Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Thayla Caldari
Resilience. DARKNESS.
12
|
Posted - 2016.12.15 22:59:51 -
[331] - Quote
Bongo0 wrote: Since you like making changes, please consider reducing the siege time to 2 or 3 minutes (or introduce a skill to reduce it) to combat the negative effects on Risk vs Reward you have implemented, in what feels to be an over zealous manner.
Mining is boring as ****, it previously had low returns per hour compared to ratting, it needs to be worth doing. Please reevaluate. Thanks. o/
Yes, I think the siege time is the risk and in this case risk vs reward really is the factor.
Let's say for math's sake you put 10 Rorquals on the board. Day of launch that was 100b isk on the field, for what is now 1.5b per hour. That's 2x better than a 10 man Hulk fleet (pre patch) which costs 3b if you went with bling.
The Rorquals also suffer from quick depletion of roids and having to warp/move around (which requires the siege cycle to finish). Alternatively they can wait for the slow drones. |
Sgt Zora
Building Inspectors
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.17 12:43:53 -
[332] - Quote
This change won't fix the bad design decisions that were made for the Rorqual in the first place.
The Rorqual has become binary when it comes to risk. If you are in one of the big powerblocs the risk is zero. You hang out in a cyno jammed system with your super buddies. Coincidently that is what the powerblocs rationally set up as an isk farm which is now flooding the market and what gave you your 32% "oh ****" nerf moment.
For everybody else the risk essentially became infinite. The defense capability is meaningless if you can't counter escalate. This is why you won't see a single deployed Rorqual in Providence or anywhere else really, because loosing it is inevitable and with that siege mechanic it doesn't even come down to decision making.
The 32% nerf won't fix the issue. The Rorqual has become an AFK money making machine for indy people in power blocs. And you can't compare it to carriers, because involvement is minimal and it scales basically infinite. Personally i expect the mineral market to plummet massively even further.
The cries here are basically about the fact that it takes 32% longer to get AFK rich. Risk is meaningless if you are in one of those systems. Investment is meaningless because that is a one time cost.
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
326
|
Posted - 2016.12.19 00:26:40 -
[333] - Quote
the amount of people moaning about my income has gone from 500 to 250m... you do realise that since rorquals were introduced, mineral value has also droped by 40%. so take that 500m and knock the 40% off before you try comparing it...
so now your comparing 375m with 250m.
and i really wouldnt keep complaining. Rorquals are STILL yielding higher than what ccp origionaly planned for them. just use them properly.
and if your poping anomoly roids in 2 mins, you may wanna try spreading your rorqs to hit diffrent roids... |
Hans Bauer
deep core mining inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.19 13:24:05 -
[334] - Quote
And the price of the excavator drones Is back at what it was before the nerf :( |
Alyx Shepard
Risen from Ashes inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.19 17:52:16 -
[335] - Quote
The only thing i would realy complain about is the fact that even tho CCP said they will increase the Drop rate of the Elite Drone ai chips, nothing realy changed. Its like putting 4 more Sand corns into an Hourglas. This increase was close to meaningless, the drop in Price for the Chips was only due to Market games. So they are still as expensive as **** which make the whole rorq mining thing useless for almost everyone in null sec except those in the powerblocs mentioned from the dudes before me.
So YEAH, CCP, plz do at least INCREASE the drop rate of those ******* CHIPS the same you lowerd the yield, to keep it easy for you with numbers, stay with the 32% ;-) |
Cade Windstalker
638
|
Posted - 2016.12.20 17:10:08 -
[336] - Quote
Alyx Shepard wrote:The only thing i would realy complain about is the fact that even tho CCP said they will increase the Drop rate of the Elite Drone ai chips, nothing realy changed. Its like putting 4 more Sand corns into an Hourglas. This increase was close to meaningless, the drop in Price for the Chips was only due to Market games. So they are still as expensive as **** which make the whole rorq mining thing useless for almost everyone in null sec except those in the powerblocs mentioned from the dudes before me.
So YEAH, CCP, plz do at least INCREASE the drop rate of those ******* CHIPS the same you lowerd the yield, to keep it easy for you with numbers, stay with the 32% ;-)
Even if they increased the drop rate by 100% you wouldn't see an immediate drop in price of the drones because it will take a while for that increase in supply to translate into a drop in price of the chips and thus the drones. |
Alyx Shepard
Risen from Ashes inPanic
1
|
Posted - 2016.12.20 17:27:29 -
[337] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Alyx Shepard wrote:The only thing i would realy complain about is the fact that even tho CCP said they will increase the Drop rate of the Elite Drone ai chips, nothing realy changed. Its like putting 4 more Sand corns into an Hourglas. This increase was close to meaningless, the drop in Price for the Chips was only due to Market games. So they are still as expensive as **** which make the whole rorq mining thing useless for almost everyone in null sec except those in the powerblocs mentioned from the dudes before me.
So YEAH, CCP, plz do at least INCREASE the drop rate of those ******* CHIPS the same you lowerd the yield, to keep it easy for you with numbers, stay with the 32% ;-) Even if they increased the drop rate by 100% you wouldn't see an immediate drop in price of the drones because it will take a while for that increase in supply to translate into a drop in price of the chips and thus the drones.
Yeah, maybe. I didnt wanted a immeditate drop of the price, i wanted a real increase of the drop rate of those chips. But only getting 3 more out of a 10/10 DED is only a mere joke. NOT a real increase of the droprate..... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3138
|
Posted - 2016.12.20 22:24:12 -
[338] - Quote
I'll voice my opinion on the drones again, the build requirements are way too heavily dependent on the AI chips. Even before the market games began (well before they were released) the price was 3/4 - 2/3 dependent on the AI chips. You could double or triple the requirement of the other materials and it would barely be noticeable in comparison.
I really don't think a full set of 5 should more or as much as the rorqual hull. It'd be a different story if these drones followed the same pattern as T1/T2/Faction/augmented prices and effectiveness. But right now it's wholly dependent on the one drone. |
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
16
|
Posted - 2016.12.21 19:09:14 -
[339] - Quote
Sgt Zora wrote:This change won't fix the bad design decisions that were made for the Rorqual in the first place.
The Rorqual has become binary when it comes to risk. If you are in one of the big powerblocs the risk is zero. You hang out in a cyno jammed system with your super buddies. Coincidently that is what the powerblocs rationally set up as an isk farm which is now flooding the market and what gave you your 32% "oh ****" nerf moment.
For everybody else the risk essentially became infinite. The defense capability is meaningless if you can't counter escalate. This is why you won't see a single deployed Rorqual in Providence or anywhere else really, because loosing it is inevitable and with that siege mechanic it doesn't even come down to decision making.
The 32% nerf won't fix the issue. The Rorqual has become an AFK money making machine for indy people in power blocs. And you can't compare it to carriers, because involvement is minimal and it scales basically infinite. Personally i expect the mineral market to plummet massively even further.
The cries here are basically about the fact that it takes 32% longer to get AFK rich. Risk is meaningless if you are in one of those systems. Investment is meaningless because that is a one time cost.
not at all. you need to deal with rats, or else they kill your drones. also, i'm sure there are people with rorqs in provi. it's not an isk printer. thae isk printers are the ratters. the isk from minerals comes from other rplayers. |
Cptcarter
Industrial Player Killers Army of New Eden
3
|
Posted - 2016.12.27 01:19:33 -
[340] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:the amount of people moaning about my income has gone from 500 to 250m... you do realise that since rorquals were introduced, mineral value has also droped by 40%. so take that 500m and knock the 40% off before you try comparing it...
so now your comparing 375m with 250m.
and i really wouldnt keep complaining. Rorquals are STILL yielding higher than what ccp origionaly planned for them. just use them properly.
and if your poping anomoly roids in 2 mins, you may wanna try spreading your rorqs to hit diffrent roids...
LOL WTF are you talking about...40% drop in mineral value..are you complete void of thought or just want to talk **** and troll. If prices of minerals droped 40% then everyone in eve but you are complete morons.... |
|
Cade Windstalker
670
|
Posted - 2016.12.27 22:16:25 -
[341] - Quote
Alyx Shepard wrote:Yeah, maybe. I didnt wanted a immeditate drop of the price, i wanted a real increase of the drop rate of those chips. But only getting 3 more out of a 10/10 DED is only a mere joke. NOT a real increase of the droprate.....
First off, one site isn't a statistically significant sample size unless the drops are fixed (which, by my understanding, they're not) and second you may be underestimating the effect that an increase in drops per site can have spread over the entire game.
Also it would be helpful, for context, if you included what you feel the base rate was, because "three more" doesn't really add much here. I could tell you that the widget factory made three more flooms last year, and give you just as much information about the supply of AI chips as you've given me here... |
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
366
|
Posted - 2016.12.27 22:59:24 -
[342] - Quote
if CCP wanted to make the excavator drones cheaper, they would've just halved the ingredient cost. Which would've solved the actual problem instead of trying some half handed (CCPs favourite way of dealing with things, except heavy missiles) possibly maybe solution.
The only decent thing at this point is decreasing the time the core is cycles to 1 minute, like bastion.
Baddest poster ever
|
SilKKZ the3rd
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.28 16:38:28 -
[343] - Quote
This was an epic fail , they nerfed them , but the price has actually INCREASED now to 1.45b a pop.
they have no idea what there doing. |
Nivek Steyer
CPE1704TKS SWARTA.
35
|
Posted - 2016.12.29 22:38:33 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Fozie, Can you please make this right. It's not right that miners and industrialists are being penalized at every corner! You may think that is not the case, but it has been this way for many years. Why does CCP fear BS and T1 ships becoming more affordable? Think of the Alpha clones, cheaper ships for all and more fun that leads to more profit in the end for you! There is no reason for BS to cost almost 3x more than when we started this game! Everyone posting is correct risk vs reward. Just like your super carriers that are immune to except to certain scrams. I wonder why you all did that? You know why risk vs reward! 1.4b or so a drone come on! How about fixing that one? No, lets just nerf mining yields really? Been playing since the beginning of this game. Never seen this knee-jerk reaction in less than a month. Wow amazing is all I can say. If carriers can stay mobile and do max damage, then a rorqual should be able to do the same or only be locked down for like a minute. I agree with everyone. If you say pvp well just like going after a carrier buy you get a minute. Please fix what you knee jerked up!
|
Cade Windstalker
682
|
Posted - 2016.12.30 13:52:10 -
[345] - Quote
Nivek Steyer wrote:CCP Fozie, Can you please make this right. It's not right that miners and industrialists are being penalized at every corner! You may think that is not the case, but it has been this way for many years. Why does CCP fear BS and T1 ships becoming more affordable? Think of the Alpha clones, cheaper ships for all and more fun that leads to more profit in the end for you! There is no reason for BS to cost almost 3x more than when we started this game! Everyone posting is correct risk vs reward. Just like your super carriers that are immune to except to certain scrams. I wonder why you all did that? You know why risk vs reward! 1.4b or so a drone come on! How about fixing that one? No, lets just nerf mining yields really? Been playing since the beginning of this game. Never seen this knee-jerk reaction in less than a month. Wow amazing is all I can say. If carriers can stay mobile and do max damage, then a rorqual should be able to do the same or only be locked down for like a minute. I agree with everyone. If you say pvp well just like going after a carrier buy you get a minute. Please fix what you knee jerked up!
Okay, first off, this isn't penalizing anything. This is still a big buff over how things were before the Rorqual and other mining booster ships were tweaked.
Second, a little economics 101.
If the mineral balance in the game goes out of whack the result won't be just cheaper T1 ships, the result will be a mineral price crash and no one will be able to make very much money mining unless something changes with supply in the game. This is because if the mineral input massively outweighs the minerals being destroyed in combat then people will be forced to sell their minerals for less, but since other prices won't go down to match except those directly tied to mineral prices the buying power of industrialists is going to drop drastically.
As to the risk and reward for a Rorqual, the Rorqual is not a combat ship and should not be compared to a Carrier. If you want more combat prowess in your mining fleet you are free to bring a Carrier to it but I doubt it'll mine much. The primary reward of its siege mode is the mining yield not the damage and tank boost. If you don't think it's worthwhile then don't use it, it's still a perfectly good support and boosting ship without siege. |
Mr Bowers
Coalition Alliance Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.01 06:00:48 -
[346] - Quote
Rorqual needs a change in not being stuck. That feature should be removed from the game. Just like a titan can DoomsDay be stuck for 30 secs but after it can't jump, dock or tenor or cloak. It's time we use the same feature on the industrial core I and II.
When you first turn it on you should be stuck for 30 secs in the belt before your able to align out. After that you will lose time it takes the drones to go from and to the belts. |
NeoShocker
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
226
|
Posted - 2017.01.10 03:51:28 -
[347] - Quote
Unless I am doing it wrong, I don't see how the Rorqual is the ultimate mining solo boat with the excavators ... Other than that, It is a beast when boosting other miners. I would be happy if each drone is comparable as the hulk, if not little better. Yet it is not, especially with the mining cycle between the drones and the hulk in the long run. |
Exelious
Ciggy Butt Brains. ChaosTheory.
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.12 11:34:52 -
[348] - Quote
Hi CCP,
All you have managed to do with this change is break the market for these drones even more and made the Russians in drone regions even more wealthy, and thus allowed the market to be manipulated to unreasonable pricing for something that was originally estimated at costing 300M per drone.
That moment you buy a fully fit Rorqual and the Mining drones alone cost 2 x the cost of the fully Faction / Deadspace Rorq...
Thanks for breaking market being stuck for 5 minutes for that cost is unreasonable, being stuck for 5 minutes in something that costs 4.5b is not as bad for the amount you make, but not 8.5B.
Bah.. we will see... |
Maldiro Selkurk
Conflagration Enterprises
586
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 05:02:53 -
[349] - Quote
michael chasseur wrote:hisec wins again
LOL good one.
Oh, he was serious......then it is just sad that your extreme level of entitlement has blinded you to anything remotely resembling game balance.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
ugh zug
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 12:10:06 -
[350] - Quote
rather than nerf them you need to implement a standard, non bpc faction and stupid mats gated, line.
name them Large mining drone/heavy ice mining drone I and II. Large mining drone/heavy ice mining drone I should come in blue print original flavor and be in line with other standard drones for production mats/price. somewhere around a fighter each.
Hulls that depend on modules shouldn't be gated behind faction bpcs, obscure materials, and outright extortion from market controlling forces, to be viable. By doing so you are penalizing pilots who use these ships to the extreme. it's outright abuse from the developers.
Want me to shut up?
Remove content from my post,1B.
Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.
|
|
Madina Shouna
Conoco. Caldari Armed Forces.
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.18 01:55:59 -
[351] - Quote
God help me if I become rich enough to buy CCP entirely. You will be the first one to get fired.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. We've been keeping a close eye on how people are using the newly rebalanced Rorquals and it's been really exciting watching how well people have taken to the new gameplay. We have decided that we need to make a tweak in our December release next Tuesday to adjust the balance of mining Rorquals and keep the mining economy in a healthy place. We are planning two connected changes in this release: - Reducing the mining yield of 'Excavator' Mining Drones by 32%
- Increasing the drop rates of the Elite Drone AI and Drone Coronary Unit rogue drone components
We are continuing to keep an eye on all aspects of gameplay around the mining foreman ships. I know some players are hoping that we would make adjustments to other areas of Rorqual gameplay (such as ewar use while the PANIC module is running) but we feel comfortable leaving those aspects alone for now and continuing to observe how the metagame evolves. We of course reserve the right to make more changes to this or any other aspects of the Rorqual in upcoming patches to keep the ecosystem in balance. Thanks!
|
Graysanna
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.19 08:41:18 -
[352] - Quote
I haven't played in quite awhile. It looks like CCP hasn't changed their BS while I was away. People are mining solo in just Rory's? Wtf happened to hulks? Wtf happened to boosting a mining fleet of alts? The list of fking ******** changes CCP has forced the player base to endure is disturbing, makes me wonder if anyone I flew with even bothers playing anymore. Just how bad is it to mine as a profession in eve? |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
335
|
Posted - 2017.01.19 12:44:55 -
[353] - Quote
Exelious wrote:Hi CCP,
All you have managed to do with this change is break the market for these drones even more and made the Russians in drone regions even more wealthy, and thus allowed the market to be manipulated to unreasonable pricing for something that was originally estimated at costing 300M per drone.
That moment you buy a fully fit Rorqual and the Mining drones alone cost 2 x the cost of the fully Faction / Deadspace Rorq...
Thanks for breaking market being stuck for 5 minutes for that cost is unreasonable, being stuck for 5 minutes in something that costs 4.5b is not as bad for the amount you make, but not 8.5B.
Bah.. we will see...
The Russians live in vale, geminate and insmother these days. only Russians in drones are solar in outer passage. and if you use a wetu depot, your drones are safe anyways... |
Cearain
Plus 10 NV It Burns When I'm PvPing
1491
|
Posted - 2017.02.08 19:23:30 -
[354] - Quote
It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.
Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"
In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
336
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 12:03:43 -
[355] - Quote
Cearain wrote:It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.
Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"
In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes. Personaly i think that it needs its damage bonus in siege doubled, but panic mode to turn off everything except tank mods including gang mods, entosis links, e-war and remote reps |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3781
|
Posted - 2017.02.14 15:40:34 -
[356] - Quote
Cearain wrote:It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.
Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"
In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes.
....
but it should need a fleet to defend itself from any committed threat and only have enough to deter randoms.... the entire point of the panic button was so that it could live long enough for a fleet to show.
titans need a fleet supers need a fleet dreads need a fleet carriers need a fleet
and these are dedicated combat ships why do you thing the rorqual should not need a fleet?
BLOPS Hauler
|
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1480
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 13:25:38 -
[357] - Quote
Forum Rules of Conduct wrote:31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. # Removed a post for violating the above rule.
ISD Fractal
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Cearain
Plus 10 NV It Burns When I'm PvPing
1493
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 15:40:22 -
[358] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Cearain wrote:It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.
Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"
In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes. .... but it should need a fleet to defend itself from any committed threat and only have enough to deter randoms.... the entire point of the panic button was so that it could live long enough for a fleet to show. titans need a fleet supers need a fleet dreads need a fleet carriers need a fleet and these are dedicated combat ships why do you thing the rorqual should not need a fleet?
The ships you mention do not need a fleet. For example a carrier does not need a fleet. But whether a ship in fact needs a fleet is different than whether a ship should need a fleet. The point I am making remains the same. If CCP designs ships to "need a fleet" then they are basically saying only large null sec alliances can use this ship. If that is what they want to do that is fine, but I think most of their playerbase will be less than pleased.
Ncc 1709 wrote:Cearain wrote:It sounds like CSM is talking about more rorqual changes. I wish the players could pitch in to these discussions and not just the null sec leadership of the csm.
Rumor has it some on CSM feel the rorqual should require a fleet to defend it and should have its actual offensive capability nerfed. Of course we would expect that from null sec since they are the ones with the large fleets. Hopefully CCP will understand that everytime they hear "this ship should only be flown if it has a support fleet" that is code for "this ship should only be used by large null sec blocs like the one I'm in"
In any event I hope ccp discusses this with players at large other than the csm, before they simply announce changes. Personaly i think that it needs its damage bonus in siege doubled, but panic mode to turn off everything except tank mods including gang mods, entosis links, e-war and remote reps
Its certainly possible that rorquals may have an issue where they point something while in panic mode etc.
I agree with you that they should do more dps. I mean they can be tanked indefinitely by a single subcap ship.
They are not allowed in high sec so they are a capital ship intended to only go into dangerous space. The fact that their dps is so anemic is odd.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cade Windstalker
798
|
Posted - 2017.02.15 18:24:20 -
[359] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The ships you mention do not need a fleet. For example a carrier does not need a fleet. But whether a ship in fact needs a fleet is different than whether a ship should need a fleet. The point I am making remains the same. If CCP designs ships to "need a fleet" then they are basically saying only large null sec alliances can use this ship. If that is what they want to do that is fine, but I think most of their playerbase will be less than pleased.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. With the right setup a single ship can keep basically any capital ship tackled almost indefinitely unless the capital is in turn set up pretty much specifically to counter that eventuality, which makes it almost useless for anything else. A couple Battleships and 2 Logi Cruisers can tank and kill a Carrier or Dread easily given enough time.
However, "fleet" does not have to mean a massive amount of backup. A Rorqual plus one or two decent support ships can put out an absurd amount of reps and tank an attacking squad almost indefinitely as well as, if setup right, put out enough DPS to likely kill them.
Cearain wrote:Its certainly possible that rorquals may have an issue where they point something while in panic mode etc.
I agree with you that they should do more dps. I mean they can be tanked indefinitely by a single subcap ship.
They are not allowed in high sec so they are a capital ship intended to only go into dangerous space. The fact that their dps is so anemic is odd.
It's really not, it's a mining ship, it's not supposed to have the DPS of a Carrier or even a high end Battleship. As has been said, repeatedly, these ships are meant to have support at least available to call, that is the point of the panic button. They are not supposed to be a defense fleet, mining god, and impenetrable tank all in one. |
Cearain
Plus 10 NV It Burns When I'm PvPing
1494
|
Posted - 2017.02.16 01:59:53 -
[360] - Quote
People keep baldly claiming what the Rorqis supposed to be. But that is begging the question.
We are talking about a ahip that when fit out costs about 4xs as much as a fit carrier. And yes cost is a balancing factor.
If you fit a carrier for solo ( like you would if you were not planning on calling in a fleet). Then I would take the carrier over 2 bs and 2 logi. But a rorq would have trouble with a single sub cap.
Bottom line is with that sort isk on the line the only people using it will be those who can out escalate everyone around. If that is the intended purpose I would prefer they just scrap the ship altogether.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |