since he is just incredibly dumb then.

Except this thread is full of people saying how they re-subbed accounts to fly Rorquals and anyone who was using Exhumers before is either still doing so or trained/is training them to Rorquals... so this doesn't make much sense.



Um... no? This change is a roughly 25% nerf, the last one was a 25% nerf on the old value, the combined effect is something like 46% between the two. No idea where you got 55% nerf but it wasn't math.

I know you are trying to be an edgy dimwit.

But travel time is a factor unless the rorqual literally teleports to 0 on rocks instantly and never ever moves.

Seriously. You don't know nullsec. You don't know industry.

But you can PRETEND to know if you at least *tried* to think before spouting your baseless arguments.

To humor you. Calculate the travel time during an hour with the new cycle durations going 350m/s (VERY generous speed) at 4000m average. Its MUCH closer to a 50% nerf JUST with these changes according to "math" as you like to flaunt. I only lump it down to 35% because people like you wouldnt even bother to think or test anything the moment you hear something out of a range you can immediately agree with.

Put in the most minimal effort for your pretentious rambling to have SOME credibility.

Edit to this. Looking at the rocks on SISI, even this math is wrong because the mountainous rocks now will add even more travel time per cycle. Enjoy figuring that out though, theyre huge -.-

And another thing to consider in your "calculations" that you won't do but will post arguments pretending that you have... Excavators' BASe orbit is 5000m range for optimal. Aka even at 0 itll take upwards of 6 seconds at worst case to return, EACH cycle. So for "math's" sake thats 60 times 6 seconds lost an hour.

Yeah. the "base" value is affected by more travel time.

I don't know where you get the gall to argue on here. But it isnt from math.

Usually the average distance you will achieve is 1000m give or take and that's ignoring a TON of travel time and other factors that decimate the yield i mentioned (drone sharpshooting can add 1km optimal... more travel)

The actual travel time + the orbit radius + average distance being beyond 0 (which it will be until asteroid tractor beams exist, and they wont)allows drones to return from a 4000 range up to 11km away, If they have to hit that scenario more often due to the shortened cycles, it amplifies the effect.

So the math isn't wrong, it is just the "optimal case" perspective people are choosing over realistic cases

also check sisi. Rock sizes have... indeed changed https://i.gyazo.com/e88e90afcebf3a0fb4a6a8651dd3b575.jpg