Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Aldran Gentlharp
I Maicar Mordo Invictum.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:32:27 -
[61] - Quote
There is another Thing that bothers me. Get the Excavation drones a rework to? right now they need a bandwith of 200 so no ship can launch them. And after the Patch the Rorqual is stil not able to launch them. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3624
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:37:31 -
[62] - Quote
This new module requires a new rank 8 skill called Invulnerability Core Operation that requires Tactical Shield Manipulation level 5 and Capital Shield Emission Systems level 3 to train.
CCP, Please look at Tactical Shield Manipulation. Right now training this skill actually hurts any passive shield tanking because the closer you are to 30% shield the higher your regeneration rate. So by making TSM V a requirement you are asking people to train a NEGATIVE skill. The fact it's a negative skill to train in the first place is silly, since to maximise your passive shield tank you actually want it to start to leak as close to peak regen as possible, so any skill levels in this skill past 1 actually hurt your tank (you just use faction mods at 1 rather than T2). |
Grace Tolentino
Pilipino Corp Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:37:39 -
[63] - Quote
Since compression arrays are common together with citadels and the new industrial structures, would it be unreasonable to let the rorq compress ore without activating the core ?
The reality is no one will field a rorq in hostile space anyway so a compression option will probably be available in the home space where you are mining, and thus, compression will be available to your fleet even without using the core. why not just let the rorq compress right on the spot ? This would certainly help the 1st pillar of the mining foreman. |
Kaaeliaa
Tyrathlion Interstellar Rote Kapelle
96456
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:43:13 -
[64] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:This new module requires a new rank 8 skill called Invulnerability Core Operation that requires Tactical Shield Manipulation level 5 and Capital Shield Emission Systems level 3 to train.
CCP, Please look at Tactical Shield Manipulation. Right now training this skill actually hurts any passive shield tanking because the closer you are to 30% shield the higher your regeneration rate. So by making TSM V a requirement you are asking people to train a NEGATIVE skill. The fact it's a negative skill to train in the first place is silly, since to maximise your passive shield tank you actually want it to start to leak as close to peak regen as possible, so any skill levels in this skill past 1 actually hurt your tank (you just use faction mods at 1 rather than T2).
100% agreed. TSM is ludicrously counter-intuitive to shield mechanics and could use a look.
Not that I think too many people will be rushing to fly Rorquals and using the PANIC module, but I suppose this is a good time to bring that skill to attention. |
Aliana Heartborne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:44:26 -
[65] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Aliana Heartborne wrote:... There was a lot of information in the devblog but if you are looking at newer players, the Porpoise does appear to fill that role with a lower skill requirement than an Orca for high-sec boosting. CCP is handing you a progression by which players can train and provide a valuable skill while participating in the mining fleet. I can appreciate the position as organizier looking to provide a service to new players but a better service is being provided by CCP by giving players in the boosting role an active role thereby filling it with an active player instead of a passive organizer.
18 days just to get into the porpoise is a pretty big investment for newer players that might not even know if mining is for them in the long run. Its btw is the same time as an Orca, im a bit sleepy but the way i see it porpoise is only there if you dont want so risk the iskies the orca costs |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3624
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:50:15 -
[66] - Quote
Vivace Naaris wrote:How does CCP intend to balance large fleets of Rorquals such that attackers don't land to a gang of Rorquals that can essentially perma-P.A.N.I.C. each other?
It sounds a little over the top in my train of thought but... well miners will be miners. It's already blocked. PANIC will only do 'yourself plus subcaps/orca's'. Not other Rorquals in fleet. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
347
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:54:47 -
[67] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:This new module requires a new rank 8 skill called Invulnerability Core Operation that requires Tactical Shield Manipulation level 5 and Capital Shield Emission Systems level 3 to train.
CCP, Please look at Tactical Shield Manipulation. Right now training this skill actually hurts any passive shield tanking because the closer you are to 30% shield the higher your regeneration rate. So by making TSM V a requirement you are asking people to train a NEGATIVE skill. The fact it's a negative skill to train in the first place is silly, since to maximise your passive shield tank you actually want it to start to leak as close to peak regen as possible, so any skill levels in this skill past 1 actually hurt your tank (you just use faction mods at 1 rather than T2). I have no idea what you're talking about. But you have skill extractors. |
Khaelian Osiris
Deviate
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:55:39 -
[68] - Quote
IMO the PANIC module should disable target locks and should disable impacted ships' fleet hangars from being accessed.
Disable Hangar I'm envisioning the Battle Rorqual becoming much more common after this. Imagine a Rorqual and a number of DSTs loaded up with Cap Booster 3200 charges, nanite paste, ammo, whatever. The Rorqual blows the PANIC module and the DSTs are now free to offload their cargo into triage, machs, etc.
Disable Lock Secondly, the Rorqual can now start repairing friendly ships while invulnerable. |
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
622
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:56:28 -
[69] - Quote
As this is being promoted as the best mining ship ever (quite rightly btw)
Here's the 3b isk question......
Will the Excavator Drones be able to mine Mercoxit?
Or would we have to fit a Deep Core Strip Miner?
For the best mining ship ever not to be able to use the drones for the best ore makes no sense.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Syrias Bizniz
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
554
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:00:13 -
[70] - Quote
Drago Shouna wrote:As this is being promoted as the best mining ship ever (quite rightly btw)
Here's the 3b isk question......
Will the Excavator Drones be able to mine Mercoxit?
Or would we have to fit a Deep Core Strip Miner?
For the best mining ship ever not to be able to use the drones for the best ore makes no sense.
In case it can't: That's what the poor guys who can't afford a Rorqual in their Skiffs are for. |
|
Borat Guereen
Chao3 Chao3 Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:01:58 -
[71] - Quote
Zira Happy Ape wrote:nobody will have time to form up and jump several gates in such a short time)...
You are right for the large alliances that waste space by not really using it and living in it. For those living in it, 5mn to 7mn is plenty enough to scramble a defense force.
Join our Minarchist Revolution!
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
347
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:03:02 -
[72] - Quote
Grace Tolentino wrote:Since compression arrays are common together with citadels and the new industrial structures, would it be unreasonable to let the rorq compress ore without activating the core ?
The reality is no one will field a rorq in hostile space anyway so a compression option will probably be available in the home space where you are mining, and thus, compression will be available to your fleet even without using the core. why not just let the rorq compress right on the spot ? This would certainly help the 1st pillar of the mining foreman. This makes sense. Alternatively, they can nerf stationary compression equipment. Tbh, I prefer the later. |
Khaelian Osiris
Deviate
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:03:49 -
[73] - Quote
I feel like CCP is honestly going a bit overboard on the mining power of this ship. If they are going to be able to eat ore at such a ridiculous rate, can we at least make it not be passive?
Make the Excavator drones drop their ore in cans. Now the Rorqual pilot will have to actively tractor in the cans for 5 different drones at the same time. If you'd rather save the slots for something other than a tractor beam, you could always park a Noctis next to the Rorqual. They've been needing a decent role lately. |
Kreimhild
IMPERIAL EAGLE
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:03:52 -
[74] - Quote
This does nothing but boost the corporations that have the resources and pilots to protect or replace such an asset. I understand that you want to add more risk vs. reward to the mining experience but that's not what is going to happen. This will chase even more mid-range and small corporations back into high sec space. This helps the already annoying one person locust fleets of 16 alts blobbed around a freighter in high sec space. Now for a corporation to even get a foothold in low sec they are going to need billions of ISK to replace the ships they know they are going to lose. So the orca will become a high sec dream ship for locust fleets and the rorqual will be a distant dream for smaller corporations. In all fairness this should come with a refund of skill points. I've invested millions of skill points and several months into something that has now become virtually useless to me. I now won't be able to use a Rorqual because neither I nor my corp can afford to replace it every few days. With these changes I will probably end up dropping at least 2 of my accounts and probably more when it's all said and done. For those saying that I was just afk on my boost pilot couldn't be more wrong. I do box my accounts but they all have separate inputs from me and are all in full view at all times. I almost feel like I deserve a refund of my subscription fees and no, I don't generally plex my accounts. I pay for them. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
93
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:04:31 -
[75] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about.
The skill Tactical Shield Manipulation is actually detrimental. Training it is bad. It makes your ship / fit weaker.
Skia Aumer wrote:But you have skill extractors.
Having TSM V is a pre-requisite for using the Rorqual's Industrial Core (by the way, the Rorqual is a shield-tanked ship). You cannot both extract this skill - to avoids its negative effects - and use a Rorqual. |
Kaaeliaa
Tyrathlion Interstellar Rote Kapelle
96460
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:12:31 -
[76] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:This new module requires a new rank 8 skill called Invulnerability Core Operation that requires Tactical Shield Manipulation level 5 and Capital Shield Emission Systems level 3 to train.
CCP, Please look at Tactical Shield Manipulation. Right now training this skill actually hurts any passive shield tanking because the closer you are to 30% shield the higher your regeneration rate. So by making TSM V a requirement you are asking people to train a NEGATIVE skill. The fact it's a negative skill to train in the first place is silly, since to maximise your passive shield tank you actually want it to start to leak as close to peak regen as possible, so any skill levels in this skill past 1 actually hurt your tank (you just use faction mods at 1 rather than T2). I have no idea what you're talking about. But you have skill extractors.
Peak shield recharge is at ~30-33%, it falls off progressively underneath that. In a lot of cases, especially in passive shield fits, bleeding the damage to hull is actually a better option. TSM preventing the bleed hurts you in a lot more situations than it helps you.
The only reason it's taken to 4 is for access to T2 hardeners/AIFs, because the skill levels themselves are a net negative. This is counter-intuitive to what you'd think, and that's why TSM is bad. |
Am Staff
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
6
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:14:43 -
[77] - Quote
you should not be allowed to cyno while under the P.AN.I.C Function as this will just aid in the cyno been put up and a hostile cap fleet being able to jump in and defend the Rorq that is being attacked and there is nothing you can do about it.
So basically in 2 words
"It's Broken"
Am Staff
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1718
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:19:01 -
[78] - Quote
Jezus multiboxing Rorquals are going to be a thing now. I'm already seeing orders from people ordering 7 of these things at a time. I love all these changes when they're applied to single characters, but I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals with T2 industrial cores and strips and entire system in no-time. This might be a bit too much.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
347
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:21:41 -
[79] - Quote
Kaaeliaa wrote:Peak shield recharge is at ~30-33%, it falls off progressively underneath that. In a lot of cases, especially in passive shield fits, bleeding the damage to hull is actually a better option. TSM preventing the bleed hurts you in a lot more situations than it helps you. Ah, this. Afaik, the bleed is so miserable that you dont feel it anyway.
probag Bear wrote:Having TSM V is a pre-requisite for using the Rorqual's Industrial Core (by the way, the Rorqual is a shield-tanked ship). You cannot both extract this skill - to avoids its negative effects - and use a Rorqual. You only need the skill itself, not prereqs. |
Quriel Arjar
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:24:10 -
[80] - Quote
I am worried that with these changes Orca will outclass all exhumers as a high-sec mining ship. Sure, it will most probably have smaller yield than Mackinaw and Skiff, but it won't have to leave the belt for an hour, if not more, because of truly massive ore hold (Mackinaw is already crying in the corner) and won't care about gankers that much, because of giant tank (Skiff is getting mad). For a price of lesser yield, it's a little too good.
In case of Rorqual this is non-issue, because of it not being able to go to high-sec (so, more importantly, Concord home). |
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
348
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:24:56 -
[81] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals 10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50. |
Dirk Stetille
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:36:34 -
[82] - Quote
In my opinion, these changes will be interesting to play with, and I'm especially hyped for the Porpoise for wormhole gas and ice mining operations - also curious to see how we will be able to apply the Porpoise for use in PvP. That said, I think the ability to use cynosural field generators whilst under the influence of a Rorqual's P.A.N.I.C. module will be exceptionally overpowered. In effect, it allows a cynosural beacon to be lit whilst also stopping attacking forces from primarying the cyno ship to prevent hostile forces, potentially including supercarriers and titans, from jumping in.
This allows null-sec players a decided advantage over wormholers, above and beyond the current advantages they enjoy. Not only do wormholers not have the ability to own super-capital class vessels, but in general, we are prevented from excessive n-plus-one gameplay by mass restrictions. Our only counters currently to capital-class warfare when out in K-space are to deploy a mobile cynosural inhibitor (which only functions when deployed BEFORE the cyno is lit, and does not shut off an already active beacon), or to kill the cyno ship before anything jumps through, a difficult enough task already. This does not need an additional challenge added to it by making the cyno ship invulnerable for the majority of a beacon cycle.
I would suggest that if you insist upon allowing ships protected by P.A.N.I.C. to light a cyno, the activation of that beacon should automatically end the protection that P.A.N.I.C. provides - basically, if you light a cyno, it should be possible for you to lose that ship. |
Basil Vulpine
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
69
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:49:45 -
[83] - Quote
Two things,
First a consistency question. Going from T1 Siege -> T2 siege in a dread is the same amount of base stront usage despite the module having better effects. Going from T1 Triage -> T2 Triage in a fax is actually a reduction in base stront usage despite the module having better effects.
For the industrial core going from T1 -> T2 is a 50% increase in activation cost? I get that there's some differences in usage pattern since in theory if you are sieging a Rorq you are going to be sieging it for a long time unlike combat capitals but that still seems a pretty hefty increase.
Second (and most definitely not least!): Absolutely, positively, 100% necessary - having an entosis link active needs prevent benefiting from the PANIC module. |
Scythian Revenant
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:51:07 -
[84] - Quote
Looks like an impressive set of changes coming up for the industrial side of things this November!
As far as the Rorqual's PANIC ability and Cyno usage goes, I feel that it would be abused in more than a few situation. An example that comes to mind are large fleet fights where a 2-3 bil Rorqual can be seen as expendable as means to provide a full 5-7.5 minutes of cyno invulnerability. This would enable an uncontestable means to jump in a fleet into a system during an engagement and as such would provide an unfair (non-counterable) advantage to groups that have enough disposable income to sacrifice a Rorqual for each engagement. The only way to prevent this type of action within the current mechanics would be to use the cyno jammers to prevent the initiation of the cyno in the first place, which would require relying on the old POS mechanics and deployables.
My recommendation would be to either not allow cyno under the protection of a PANIC field or create a new command burst type module that can be used to close active (non-covert) cyno's (within a set range of course). If you make it a command burst module it will require a dedicated slot on any command ships to utilize so forethought is required on the part of the defenders and you will need to be on grid with it to utilize the effect. This means that there is risk on both sides of the engagement and would add to the list of de-buff's that are being added to the game so no new mechanic will be needed post patch. I would suggest covert cyno's could be immune to this burst since they are immune to other jamming means and only allow a relatively limited response (Black Ops Battleships and recon-esq ships) when compared to capital ships.
Just a few ideas and some feedback on the new PANIC field and how to work around the protected cyno aspects of it.
Regards, Scythian Revenant |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3627
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:54:08 -
[85] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about. But you have skill extractors.
To explain for the people who don't understand shield tanking.
Shield regen is not static. It varies based on your current shield level. Your max shield regen is at about 33%, as your shields drop below 33% the passive regen actually gets less. Tactical Shield Manipulation moves your bleed through margin by 5% per skill level. Bleed through is where a small percentage of the damage to your shields actually skips shields and applies to armour. While this sounds like a bad thing, it actually helps passive shield tanking by keeping your shield regen at a higher level meaning overall you can take more damage over time. This means Tactical Shield Manipulation actually hurts your passive shield tanking the better you have it trained. I can't name a single other skill in EVE where training it makes something worse.
Most people have to train this skill to 4 in order to use Tech 2 Invulns, the odd wallet warrior keeps it at 1 and only ever uses faction invulns which cost a lot more obviously, but means they get better passive tank.
By making this a requirement of V, you have to put yourself in the worst possible position for passive shield tanking, and you will not be able to extract it because it is a requirement for something else, and you can't extract requirements. So no you do not have skill extractors, and it's high time CCP solved this skill being a negative to train. |
Fletcher Ryan
Asteroid Bluez The Amish Mafia
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:55:35 -
[86] - Quote
is the rorqual ship maintenance array still tied to only industrial ships? |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1277
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:56:35 -
[87] - Quote
Borat Guereen wrote:Zira Happy Ape wrote:nobody will have time to form up and jump several gates in such a short time)...
You are right for the large alliances that waste space by not really using it and living in it. For those living in it, 5mn to 7mn is plenty enough to scramble a defense force.
I can see these getting use in pandemic horde for sure. They're defense fleets blot out the damned sun.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Anne Aymore
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 20:59:55 -
[88] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals 10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50.
10 rorqs multiboxed = 3B+ isk / hour....
Will Michi's and MX-1005 work on these new drones? |
Chalithra Lathar
Rhongomiant Legion Industries The Explicit Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:04:39 -
[89] - Quote
Anne Aymore wrote: 10 rorqs multiboxed = 3B+ isk / hour....
Will Michi's and MX-1005 work on these new drones?
Pretty much this
Anyone who multiboxes a mining fleet will be dumb not to drop exhumers entirely even if they're planning using the porpoise
Industrial core wont be necessary with rorquals. You can just mine while aligned and put scouts 3 jumps out. |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1277
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 21:04:51 -
[90] - Quote
Anne Aymore wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:I'd really suggest CCP runs the numbers on a scenario where someone multiboxes 10 Rorquals 10? are you kidding me? I've never seen a proper miner with less then 20 accounts. Sometimes even 50. 10 rorqs multiboxed = 3B+ isk / hour.... Will Michi's and MX-1005 work on these new drones?
Not for long since the more people that do this the faster the mineral prices will crash.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |