Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5462
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 07:01:23 -
[61] - Quote
If the price of everything comes down further - how is that necessarily a bad thing?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Keno Skir
1267
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 10:51:40 -
[62] - Quote
Going out on a limb here.
If the magical "save the drones" method was made impossible somehow but the mining income of Rorq stays the same, would it be acceptable?
<Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï>
<Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
|
Salvos Rhoska
2081
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 11:41:33 -
[63] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:If the price of everything comes down further - how is that necessarily a bad thing?
Taking this to an extreme, if everything costs nothing, there is no reason to do anything, or inversely, no risk in doing anything. PLExX market would become extinct.
The stats on resource harvesting ships matter. If their yields, especially in specific sectors (as is the case with Rorqs) are too high, it causes a systemic collapse of the yield value of lesser resource harvesting ships elsewhere.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2081
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 12:03:39 -
[64] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:Going out on a limb here.
If the magical "save the drones" method was made impossible somehow but the mining income of Rorq stays the same, would it be acceptable?
Good and well intended suggestion.
But the problem is not in how defensible or expensive Rorqs or their drones are, its in their overall yield from lucrative space.
Rorqs are like super cows, feeding off the most lucrative fields in all of EVE, yielding enormous amounts of milk, far beyond the capacity of other cows in different less lucrative fields.
I think their defensive options are fine, its their yield that is the problem.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Liafcipe9000
ShekelSquad Interhole Revenue Service
37076
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 12:03:41 -
[65] - Quote
|
Keno Skir
1267
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 12:20:30 -
[66] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Keno Skir wrote:Going out on a limb here.
If the magical "save the drones" method was made impossible somehow but the mining income of Rorq stays the same, would it be acceptable? Good and well intended suggestion. But the problem is not in how defensible or expensive Rorqs or their drones are, its in their overall yield from lucrative space. Rorqs are like super cows, feeding off the most lucrative fields in all of EVE, yielding enormous amounts of milk, far beyond the capacity of other cows in different less lucrative fields. I think their defensive options are fine, its their yield that is the problem.
Indeed, though there are a few separate reasons for Rorq hatred depending who you ask. I just mean that the risk vs reward calc for Rorqs in space is kind of broken due to an un-forseen (i think) work around to save the majority of the ISK in the event of death. If the ISK outlay is put in the necessary amount of risk we should see less Rorqs deployed and less ore mined, while keeping the function and capital stats the same.
There would still be complaints, but the least of any solution i can think of. I don't mine or anything but a multi billion ISK mining ship should make sh*t loads of ISK, however should also be risky enough to justify the income. I'm not sure if CCP saw the drone saving mechanic before it happened or if it's all working as intended so if anyone would like to enlighten me go for it
<Gùï> 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <Gùï>
<Gùï> Contact me regarding my trusted Alliance Creation Service <Gùï>
|
Salvos Rhoska
2081
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 12:31:55 -
[67] - Quote
Rorqs mining in deep blue territory have almost zero risk, alongside the greatest mining yield by far, in the most lucrative space by far.
Changing Rorqs defense stats or drone issues will not correct that, although it certainly would hurt less secure Rorq operations.
Thus changing defense/drone stats on Rorqs, would only hurt smaller entities fielding them.
Thus the yield is the remaining issue. Rorqs just mine too goddam hard.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
758
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 13:31:09 -
[68] - Quote
Nothing wrong with Rorq's :P
They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake.
**This IS my main so STFU.
|
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
290
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 16:35:55 -
[69] - Quote
Merias Tylar al-Akhwa wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:giving a yield of 386mil/hr. That seems kinda reasonable to me. You find 386mil/hr for shooting at rocks, reasonable? I find 386mil/hr reasonable given the context of the at-risk and in-field asset cost of a Rorqual, yes. EVE is a game where risk is balanced against reward. If I am risking a ridiculously expensive ship I should be making a heap of a lot of ISK in reward. Risk? What risk do you have deep inside blue space with a captial fleet on stand by? Highsec is more dangerous.
|
Scipio Artelius
Savage Moon Society
46868
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 16:48:29 -
[70] - Quote
Algarion Getz wrote:Risk? What risk do you have deep inside blue space with a captial fleet on stand by?
https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/ |
|
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
290
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 16:51:52 -
[71] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Aiwha wrote:Its exactly like carrier ratting vs. battleship ratting. Rorqs are fine.(for mining, jump hics are pretty bullshit) yeah the ~750 mill/hr is totally balanced High-sec incursions are totally off the balance talking risk/reward. And nobody asks for nerf it. Why rorqual? Only a limited amount of people can do highsec incursions at the same time. Right now for example there is a 2h queue to get into a fleet. The people with bling ships and with bling implants get picked first of course. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5462
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 16:54:51 -
[72] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem. The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS. Well, I'm glad we've removed one nail from the Rorqual's coffin... I really can't comment on the underlying mineral and ore mechanics as I'm not well-versed enough to really understand it.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Algarion Getz
Aideron Corp
290
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 16:57:02 -
[73] - Quote
Hahaha. I guess thats what you get when you dont mine for Goonswarm or PL.
Are there dedicated Rorqual hunting groups? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3776
|
Posted - 2017.02.12 17:04:08 -
[74] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Aiwha wrote:Its exactly like carrier ratting vs. battleship ratting. Rorqs are fine.(for mining, jump hics are pretty bullshit) yeah the ~750 mill/hr is totally balanced High-sec incursions are totally off the balance talking risk/reward. And nobody asks for nerf it. Why rorqual?
ppl have called for a nerf to hs incursions repeatedly
BLOPS Hauler
|
Salvos Rhoska
2109
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 08:57:04 -
[75] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem. The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS. Well, I'm glad we've removed one nail from the Rorqual's coffin... I really can't comment on the underlying mineral and ore mechanics as I'm not well-versed enough to really understand it.
My point being that the enormous volume of undestroyed material to and from HS-NS is a greater problem, and not the Rorqs fault.
But I still think the yields on Rorqs are too high, especially considering the lucrativeness of the sectors they operate in.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Mr Bignose
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 12:32:05 -
[76] - Quote
Some of the numbers stated here are a bit daft. muh ticks in a rorqual probably work out at 200-300M p/h depending on how lazy i'm being, with T2 core/reasonable skills and considering buyback margin/shipping and fuel consumption costs. I think that's a pretty reasonable return for the risk of sieging an 11Bn asset in null security space.
And yes it is a risk. Follow zkillboard and you'll see who are actively and successfully hunting these capital ships along with super-carriers. Deep blue null and intel mean nothing when wh based groups roll their static into your mining system. You can P.A.N.I.C. but the ship will simply die when the invulnerability cycle ends unless the pilot and alliance are properly prepared and organised.
active modules cycling while in P.A.N.I.C. is complete BS though, agreed. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5514
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 12:36:27 -
[77] - Quote
The numbers I'm seeing are all in the 200-300m ISK/hour range. Not sure where this 750m ISK/hour originated from...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Katsuya Kobayashi
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 13:10:49 -
[78] - Quote
Roquals are fine.
I very much enjoyed reading through this thread just to see how disconnected people are from how the game works.
First of all, Rorquals don't make anything even remotely close to 750m/hour.
Secondly, Rorquals die left and right every day. https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/
Thirdly, a lot more Rorquals should be dying, but unfortunately the vast majority of EVE's population are a bunch of pathetic risk averse carebears that don't have the balls to field anything close to 1/10 of the value a Rorqual pilot risks when starting his siege cycle. |
Salvos Rhoska
2110
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 14:06:07 -
[79] - Quote
Mr Bignose wrote:Deep blue null and intel mean nothing when wh based groups roll their static into your mining system. You can P.A.N.I.C. but the ship will simply die when the invulnerability cycle ends unless the pilot and alliance are properly prepared and organised..
.....
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3097
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 15:55:12 -
[80] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Having said that, its not the Rorq, or its stats, that is the actual problem. The real systemic underlying problem is the absolutely insane transfer of material to and from NS and HS. Well, I'm glad we've removed one nail from the Rorqual's coffin... I really can't comment on the underlying mineral and ore mechanics as I'm not well-versed enough to really understand it. My point being that the enormous volume of undestroyed material to and from HS-NS is a greater problem, and not the Rorqs fault. But I still think the yields on Rorqs are too high, especially considering the lucrativeness of the sectors they operate in.
This does not matter as long as the final product get destroyed. The amount that move and is produced don't really change anything as long as the destroyed totals keep up. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5739
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 23:49:51 -
[81] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:This does not matter as long as the final product get destroyed. The amount that move and is produced don't really change anything as long as the destroyed totals keep up. Exactly.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Etel Ri Fletta
Ghosts of Doomheim Rate My Ticks
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 18:21:17 -
[82] - Quote
WIN.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512182&p=2 |
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion
24
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:49:41 -
[83] - Quote
I'm against the Rorqual changes and basically I'd love to see Fozzie resign because he has wrecked this game enough over the years. Lets hire some people who do this weird thing like listen to people who aren't PL.
Oh and even cooler awesomer idea would be don't implement features which cost 37.5 Billion isk to train, then turn around after you've spent the money on potentially multiple accounts and completely bork it. I'm lucky because I assumed CCP are totally incompetent from the beginning and limited my exposure to only 4/10 of my mining accounts. So only 150 billion isk pissed away because CCP decided to change their mind after using the live server to test market effects of overly poweful rorquals. Now it's a million times more feasible to use hulks x 10 than rorqual x 5. and hulks x 10 = 2b + 80b in injected skills = 82b vs rorquals x 5 = 62.5b + 175b in injected skills = 237.5b. Oh and your killboard doesn't get raped. CCP borked it completely. Business as normal in Iceland it seems.
You want to change a tristan, knock yourself out. It takes 5 mins to train something else. You want to change cap mechanics (and rorquals are caps last I checked), you are talking 6 months of retraining,
But that's CCP's business model isn't it? You can't get new subscribers obviously, since you were desperate enough to go free to play, so instead, the new business model is completely bork characters so they are forced to RIP skills and REINJECT those skills elsewhere at a loss, both financially, and in lost SP.
Next, lets nerf super carriers and make dreads the new go to ratting isk faucet. And once everyone switches, or injects to dreads, lets change it to Titans, then once that's working well for people, lets change it back to rorqual. Then implement a new T2 bullshit ship that requires all new skills.
Adapt and overcome my ass. Just assume incompetence and go play something else. That's my game plan. |
The Fukuzawa
New Eden Trade Group
25
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:54:19 -
[84] - Quote
Hamasaki Cross wrote:I'm against the Rorqual changes and basically I'd love to see Fozzie resign because he has wrecked this game enough over the years. Lets hire some people who do this weird thing like listen to people who aren't PL.
Oh and even cooler awesomer idea would be don't implement features which cost 37.5 Billion isk to train, then turn around after you've spent the money on potentially multiple accounts and completely bork it. I'm lucky because I assumed CCP are totally incompetent from the beginning and limited my exposure to only 4/10 of my mining accounts. So only 150 billion isk pissed away because CCP decided to change their mind after using the live server to test market effects of overly poweful rorquals. Now it's a million times more feasible to use hulks x 10 than rorqual x 5. and hulks x 10 = 2b + 80b in injected skills = 82b vs rorquals x 5 = 62.5b + 175b in injected skills = 237.5b. Oh and your killboard doesn't get raped. CCP borked it completely. Business as normal in Iceland it seems.
You want to change a tristan, knock yourself out. It takes 5 mins to train something else. You want to change cap mechanics (and rorquals are caps last I checked), you are talking 6 months of retraining,
But that's CCP's business model isn't it? You can't get new subscribers obviously, since you were desperate enough to go free to play, so instead, the new business model is completely bork characters so they are forced to RIP skills and REINJECT those skills elsewhere at a loss, both financially, and in lost SP.
Next, lets nerf super carriers and make dreads the new go to ratting isk faucet. And once everyone switches, or injects to dreads, lets change it to Titans, then once that's working well for people, lets change it back to rorqual. Then implement a new T2 bullshit ship that requires all new skills.
Adapt and overcome my ass. Just assume incompetence and go play something else. That's my game plan.
Dont let the door hit you on the ass
! ! ! New Eden Trade Group is paying monthly interest to investors, contact me if interested ! ! !
If you already assume we are scammers without looking at what we offer objectively, go ahead and F*** off.
Thank you, that is all.
|
Kaivarian Coste
Stellar Supply
110
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:02:35 -
[85] - Quote
As long as goonie Rorqs are blowing up, I don't mind. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5747
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 03:34:13 -
[86] - Quote
CCP nerfs the Rorqual.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Cade Windstalker
891
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 04:52:22 -
[87] - Quote
Hamasaki Cross wrote:I'm against the Rorqual changes and basically I'd love to see Fozzie resign because he has wrecked this game enough over the years. Lets hire some people who do this weird thing like listen to people who aren't PL.
Lol, half the people complaining in that thread are N3/PL or their alts, and most of the other half are Goons and their alts. This sort of major nerf will hit the big groups *way* harder than the small ones, especially since their effectively buffing the viability of just using a Rorqual for boosting and mining with Hulks.
Hamasaki Cross wrote:Oh and even cooler awesomer idea would be don't implement features which cost 37.5 Billion isk to train, then turn around after you've spent the money on potentially multiple accounts and completely bork it. I'm lucky because I assumed CCP are totally incompetent from the beginning and limited my exposure to only 4/10 of my mining accounts. So only 150 billion isk pissed away because CCP decided to change their mind after using the live server to test market effects of overly poweful rorquals. Now it's a million times more feasible to use hulks x 10 than rorqual x 5. and hulks x 10 = 2b + 80b in injected skills = 82b vs rorquals x 5 = 62.5b + 175b in injected skills = 237.5b. Oh and your killboard doesn't get raped. CCP borked it completely. Business as normal in Iceland it seems.
I'm just gonna quote myself here...
Cade Windstalker wrote:Anything in the game is subject to change and rebalancing. If you're rushing towards something that seems too good to be true then you may want to stop and consider that it just might actually *be* too good to be true and is about to get whacked with the nerf bat. Signs that something may be about to get nerfed:
- Everyone rushing towards it like blind lemmings.
- Tons of threads about how it's either massively OP or is fine and shouldn't be touched.
- Your personal analysis can't come up with a compelling reason not to use it.
- It's rendering obsolete, worthless, or of questionable value one or more play styles, ships, modules, or features.
The Rorqual hits 1 and 2 cleanly, clearly hit 3 for anyone who immediately rushed to train into a Rorqual, and hits 4 pretty solidly as well in that the actual boosting functionality on the Rorqual has been largely ignored by players, it's replacing boosted mining fleets with either single or groups of Rorquals, and the PANIC abuse specifically was invalidating a lot of tactics around Entosis.
So yeah... this wasn't that hard to see coming, especially with the way the price of Trit has slid. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2589
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:45:19 -
[88] - Quote
OMG!! Something that once was sort of less interesting is suddenly different and maybe very good!! Its the Mandela effect in the Eve 'verse'. Its like everything is changing all the time! Like some mysterious force can change elements of our reality as if it were a game!! Yikes!! What next? The ability to make your own station like some sort of citadel in space? Or maybe the introduction of a new class of pod pilots that can't ever learn the same skills we elite can as if we were paying for that privilege or something! Its like I have to keep learning and adjusting to some new sets of challenges all the time! How am I supposed to live life on autopilot if I have to keep thinking and changing my behavior.
Is this some sort of game or something??!! |
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
146
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:09:26 -
[89] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:you have to put a 3b ship in belt and siege it, well it better be better than a 300m barge. Exactly |
Cade Windstalker
901
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:11:33 -
[90] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:you have to put a 3b ship in belt and siege it, well it better be better than a 300m barge. Exactly
CCP could nerf the Rorqual by another like 70% and it would still mine more than a maxed out Hulk being boosted by a Sieged Rorqual...
Also most of the cost of the Rorqual is in the drones, after maxed Insurance you lose about 1.3b on a dead Rorqual with basic non-bling fittings. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |