Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lilith Shea
The Scope Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 18:30:00 -
[151] - Quote
Clara Trevlyn wrote:If you want a mining booster on grid then it is not the Rorqual. Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes.
The Rorqual is fine, it sits in a POS and provides a stronger mining boost than the Orca.
Create another ship, smaller, cheaper. Battleship cost. Let it boost stronger than a Rorqual when on grid, chuck in a compression capability (with tractor beam) so it can grab containers of ore and compress it so it's doing something useful. Don't let it store much, Miasmos are perfect for moving the compressed ore away.
Heck create a T2 variant, give it cloak/covert cyno capability, weaker boost to compensate. It can wander around boosting and compressing ore with Prospects and a blockade runner...
It's not a matter of forcing a square peg into a round hole. It's a matter of the square peg has no hole. Adding another ship just contributes to the tiericide problem CCP is trying to avoid. The mining boost it gives isn't the issue, its that all it can do is boost. Theres no way for a pilot to make isk in a Rorqual which translates into why use one. Giving a ship compression and tractor also wont fix the problem because of MTUs and compression arrays now. No matter what you're going to have to haul the ore, so what does it matter if you compress now or later.
Makes more sense to use a Miasmos to haul, faster, cheaper, just as big but will result in less downtime than using a Rorqual in field ATM. |
Electrified Circuits
Fault Line Industries Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
17
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 19:14:00 -
[152] - Quote
I like the idea of introducing a smaller battlecruiser size vessel with better boosts. Having anything as big as a rorq on belt is ridiculous but i like bold ideas..
Let it boost more than a rorq and also give it the capability of 'enriching ores' in the belt whereby it has to actively use a module that has a very low chance of increasing the current ores quality based on the rocks size in proportion to current ore. This way the booster isnt just sitting there has to pay attention and can increase miners yields. |
Clara Trevlyn
Carry on Capsuleering
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 20:11:00 -
[153] - Quote
Lilith Shea wrote:The mining boost it gives isn't the issue, its that all it can do is boost. Theres no way for a pilot to make isk in a Rorqual which translates into why use one. The Rorqual "makes" significant isk. It may not directly translate as isk into your wallet, or ore into your hold, but your fleet is mining considerably more ore than it would have done otherwise.
If you do not feel you are being adequately compensated for that then that isn't an issue with the Rorqual or its abilities.
You're never realistically going to convince Rorqual owners to sit in a belt, even if it could mine like a hulk, or two hulks. Swiftly visit a belt maybe, sit in it no... |
Lilith Shea
The Scope Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 20:41:00 -
[154] - Quote
Clara Trevlyn wrote:Lilith Shea wrote:The mining boost it gives isn't the issue, its that all it can do is boost. Theres no way for a pilot to make isk in a Rorqual which translates into why use one. The Rorqual "makes" significant isk. It may not directly translate as isk into your wallet, or ore into your hold, but your fleet is mining considerably more ore than it would have done otherwise. If you do not feel you are being adequately compensated for that then that isn't an issue with the Rorqual or its abilities. You're never realistically going to convince Rorqual owners to sit in a belt, even if it could mine like a hulk, or two hulks. Swiftly visit a belt maybe, sit in it no...
True Rorquals make vast sums of ISK indirectly but the pilot typically doesn't see it. I've never been compensated by a corp for boosting and logistically speaking it'd be very hard to charge isk / cycle in a fleet to anyone willing to pay. There will always be another willing to boost for cheaper or for free. And even if you could, how much can you squeeze out of a miner... 5k isk/cycle to open yourself up to attack. Obviously this goes above the Rorqual and more toward an Orca but the principal is the same.
To be honest I would take a Rorqual to actually mine a belt if the Rorqual could produce at least equal to what it costs to field. That's the nature of ships, use what you can afford to lose. All ships currently in game can make ISK directly and therefore prove their worth. Sure not every time you lose a ship you made enough to field a new one, but they have the capability. Even the Orca makes isk with it's ability to haul... is it the best way to make ISK no, but it's a way. Rorquals, being limited to where they can be used, the ability to haul is not enough, especially with compression being removed from them. That brings be back to my original point, I'd rather use an Orca in Null to boost with 90% effectiveness but 1/5 the price tag. So why Rorqual?
|
Grognard Commissar
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:14:00 -
[155] - Quote
Lilith Shea wrote: True Rorquals make vast sums of ISK indirectly but the pilot typically doesn't see it. I've never been compensated by a corp for boosting and logistically speaking it'd be very hard to charge isk / cycle in a fleet to anyone willing to pay. There will always be another willing to boost for cheaper or for free. And even if you could, how much can you squeeze out of a miner... 5k isk/cycle to open yourself up to attack. Obviously this goes above the Rorqual and more toward an Orca but the principal is the same.
that why you should charge by the hour, rounded up |
Lilith Shea
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:21:00 -
[156] - Quote
Grognard Commissar wrote:Lilith Shea wrote: True Rorquals make vast sums of ISK indirectly but the pilot typically doesn't see it. I've never been compensated by a corp for boosting and logistically speaking it'd be very hard to charge isk / cycle in a fleet to anyone willing to pay. There will always be another willing to boost for cheaper or for free. And even if you could, how much can you squeeze out of a miner... 5k isk/cycle to open yourself up to attack. Obviously this goes above the Rorqual and more toward an Orca but the principal is the same.
that why you should charge by the hour, rounded up
I boost for a fee, accept "miner" into fleet... warp to member.... rorqual goes boom. Thats why the logistics of charging per cycle doesn't work. And assigning protection to the rorqual just means more corp members not making any isk. This is why I say giving the Rorq the ability to mine is a much better solution than any of the OP suggestions relating to shields and giving it combat abilities and whatnot |
Rialen
Gravit Negotii Northern Associates.
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 02:38:00 -
[157] - Quote
I'd be happy with the following changes:
- 3 high-slots - Ability to mine using capital strip miners (high slots) - this means they either use this as a boosting ship or a mining ship but harder to do both as you are using same slots for the module. Mining yield also needs to be better than a hulk since it is a more expensive mining ship. - remove the need for industrial core - keep current defense, align time, etc
Basically, just make the rorq the next progression point for mining ships. Mining barges -> Exhumers -> Capital Mining ship
This way you either have more rorqs on grid mining = more risks, better reward, or you have more smaller ships such as exhumers/mining barges but have less reward. |
Zhul Chembull
Phantom Power Incorporated Rebel Alliance of New Eden
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:15:00 -
[158] - Quote
I have been at this game since its inception pretty much. The rorqual is an interesting ship with a lot of benefits, however the changes in the Crius leads me to believe the best thing we can do with it will be as follows.
Rorqual Purposed Changes:
Non-Siege
A: Capital Strip Miners. This only makes sense and was I originally thought the rorqual would be. Take it in the belt and make it happen. While industrial mode it crushes all ore in its hold into squares.
B: Make it immune to E-WAR. Similar to Supers it can not be locked down, however it is still susceptible to hot drops as being in siege mode would still make you a squishy.
C: Add slight defense bonuses to miners in surrounding area. Honestly, its drone damage at level V is already pretty nasty and no rats or small ships in their right mind would
-Sieged -
20 percent bonus to miners shield 20 percent bonus to drone damage to all mining ships -mining bonuses of course. -Constantly crushes ore and puts it in squares.
Just a few ideas. Other than that it stays in a POS as far as I am concerned. |
Lilith Shea
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:48:00 -
[159] - Quote
Zhul Chembull wrote:I have been at this game since its inception pretty much. The rorqual is an interesting ship with a lot of benefits, however the changes in the Crius leads me to believe the best thing we can do with it will be as follows.
Rorqual Purposed Changes:
Non-Siege
A: Capital Strip Miners. This only makes sense and was I originally thought the rorqual would be. Take it in the belt and make it happen. While industrial mode it crushes all ore in its hold into squares.
B: Make it immune to E-WAR. Similar to Supers it can not be locked down, however it is still susceptible to hot drops as being in siege mode would still make you a squishy.
C: Add slight defense bonuses to miners in surrounding area. Honestly, its drone damage at level V is already pretty nasty and no rats or small ships in their right mind would
-Sieged -
20 percent bonus to miners shield 20 percent bonus to drone damage to all mining ships -mining bonuses of course. -Constantly crushes ore and puts it in squares.
Just a few ideas. Other than that it stays in a POS as far as I am concerned.
Man we have dev and CSM response in this thread. I wish we could get an acknowledgement that these are good ideas, that they're still watching, that they like X and Y ideas. Just to reassure us theyre still listening and like what we have to say =\
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 01:43:00 -
[160] - Quote
We're running all over the map here. Basically here is what we know:
1 - They intend to make the ship so that you want to use it in a belt.
2 - They intend to beef up its defense extraordinarily, and its offense at least somewhat.
3 - They want to give it not only the ability to protect itself but also to protect its mining fleet.
(The above points were stated, but of course nothing is written in stone.)
4 - They've talked about buffing the Rorqual before, a year ago and even before. They've known it needs a buff for a while, but nothing previously discussed made the cut.
5 - They seriously considered a POS bubble effect, and the reasons that it was not implemented were on the one hand a lack of technical ability to implement it, and on the other hand an uncertainty about the future of POS bubbles even for POSes. The possibility was NOT ruled out because it would make the Rorq OP, however.
Now in order to make us WANT to use the Rorqual in a belt they have two options. They can make its bonuses only usable in belts, or they can make its bonuses work much better if it is in a belt. I am sure the players will prefer the second option and whine if they choose the first option, but in my experience the player base will generally whine and trash CCP no matter what they do, yet the whiners will not do the logical thing for them and just stop paying for the game. They'll just whine and maintain their subscriptions year after year. So CCP can and often does do what is best for the game regardless of what the players will prefer.
There hasn't been any announcement about changing or expanding the Rorqual's role, such as making it a capital mining barge. While this isn't a bad idea for a ship to introduce to the game at some point, this really hasn't been proposed for the Rorqual other than by a subgroup of players. CCP has never responded that they'd be interested in this. Also, there hasn't been any talk of altering the Rorqual's fundamental role, such as shifting it from being primarily a deep space mining/indy base to say an ore hauler or whatever. So it's really unlikely that the Rorq will get high sec access. It may get some ore bay expansion or something as ore will be the material to move come Crius. The Rorq has long been a nice poor man's jump freighter. But in general, I just don't see it anything really major happening. Perhaps it will get some increased jump range as the effects of the post-Crius ore economy is analyzed. But basically, I predict that the Rorqual's reconnecting as a mining barge just won't happen (though a capital class mining ship does sound kick ass and may someday happen), and changes to its hauling abilities will likely be incidental and in relation to other game factors besides just balancing the Rorq for its own sake.
Really they seem to want the Rorqual to basically be the same ship that it is, a big, slow, lumbering, massive, deep space operating, mining foreman/boosting vessel. They just want it to be able to do it in a belt and to work together with its fleets. They may introduce something like bridging mining fleets. They may consider changing how it operates with jump clones. But overall making it super cheap, or cloaky, or align like a venture, or a mining barge, just hasn't really been proposed by them. They have not responded positively to any of these sorts of suggestions.
Now in terms of making it pretty much the same ship that it is but be useful in protecting itself as well as its fleet pretty much means it will need to survive a variety of escalation scenarios, and this requires that it will need some sort of God mode. Just boosting HP and DPS won't do it.
Now I have posted this summary on the one hand to draw other posters' attention to what CCP has said and predict what is more likely to happen, and on another hand to pipe my own personal preference for a god mode like the ECM-smartbomb field I recommend or something else that causes similar effect, but also to alert CCP to an understanding of what we know they've said thus far and to ask them to respond with their impressions of what we are saying in these threads. That last bit is the most important.
CCP, are your thoughts about what to do with the Rorqual changing from what you've announced at fanjets and what was discussed at previous round tables about Rorqual changes? What are you guys thinking at this point? What is being looked at? Let us give you our impressions of what you are thinking of doing at an earlier stage instead of waiting until you ann |
|
Rialen
Gravit Negotii Northern Associates.
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 02:38:00 -
[161] - Quote
Zhul Chembull wrote:I have been at this game since its inception pretty much. The rorqual is an interesting ship with a lot of benefits, however the changes in the Crius leads me to believe the best thing we can do with it will be as follows.
Rorqual Purposed Changes:
Non-Siege
A: Capital Strip Miners. This only makes sense and was I originally thought the rorqual would be. Take it in the belt and make it happen. While industrial mode it crushes all ore in its hold into squares.
B: Make it immune to E-WAR. Similar to Supers it can not be locked down, however it is still susceptible to hot drops as being in siege mode would still make you a squishy.
C: Add slight defense bonuses to miners in surrounding area. Honestly, its drone damage at level V is already pretty nasty and no rats or small ships in their right mind would
-Sieged -
20 percent bonus to miners shield 20 percent bonus to drone damage to all mining ships -mining bonuses of course. -Constantly crushes ore and puts it in squares.
Just a few ideas. Other than that it stays in a POS as far as I am concerned.
I don't believe there is a need for B or C.
Capital strip miners which has higher yield + longer range to cover a lot of the rocks in belts is all that is necessary. If you keep the ship moving in a direction to a destination you are warping to, you can still instant warp. Basically start from one end of the belt, move to other end and setup warp out points at either end of the belt so you can instant warp.
The danger will come from being caught while you are still warping to a belt. |
Zhul Chembull
Phantom Power Incorporated Rebel Alliance of New Eden
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:06:00 -
[162] - Quote
Without some way to begin to warp out, every rorqual will be caught. Anyone that has mined in 0.0 for anytime knows this. I purpose making it immune to EW. It can still be hot dropped however but at least you have a chance. Without something like that, just keep it in the POS otherwise it makes good kill mail. Believe me PL hot dropped me at a POS and still ate me within a few seconds. |
Rialen
Gravit Negotii Northern Associates.
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 01:57:00 -
[163] - Quote
it will only be caught if it starts warp from 0m/s when a neut jump in.
If you had it aligned and moving at warp speed it is an instant warp. The only time it can get caught is if it was turning around to align or if it was in warp to the belt when neuts / reds came in, both of which are short period of time and a luck of the draw thing. As long as the capital strip miner has a long range, I don't think there is a need for an immune to e-war/scram.
It does require a more active mining as you need to constantly change alignment to get out, but you can see it as a way to prevent botting....
|
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 02:11:00 -
[164] - Quote
The Rorqual was conceived and designed by Outer Ring Excavations in response to a growing need for capital industry platforms with the ability to support and sustain large-scale mining operations in uninhabited areas of space. The concept of uninhabited space is outdated at best. Uninhabitable space is far more common. Something like this might make it a viable concept of a Rorqual in belt.
Looking at the Rorqual and it could use +225 cpu,+1High slot, 2 Turret hard-points , +2 low slots, -1000s from Capacitor Recharge, add 2.75 ly to Jump Range, 25% Reduction in Fuel use. Remove the "Industry only" tag from its Ship Maintenance Bay. Increase Building Material Requirements by 20%, Hit points by 15% reduce Signature radius by 5% Add 100 m3 to drone capacity
20% reduction on cost of and cycle time of activation of Industrial core per level. 5% bonus to Capital Turret Damage per level 10% bonus to mining foreman links when Industrial core is active 50% bonus to range to capital Remote shield transporter per level 5000m to drone control range per level 20% to drone hit points and damage per level
Role Bonus *Can Fit Covert Cynosural Field Generator and covert Jump Portal Generator *Can Fit Jump Portal Generator and Clone Vat Bay *Can Use 3 Warfare link modules simultaneously +2 warp core strength 100% bonus to overheating Resistance Modules and Local and Remote Repair Modules
|
Zhul Chembull
Phantom Power Incorporated Rebel Alliance of New Eden
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 14:01:00 -
[165] - Quote
Rialen wrote:it will only be caught if it starts warp from 0m/s when a neut jump in.
If you had it aligned and moving at warp speed it is an instant warp. The only time it can get caught is if it was turning around to align or if it was in warp to the belt when neuts / reds came in, both of which are short period of time and a luck of the draw thing. As long as the capital strip miner has a long range, I don't think there is a need for an immune to e-war/scram.
It does require a more active mining as you need to constantly change alignment to get out, but you can see it as a way to prevent botting....
lol. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3899
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 18:51:00 -
[166] - Quote
Zhul Chembull wrote:Rialen wrote:it will only be caught if it starts warp from 0m/s when a neut jump in.
If you had it aligned and moving at warp speed it is an instant warp. The only time it can get caught is if it was turning around to align or if it was in warp to the belt when neuts / reds came in, both of which are short period of time and a luck of the draw thing. As long as the capital strip miner has a long range, I don't think there is a need for an immune to e-war/scram.
It does require a more active mining as you need to constantly change alignment to get out, but you can see it as a way to prevent botting....
lol. Ya, I sometimes wonder if I'm the only actual Rorqual owner in these sort of threads. |
Zhul Chembull
Phantom Power Incorporated Rebel Alliance of New Eden
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 19:54:00 -
[167] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Zhul Chembull wrote:Rialen wrote:it will only be caught if it starts warp from 0m/s when a neut jump in.
If you had it aligned and moving at warp speed it is an instant warp. The only time it can get caught is if it was turning around to align or if it was in warp to the belt when neuts / reds came in, both of which are short period of time and a luck of the draw thing. As long as the capital strip miner has a long range, I don't think there is a need for an immune to e-war/scram.
It does require a more active mining as you need to constantly change alignment to get out, but you can see it as a way to prevent botting....
lol. Ya, I sometimes wonder if I'm the only actual Rorqual owner in these sort of threads.
I have thought the same thing often times. I am not suggesting that my ideas are in any way great ones, they are simply ideas and observations after many years of play. I can tell this thread that any rorqual driver short of having EW invul, will NEVER fly that thing into an ore belt.
For the seasoned rorqual drivers we live by simple rules
1: Do not fly in the belts. Do not fly in belts. DO NOT FLY IN BELTS. 2: Do not warp to cyno lights when there is a neut in system (yes I learned this the painful way). 3: Make sure when you go into siege mode you didn't bounce off one of your POS structures, (I once looked up and was 50k from the POS in siege mode chugging along).
Even if they do put something groovy on the rorqual like capital strip miners but no immunity or protection from EW, 99% of your rorqual drivers will stay in the POS. Years have taught us that anything outside the POS you are ham at a wolf dinner. If they remove the ability that rorquals can only boost in belts, most of us veterans will sell this big contraption and get us the Orca to chug around in. It almost seems like an industrial sin to lose a rorqual. |
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 20:26:00 -
[168] - Quote
1,180,000 metric tons does not just instant warp. Even being 200km off of a belt is not a great idea which i believe is the idea of having a capital tractor beam. So no, I haven't seen anything yet that makes me trade my Orca for a Rorqual. The math isn't there for me. |
Baron Avo
Promethean Foundation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 01:00:00 -
[169] - Quote
Problem: Rorquals won't go to belts 'cause indy pilots are very conservative and don't like getting killed Solution: Make risking your Rorqual more attractive Win #1: Rorquals will go to belts Win #2: There will be Rorquals in belts to gank
My idea is a rehash, I'm sure, of many others before, but hopefully with a twist or two.
Capital Ore Chomper (yeah, a better name would be nice) - Automatically targets asteroids, tractors them to the ship, then casts a special warp field around them that transfers them directly into the ore bay. - Max of two high-slot modules - Only fits on the Rorqual - Siege mode NOT required and also no longer required for boosts - Only works with asteroids of 10km in diameter or smaller - Auto-targets asteroids - No crystals - Does not work on Mercoxit - Capital Ore Crusher skill required. Adds Range, Tractor Speed and Chomp Speed per level - Slider control for Asteroid size: Smaller or Bigger first - Slider control for Range: Close or Far first.
Goal would be for each module to mine about as much as a max-skilled Skiff
With this ability, you could mine with a fleet, have your Hulks/Macks mine the big 'roids, vacuum up the little ones with the Rorqual, and boost at the same time. Probably exactly what the game designers had in mind when they first designed the ship eons ago.
But, this is too easy! It will encourage AFK mining. Botting! If a Hulk could do this, sure. But, for a Rorqual, I don't think so. See Win #2 above. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
666
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 01:12:00 -
[170] - Quote
Baron Avo wrote:Problem: Rorquals won't go to belts 'cause indy pilots are very conservative and don't like getting killed Solution: Make risking your Rorqual more attractive
Baron, you're making a category error here. Indy pilots aren't in the category "willing to risk it at the right price", they're in the category, "losing it is an embarrassment, even if it's a Retriever". The fact that so much embarrassment happens in Eve on a daily basis is not an indication of a pilot's willingness to risk.
Over the years I've been playing Eve people have continually made this error, especially around ideas to make low sec more attractive. My idea about that (a different thread I'm sure), i.e. Viceroys, seemed to go nowhere :p. Anyway, all I will say is that in many null locations putting a capital into a belt to mine would be banned. That is if the sov holder cares about his reputation and doesn't want to attract every red cloaky camper and hot-dropper in New Eden into his space.
|
|
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 16:47:00 -
[171] - Quote
Some how, I doubt CCP'S answer will be making the Rorqual a botting monster. It is amusing that the idea of "how can we make the Rorqual relevant in eve" keeps turning to "how can we make Rorqual's explode". If making loss mails is the main goal then CCP can adjust the Insurance payout to 150%. Then, YAY, the Rorqual is totally fixed now. All battle Rorquals warp to zero at the belts. |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 18:05:00 -
[172] - Quote
Miners are actually less risk averse than PvPers. In general fleet commanders will only commit a fleet to battle when their fleet comp can overwhelm enemy reps and the enemy's alpha cannot overwhelm his fleet's reps. Battles of attrition are very rare in Eve and the prominence of doctrines based on alpha strikes means that most battles resulting in a victor completely routing an emery with few or no casualties or causing significant enough casualties that the losing team disengages. Also, that the majority of fighting in Eve consists of combat fleets camping and ganking non-combat vessels and fleets further contributes to the fact that PvPers are generally the most risk averse group in the game.
Thus, what currently stands for acceptable risk vs. reward is the miner risking his assets to get ISK by subjecting them to the threat of PvP and the PvPer accepting no risk by being the party that chooses to engage or not. Therefore, an acceptable situation for the Rorqual to function in a belt would be to effectively make the Rorqual unkillable in a belt and to boot give it the ability to offer substantial protection and multiplication of combat power to the mining vessels it supports.
My idea that gives a potential expression of such a result is here.
I have noticed a number of the more recent posters on this thread posting ideas as if they hadn't read my idea. I know it's a bit long. Please read. |
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 19:01:00 -
[173] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:Thus, what currently stands for acceptable risk vs. reward is the miner risking his assets to get ISK by subjecting them to the threat of PvP and the PvPer accepting no risk by being the party that chooses to engage or not. Therefore, an acceptable situation for the Rorqual to function in a belt would be to effectively make the Rorqual unkillable in a belt and to boot give it the ability to offer substantial protection and multiplication of combat power to the mining vessels it supports. My idea that gives a potential expression of such a result is here. I have noticed a number of the more recent posters on this thread posting ideas as if they hadn't read my idea. I know it's a bit long. Please read. The issue I see with your concept is that the more drastic the change idea the less likely it is and the more likely it turns into a bad genie wish. Your idea could be condensed down from TL/DR, to a few adjustments or reworks of role bonuses. Less is more. Take a good look at the hows/ why of the tiercide changes or the Kronus ship changes. it could be more like this;
ECM AOE GOD MODE BUBBLE!!!---> 50% RANGE BONUS TO ECM BURST, PER LEVEL ECM STRENGTH PER LEVEL. SMARTBOMB GOD MODE---> 100% DAMAGE BONUS PER LEVEL, 100% RATE OF FIRE PER LEVEL , -50 % OPTIMAL RANGE PER LEVEL. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
813
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 23:34:00 -
[174] - Quote
Lose the siege mode if you want Rorquals to be used in belts. No-one is ever going to siege a Rorq in a belt, ever.
Also would giving the Rorqual a 250km ranged cyno jammer while sieged make it overpowered or would it not make a difference? I'm not well educated in capital PVP ships. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 23:35:00 -
[175] - Quote
Axure Abbacus wrote:Paynus Maiassus wrote:Thus, what currently stands for acceptable risk vs. reward is the miner risking his assets to get ISK by subjecting them to the threat of PvP and the PvPer accepting no risk by being the party that chooses to engage or not. Therefore, an acceptable situation for the Rorqual to function in a belt would be to effectively make the Rorqual unkillable in a belt and to boot give it the ability to offer substantial protection and multiplication of combat power to the mining vessels it supports. My idea that gives a potential expression of such a result is here. I have noticed a number of the more recent posters on this thread posting ideas as if they hadn't read my idea. I know it's a bit long. Please read. The issue I see with your concept is that the more drastic the change idea the less likely it is and the more likely it turns into a bad genie wish. Your idea could be condensed down from TL/DR, to a few adjustments or reworks of role bonuses. Less is more. Take a good look at the hows/ why of the tiercide changes or the Kronus ship changes. it could be more like this; ECM AOE GOD MODE BUBBLE!!!---> 50% RANGE BONUS TO ECM BURST, PER LEVEL ECM STRENGTH PER LEVEL. SMARTBOMB GOD MODE---> 100% DAMAGE BONUS PER LEVEL, 100% RATE OF FIRE PER LEVEL , -50 % OPTIMAL RANGE PER LEVEL.
Well there is some truth to this and if the idea ends up contributing to what they do then it is likely that some kind of workaround like yours ends up being the case. But your simple workaround misses some key points. Like making the exhumers in your fleet immune to the smart bomb effect. Or making the smart bomb/ECM effect only usable in belts in order to prevent the ship from being exploitable by crafty players who want to use the Rorq in a variety of fleet situations, and connecting the ECM and smart bomb effect to the siege mode, meaning the siege (and other bonuses associated with it like the mining link bonuses) is only usable in belts, so the Rorq won't be very useful in a POS.
So basically, your simple set of adjustments won't exactly do the trick that I was looking for, but yeah I get your point.
However, from the way I see it, all the code they would need is pretty much already there. For instant, you can't lock anything if you're in a POS bubble so that code could be ported to the siege field I recommend. Really the only labor intensive part of setting up the field I recommended was the graphic effect I was looking for, the 'shimmering red cloud' which would really only be there to make the Rorq's siege, already just about the coolest siege in the game with it's verticalization, unfolding, and flame jets, even cooler looking. That could be scrapped. But honestly, an ECM/smartbomb field should not be hugely technically advanced.
But yeah, they might opt for implementing a bonus set that accomplishes more or less the same thing. It's just that the key to the workability of it is that the effect be tied to siege which is only usable in belts. otherwise you'd find smart bombing invulnerable Rorquals station camping people and otherwise being an overpowered combat monster used in ways that have nothing to do with deep space mining. If you're going to ask for a God mode it has to be highly restricted in the situations where it can be implemented. So actually, my idea of tieing all the effects to the siege in the form of a bundle and having it only work in belts actually gives it a greater possibility of being implemented than just giving it some huge bonuses that could potentially be exploited outside of the developers' intent. Also, in a post above I pointed out that a Rorqual god mode in the form of a POS bubble around the ship had been previously contemplated and was shot down because of the technical challenges, not simply because it was a god mode. So something like my idea could be implemented, I think. Also in another post I begged for more Dev and CSM input on their reactions to these ideas (hoping that I would get their reaction to mine). So hopefully we'll get an idea of where we should be channeling our energies. Until then, though, I don't see why my idea wouldn't be workable. |
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 03:57:00 -
[176] - Quote
Lose the siege mode if you want Rorquals to be used in belts. No-one is ever going to siege a Rorq in a belt, ever.
The siege/ Industrial core module is a large part of the problem. The 10% bonus to mining foreman links should be unlinked from having the industrial core active. With the compression array it will never be used, reprocess the Industrial core.
If it was a fleet wide super booster granting additional drone dps bonuses, resist boosts, and Rep boosting it might be a useful Rorqual siege module. |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
42
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 04:05:00 -
[177] - Quote
Axure Abbacus wrote: Lose the siege mode if you want Rorquals to be used in belts. No-one is ever going to siege a Rorq in a belt, ever.
The siege/ Industrial core module is a large part of the problem. The 10% bonus to mining foreman links should be unlinked from having the industrial core active. With the compression array it will never be used, reprocess the Industrial core.
If it was a fleet wide super booster granting additional drone dps bonuses, resist boosts, and Rep boosting it might be a useful Rorqual siege module.
If the ship is effectively invulnerable while sieging then people will siege it in belts. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1010
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 05:14:00 -
[178] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:If the ship is effectively invulnerable while sieging then people will siege it in belts. no they wont. Because unless it has reinforce mechincs like a station, then its going to die when it runs out of fuel or when it comes out of invulnerability.
Even if you gave it invulnerability it would be too much. It becomes this power struggle between making a rorqual invulnerable enough to use, then people bring more things, then it gets buffed, even more things come, and goes on and on.
Simply put, there is no sweet spot where the rorqual is strong enough to risk, but not too OP that it can never be killed.
Axure is right. indy core needs to die. |
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
666
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 14:10:00 -
[179] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Axure is right. indy core needs to die.
That's a lot of SP gone *poof*. Convert to another skill that gives the same bonus? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1011
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 14:48:00 -
[180] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Rowells wrote: Axure is right. indy core needs to die.
That's a lot of SP gone *poof*. Convert to another skill that gives the same bonus? yeah its gonna suck since myself and others may have poured a lot of SP into it. I imagine if they decide to give another role or add another ability to it, it could simply be transferred to that, but nothing off the top of my head comes to mind for that. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |