These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MajkStone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#821 - 2017-03-11 13:51:17 UTC
CCP should refund isk spent on a fitted rorqual/drones in proportion equal to the percentage amount of the nerf. IE. reduce yield by 25%, give us a 25% refund on the amount of isk spent to build one of these things.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#822 - 2017-03-11 15:15:20 UTC
MajkStone wrote:
CCP should refund isk spent on a fitted rorqual/drones in proportion equal to the percentage amount of the nerf. IE. reduce yield by 25%, give us a 25% refund on the amount of isk spent to build one of these things.


Not sure if serious.

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

Cade Windstalker
#823 - 2017-03-11 16:24:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
w1ndstrike wrote:
I haven't read any of your other posts in the massive back and forth, but you're wrong on this one. The choke on price is not high demand, it is controlled and manipulated parts supply. It's not even conjecture, anyone with a trade alt and about 200m to burn can check for themselves in the same manner you normally check for manipulations of other goods.

Without a change to the blueprint or a large increase in the supply of certain components, drones will only fall to about 670m at best, which makes the risk/reward ratio taking the new larger rocks into account completely unacceptable. (1 command destroyer and they're all toast)


I'll certainly believe there's some small scale manipulation going on by individuals, but if anyone actually had this kind of stranglehold on the supply then we wouldn't be seeing the drop we're looking at right now. Last week the materials were selling, in total, for a little above 1.1 billion, now they're selling for barely above 700m and that drop actually out-paces the current Jita buy price.

The only thing that your market test says is that someone is at least attempting to cash in on the current drop, it doesn't say anything about the extent of the market manipulation going on or its effectiveness, and judging from the recent market trends it's not being very effective.

Stragak wrote:
Wrong. They have have stated there is and 'continues to be' a logging issue with these drones. Last time I saw mention of the bug
(with no response is https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=510695 ), which is also confirmed in Dev blog
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506509&find=unread & Dev Blog,
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=502493&find=unread & Dev Blog, and are literally the first questions asked nearly every time a new economic report is released about your MER.

Though out the previous pages of the forums you seem to to have no grasp on the Rorq, however you have a great number of alternative facts, that do not add up.


That note on the first graph is very clearly only pointing to that one dip in the graph, which at this point is months old.

back here on the 1st from CCP Fozzie in this thread.
Actually the last comment we have on the matter is In that comment he notes that they do, in fact, have logging for drone mining available and going back to the start of the game, it's just not in the logs used for the MER up to that point.

I'm going by the massive shift in graphs from one month to the next, something that seems to be unprecidented in the MER's history, and guessing that this means they fixed the logging used to generate that graph but failed to make a note of it in the MER. This is further supported by the regional data not adding up to the average for the month of February and that regional data clearly not including Rorquals based on the testimony of people in this thread.

If you have an alternative explanation for the massive shift in that graph compared to the graphs covering those same months in previous MERs then I'd love to hear it because I've got nothing. There's nothing else I can think of that we know wasn't on previous graphs and that might account for 1T a day in yield suddenly showing up but only in the months following the mining changes.
Cade Windstalker
#824 - 2017-03-11 16:25:36 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Tested this a lot last night and spreadsheeted it all. Some tests were pure yield tests comparing to theoretical amounts, others involved taking notes on asteroid radius, drone flight time, and max/average drone distance from my rorqual.

The takeaways:


  • Based on all of my tests and weighing for ore size in m3, I predict a well positioned rorqual with 3x drone nav comps and good skills chewing through every rock will end up with 82% as much yield over the course of the entire anom. Coupled with the reduction to 75% from the excavator nerf, that makes the overall rorqual nerf a 39.5% reduction from current values (75% (excavator nerf) * 82% (impact of rock nerf) = 61.5% new yield compared to old yield).
  • Faster drones are almost always better, because drones take unpredictable paths. In theory, you would want to match drone speed to asteroid orbital radius to have them end back near your rorqual after 60 seconds, but in practice they just wobble around enough to make that unpredictable. There's an exception for truly large rocks and certain drone velocities that leave them likely to each just make it to the other end of the asteroid in 60 seconds, meaning consistently near worst case scenario yield reduction.
  • The asteroid size nerf can be mitigated by avoiding the largest rocks, which will be more like 60-70% yield due to their size. Skip them entirely, get barges on them, let somebody else get them, whatever - those are the biggest culprit in reducing overall yield. If you never have to mine a rock with a radius over 3,000m, you aren't going to feel much nerf from asteroid size increase.


TL;DR With correct play and good skills, increasing rock sizes is another ~18% rorqual nerf if you exclusively mine the anom with rorquals. If you mix in some barges or can skip the biggest rocks, it'll be more like a 5-10% additional yield nerf.

In other news, I'm quite pleased that my guesses earlier in this thread closely matched my testing Big smile


Love absolutely everything about this test Big smile

So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones.

@Jizzah, don't forget that the actual speed on the Excavators with max skills is around 350, not the base 200, and then you can throw Drone Nav comps on top of that.

I think I'm still in favor of a ~25% velocity bump on the drones. That would be roughly equivalent to a free Drone Nav Comp but you'll still want to adjust your fitting after these changes which creates an interesting tradeoff between max tank and potential yield and drone safety increase with Drone Nav Comps.
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#825 - 2017-03-11 17:43:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones.


It'll certainly help the rorquals' income rate if they never need to touch big spod, although technically a rorqual with solid positioning still has the best yield in the game.

A max-boost, max-yield hulk was what, somewhere around 250,000 m3/h? When I parked my rorqual with 3x drone nav comp IIs on The One True Spod (radius: 7,900m) for 15 minutes, I mined a bit over 140,000m3 of spodumain, or roughly 560,000 m3/h (compared to an expected ~800,000 m3/h or so I would have had with my skills/fit and ignoiring drone flight time around a large rock).

So the theory is pretty straightforward:


  • Every pilot that can afford to be in a rorqual and should, assuming safe/well-defended space. It will always increase yield over time.
  • Selfless barge pilots should mine the asteroids with the largest radius in descending order (plus the mercoxit).
  • Selfish barge pilots will (still) choose A/G/B first and ignore rock size. They might switch to Spodumain instead of Crokite after A/G/B is gone, at least, which will help the rorquals (crokite rocks are still relatively small).
  • Anybody with 1+ rorquals will receive extra benefit from adding barge alts or recruiting barge pilots to hit the large rocks, but it will never be beneficial for a rorqual pilot to downship to a barge unless there is an additional skill/equipment/safety factor.


In practice, because barges and barge alts are vastly cheaper than rorquals and rorqual pilots, I do expect we'll see more in each belt to help keep rorqual efficiency up. I haven't decided if I'll add more barges/exhumers to my setup or not (I already have a few).
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#826 - 2017-03-11 18:08:15 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

@Jizzah, don't forget that the actual speed on the Excavators with max skills is around 350, not the base 200, and then you can throw Drone Nav comps on top of that.


250m/s on my miner with nav 4. I doubt 1 more level will add 100m/s
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#827 - 2017-03-11 18:16:21 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones.


What's your definition of relatively low quantity?

cause there's usually 4-6 60+k spod rocks in a collossal for example. That's a significant number amongst the 15 or so rocks of that kind.. Add in some 70-80k gneiss rocks.. and your looking at 1/4 to 1/5th of the rocks being massive.


Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#828 - 2017-03-11 18:29:14 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

@Jizzah, don't forget that the actual speed on the Excavators with max skills is around 350, not the base 200, and then you can throw Drone Nav comps on top of that.



You are wrong on this. recommend you go and check on sisi.

I'd tell you what the numbers were, but halfway through my testing I noticed that SiSi was an old port so it didn't have my t2 indy core on the ship.

Still.. managed to do some testings..


took me 25mins to mine 15k of a 30k spod rock post nerf
on a 68k rock.. the same 15k took me 35min

that I was able to cut back down to
25mins on the 68k rock (which by then contained 53k)
28 mins on the 30k rock (which was by then contained 15k)

other than the initial 15k test on the 30k rock, I had rat spawns to deal with all of them. but that should be a good indicator anyways since you will have belt rats to deal with.

One of the biggest challenges though, which so far everyone was ignoring is that warping in on the bigger rocks, means way easier to bounce. and the first time I tried to warp in.. i bounced 15k away. Another thing to point out, was that the 5min cycle on the indy core, was 1/3done before my first load of ore was actually onboard. so you're increasing heavy water consumption quite a bit due to the extra travel time.

Another thing to note on the test, was that while on tranq the collossals i've seen have been regular rocks, on sisi the only one I found was all the +10% +5% type of rocks. If that stays the same, and the anom belts in null are changed to the higher value rocks, then I can see this change being close to the 25% nerf that CCP is selling vice the ridiculous numbers we are seeing
blackdeath111
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#829 - 2017-03-11 18:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: blackdeath111
Hello the eve community,

I think this is my first ever comment on any forum in this bizzare game lol.

Any way down to business, the ethics behind this post is to basicly balance ore extraction from the entire game. Well I have a very simple solution e.g. ARKONOR - The rarest and most sought-after ore in the known universe...... THEN MAKE IT RARE!!!!!!!!! Not being funny here but you could arguably buy MEGACYTE in the same amount in quantity as TRIT in high sec !!!. Im using this ore type as an example only. Simply reduce the amount in belts or place a timer on the spawn of a new belt just like you have done to ice mining, this is not difficult to implement!! Then if you did this prices of ores would naturally increase instead of waiting for the destruction of 1000 titans for example..

The other option i had in mind, was to simply double the amounts on BPO's to build anything across the board, this would also increase demand. These options are far less sole destroying than neurfing the crap out of ships mining drones etc, totally pointless. CCP needs to look at other ways to stabilise and increase ore prices and their quantities (MEX always a shortage in 0.0), because at the end of the day you create these toys that we all enjoy, mining / PVE / PVP etc and when some one complains or they think something is stupidly over powered you go ahead and neurf it!!!! When if you just told them to deal with it and maybe train into the ship thats flavour of the month , then guess what they would be on par with every other pilot flying that particular ship. I did slightly digress there sorry.

CCP Fozzie seriously needs to stop punishing players with the whole neurfing way of life, its a bit like the phrase " indian giving" you receive it in one hand and the next minute it's gone. It's like for example back in the early days the RAVEN battleship was probably the most feared BS out there and now it may aswell be an ornament in your hanger so to speak. Obviously things progress in game and people want bigger and more powerful ships types etc, but when you create something guys PLEASE just leave it alone! STOP NEURFING stuff and let it die naturally as opposed to killing something off that's only been on the market
for 3 months!!



Many thanks for reading guys, just my 2 pence

regards blacky
Cade Windstalker
#830 - 2017-03-11 19:22:43 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
It'll certainly help the rorquals' income rate if they never need to touch big spod, although technically a rorqual with solid positioning still has the best yield in the game.

A max-boost, max-yield hulk was what, somewhere around 250,000 m3/h? When I parked my rorqual with 3x drone nav comp IIs on The One True Spod (radius: 7,900m) for 15 minutes, I mined a bit over 140,000m3 of spodumain, or roughly 560,000 m3/h (compared to an expected ~800,000 m3/h or so I would have had with my skills/fit and ignoiring drone flight time around a large rock).

So the theory is pretty straightforward:


  • Every pilot that can afford to be in a rorqual and should, assuming safe/well-defended space. It will always increase yield over time.
  • Selfless barge pilots should mine the asteroids with the largest radius in descending order (plus the mercoxit).
  • Selfish barge pilots will (still) choose A/G/B first and ignore rock size. They might switch to Spodumain instead of Crokite after A/G/B is gone, at least, which will help the rorquals (crokite rocks are still relatively small).
  • Anybody with 1+ rorquals will receive extra benefit from adding barge alts or recruiting barge pilots to hit the large rocks, but it will never be beneficial for a rorqual pilot to downship to a barge unless there is an additional skill/equipment/safety factor.


In practice, because barges and barge alts are vastly cheaper than rorquals and rorqual pilots, I do expect we'll see more in each belt to help keep rorqual efficiency up. I haven't decided if I'll add more barges/exhumers to my setup or not (I already have a few).


Yup, I'd say this is pretty accurate, with the added note that it takes a Rorqual much longer to pay off its initial investment, so your space doesn't just need to be relatively safe, it needs to be safe enough that you can mine without a loss of the ship or its drones for more than ~100 hours.

From a pure risk perspective I would expect many smaller entities to find it worthwhile to use a Rorqual just for boosting and trying to keep Hulks alive to get them off grid rather than the opposite which occurs currently, since the Rorqual hull makes back almost its entire mineral value after insurance.

jizzah wrote:

250m/s on my miner with nav 4. I doubt 1 more level will add 100m/s


Both Mining Drone Spec and a T2 Indi Core add speed, 2% per level of Drone Spec and 30% for a T2 Indi Core (25% on the T1 Indi core).

All 5s on Pyfa shows a drone speed of 358m/s and that matches with the figures reported by others earlier in this thread, also matches what I'm seeing from in-game numbers.

Adding three Drone Nav Comps shows 686m/s for me.

Soko99 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones.


What's your definition of relatively low quantity?

cause there's usually 4-6 60+k spod rocks in a collossal for example. That's a significant number amongst the 15 or so rocks of that kind.. Add in some 70-80k gneiss rocks.. and your looking at 1/4 to 1/5th of the rocks being massive.


I was personally counting the rocks ~9km or larger in size, which was 6 in the colossal I checked on Sisi out of about 60 rocks total which would be 1/10th. Oddly the Enormous I checked actually had a higher percentage of larger rocks, with about 1/5th of the rocks being 9km or larger in size.

Overall I'd say about 1/5th to 1/6th is about accurate. Whether or not that qualifies as "relatively few" is debatable, if you don't think so then I'll bow to your definition.

I do think it helps justify a speed boost, since the actual impact on mining yield will be pretty minimal even in the worst case scenario, it just buys back a little bit of safety for the drones over what's been lost with the size change, and reduces player frustration due to fluctuating yields on larger rocks.

It also helps out the Enormous anoms a bit, since they seem to, oddly, contain a larger percentage of larger asteroids, though that may just be sampling bias since I haven't been able to find too many systems with all the anoms to check.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#831 - 2017-03-11 20:55:26 UTC
Ow, forgot about the core... andf he's got spec 4 too, so you're probably right. 600m/s is 1km/sec so not too hard to work out the orbited distance. Bear in mind though, this will be at the expense of tank
Cade Windstalker
#832 - 2017-03-11 21:46:31 UTC
jizzah wrote:
Ow, forgot about the core... andf he's got spec 4 too, so you're probably right. 600m/s is 1km/sec so not too hard to work out the orbited distance. Bear in mind though, this will be at the expense of tank


Yup, which I think makes for an interesting trade off, considering a Rorqual can tank something like 50k DPS right now, and doesn't have a ton of other stuff to occupy its mid slots that I can think of.

That's part of why I say a 25% speed buff might be warranted, it buys back a bit of the mining time off the rock size and cycle time changes as well as adding a bit of safety for the drones but doesn't buff their speed so much that you don't ever want to fit Drone Navs for a better return on large rocks.

I'd need to mess around with what the turn around time on a Rorqual looks warping to a ping and back like but it might even be worthwhile to fit Drone Navs to avoid having to move between rocks, though I would imagine that would be fairly niche and highly dependent on the size of the rock, siege timers, distance, ect.

Honestly kinda hoping this nerf is enough, because there's not *that* much space left between the practical results of the Rorqual and a boosted Hulk just sitting down and mining.

FWIW to you and the other miners I really do wish this nerf hadn't been necessary but it feels like the rush of people to the Rorqual from other parts of the game that weren't previously mining pushed CCP into it. What?
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#833 - 2017-03-11 21:48:11 UTC
Found a PYFA bug!

Watching the drones on my overview I hit 562m/s with my rorq pilot on sisi (3x nav computer IIs, Drone Nav V, and T2 industrial core - only mining drone spec IV though).

That's a good bit lower than what PYFA indicates it should be, so I mucked around a little. Turns out it's a bug in PYFA: The industrial core's speed bonus (30%) is stacking penalized against drone navigation computers in-game, but PYFA (for whatever reason) appears to apply the industrial core bonus in a separate stack.

The effect of that is to greatly reduce the benefit of stacking more than 2-3 drone navigation computers. Here are the real figures:

All Vs, T2 Core, no nav computer: 358 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (baseline)
All Vs, T2 Core, 1x T2 nav comp: 451 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+26% speed)
All Vs, T2 Core, 2x T2 nav comp: 528 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+17% speed)
All Vs, T2 Core, 3x T2 nav comp: 573 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+8.5% speed) [nb: this figure matches my in-game tests]
All Vs, T2 Core, 4x T2 nav comp: 591 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+3.1% speed)
All Vs, T2 Core, 5x T2 nav comp: 596 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+0.8% speed)

My python skills are a bid rudimentary, but maybe I'll muck around and see if I can submit a fix for the next PYFA release Big smile
Cade Windstalker
#834 - 2017-03-12 01:30:10 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Found a PYFA bug!

Watching the drones on my overview I hit 562m/s with my rorq pilot on sisi (3x nav computer IIs, Drone Nav V, and T2 industrial core - only mining drone spec IV though).

That's a good bit lower than what PYFA indicates it should be, so I mucked around a little. Turns out it's a bug in PYFA: The industrial core's speed bonus (30%) is stacking penalized against drone navigation computers in-game, but PYFA (for whatever reason) appears to apply the industrial core bonus in a separate stack.

The effect of that is to greatly reduce the benefit of stacking more than 2-3 drone navigation computers. Here are the real figures:

All Vs, T2 Core, no nav computer: 358 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (baseline)
All Vs, T2 Core, 1x T2 nav comp: 451 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+26% speed)
All Vs, T2 Core, 2x T2 nav comp: 528 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+17% speed)
All Vs, T2 Core, 3x T2 nav comp: 573 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+8.5% speed) [nb: this figure matches my in-game tests]
All Vs, T2 Core, 4x T2 nav comp: 591 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+3.1% speed)
All Vs, T2 Core, 5x T2 nav comp: 596 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+0.8% speed)

My python skills are a bid rudimentary, but maybe I'll muck around and see if I can submit a fix for the next PYFA release Big smile


*facepalm*

I'm honestly not surprised there's a bug in Pyfa (there's another bug in how it calculates boost bonuses, it doesn't factor in the T2 bonus from the Bursts themselves) but I'm more surprised that speed bonus is stacking penalized in-game. That seems... screwy.

Fozzie, is the bonus off the Indy core to drone speed supposed to be stacking penalized with other modules?
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#835 - 2017-03-12 01:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Coelomate Tian
Cade Windstalker wrote:


*facepalm*

I'm honestly not surprised there's a bug in Pyfa (there's another bug in how it calculates boost bonuses, it doesn't factor in the T2 bonus from the Bursts themselves) but I'm more surprised that speed bonus is stacking penalized in-game. That seems... screwy.

Fozzie, is the bonus off the Indy core to drone speed supposed to be stacking penalized with other modules?


Most (all?) bastion module bonuses are stacking penalized against matching module bonuses, so there's at least some precedent.

I've never actually checked to see if it's true for the siege module bonuses on dreadnoughts or the triage module bonuses on FAXes.
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#836 - 2017-03-12 06:19:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Iminent Penance
You know it's funny with the "pve group booster" thing getting everyone saying you HAVE to multi box to mine properly but

I wonder how the reaction would be if ccp made some rats only kill able by subcap S, some rats with mechanics to ecm/web fighters, and some rats that are easiest to kill by carriers

Oh. And then nerf the dps of carriers to make sure they can't cheese the mechanics



why does shooting a rock into dust require more "teamwork" than killing notoriously wanted and bloodthirsty pirate factions that literally exist in lore to kill other ships?


The changes don't even make lore sense, they're just blanket nerfs to only one area of gameplay instead of other sensible options.

BlinkRoll
Cade Windstalker
#837 - 2017-03-12 07:15:16 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Most (all?) bastion module bonuses are stacking penalized against matching module bonuses, so there's at least some precedent.

I've never actually checked to see if it's true for the siege module bonuses on dreadnoughts or the triage module bonuses on FAXes.


Fair point on the Bastion module. I don't *think* the damage and range bonuses on the Siege module are stacking penalized so I had assumed the same applied to the bonuses on the Rorqual.

Then again the original thread says the speed bonus is an MWD bonus and I don't think the Excavators have MWDs so... yeah, no idea.

Iminent Penance wrote:
You know it's funny with the "pve group booster" thing getting everyone saying you HAVE to multi box to mine properly but

I wonder how the reaction would be if ccp made some rats only kill able by subcap S, some rats with mechanics to ecm/web fighters, and some rats that are easiest to kill by carriers

Oh. And then nerf the dps of carriers to make sure they can't cheese the mechanics



why does shooting a rock into dust require more "teamwork" than killing notoriously wanted and bloodthirsty pirate factions that literally exist in lore to kill other ships?


The changes don't even make lore sense, they're just blanket nerfs to only one area of gameplay instead of other sensible options.

BlinkRoll


Sounds like a decent recipe for Null-focused group PvE content honestly. Give the rats the advanced AI, stronger than normal tank, and build the encounters in a way that assumes a balanced fleet comp rather than just DPS or just a few ships. Basically Incursions+++ but without the environmental restrictions that make Incursions kill on sight for most Null groups today and slightly better rewards than you can get solo-ratting.

Sounds like a good idea to me, and a heck of a lot less boring than solo-running sites.

Seriously though, no one's saying you *have* to multibox this to make it efficient. The Rorqual still mines the larger rocks better than a Hulk, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it's more in your interest to add some Hulks now. Whether that's friends or alts doesn't matter too much, but mining is an often multiboxed activity and nothing in these changes is going to change that.
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#838 - 2017-03-12 19:27:46 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Sounds like a good idea to me, and a heck of a lot less boring than solo-running sites.

Seriously though, no one's saying you *have* to multibox this to make it efficient. The Rorqual still mines the larger rocks better than a Hulk, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it's more in your interest to add some Hulks now. Whether that's friends or alts doesn't matter too much, but mining is an often multiboxed activity and nothing in these changes is going to change that.



Nobody would say you'd "have" to bring subcaps to make it efficient/possible to clear anoms. The carrier still would dps large ships better than a Raven, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it'd be more in interest to add more ravens then. Whether friends or alts wouldnt matter, but ratting would then have to be multiboxed and nothing would change that.

IT's easy to apply the same logic to multiple angles you know.
Cade Windstalker
#839 - 2017-03-12 23:14:37 UTC
Iminent Penance wrote:
Nobody would say you'd "have" to bring subcaps to make it efficient/possible to clear anoms. The carrier still would dps large ships better than a Raven, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it'd be more in interest to add more ravens then. Whether friends or alts wouldnt matter, but ratting would then have to be multiboxed and nothing would change that.

IT's easy to apply the same logic to multiple angles you know.


Yup, and that's all we're talking about here. The Rorqual still mines large rocks better than a Hulk, but not *that* much better anymore so we're just hypothesizing that it'll probably be much more worthwhile to put Hulks in with Rorquals now. You can still just run a single Rorqual as before and mine more per hour than a Hulk.

Side note, you could force sub-caps in with Caps for a site with Acceleration gates, but I really hate that idea, and the one Incursion site that does that is terrible.

I'm also personally hoping that CCP don't change existing ratting but add another tier of PvE on top of it, similar to how Incursions worked for Level 4 missions, where the added logistics and risk of having to group up and rely on others is offset by generally greater rewards.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#840 - 2017-03-13 05:10:44 UTC
I don't fly a Rorqual, but think there is a lot of sense in this reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5z1qoy/ccplease_preserve_our_ability_to_welp_100b/

I'm sure CCP will see it anyway, but posting here in case. I hope these changes aren't RIP content.