Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Zenta Carson
Apex Inc The Methodical Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 01:05:47 -
[691] - Quote
Will the Excavators be effected by the Mining Foreman Link module? |
oresome eyes
Ephesians Copying and Research
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 01:22:18 -
[692] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Julie Hawke wrote:oresome eyes wrote:Watch out people, CCP will bann your account if you speak out to loudly about the changes to the rorqual. They have just banned one of mine.
CCP Peligro = Cade Windstalker So my hunch was right Sorry to hear about your account I am leaning toward just letting my accounts expire and watching the mayhem from the sideline When nullsec cant build supers and titans without importing minerals again......then stuff will get real. So much for nullsec supporting themselves. And its really too bad that anyone believes the average high sec miner plexes their account by mining .......one ganking loss causes many to just quit.....let alone sit all day and mine. ROFL I'm not a CCP employee, if I was I'd have been fired already for the crap I say on here. Besides which only a few people at CCP get to actually hand out bans, precisely to prevent the kind of thing you're saying I did. Which is hilarious by the way, since I don't think I've even seen anything in here remotely forum-ban worthy from either of you You should get out more by the way. Meet new people, experience new areas of the game. I know a decent number of High Sec miners (and a few gankers, and mission runners, ect) and a decent number of people do in fact PLEX their accounts by mining. Quite a few of them are combat pilots the rest of the time, they mine when they don't have the time or attention span for anything else to make ISK to pay for PLEX and buy ships to go lose in Low and Null. chez1962 wrote:Iff this is realy true , and i have no reason that its not , CCP should be deeply ashamed. How about because if it was true someone in IA at CCP would have had an anyeurism. Oh and whichever CCP employee I'm supposed to be would be fired and "Cade" would immediately cease to exist. Outed CCP dev normal accounts get put into Witness Protection where the old identity basically gets scrubbed from the game and the character and all their stuff get whisked away somewhere else. Seriously though, thanks for the laugh all. These accusations are hilarious. Childish, but hilarious.
saying your not only proves my point. this is like saying im not spy....
|
Cade Windstalker
990
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 03:28:08 -
[693] - Quote
Zenta Carson wrote:Will the Excavators be effected by the Mining Foreman Link module?
Nope, mining boosts don't affect drones.
Gisiona TrielGisre wrote:The answer to why the yield nerf for the Rorqual should be revised and not at all implemented:
The Rorquals are not crashing the market. Simple as that. Evidence for that? Jita market stats on the 04th march:
Megacyte: all year high Zydrine: on a dip, but within normal parameters, was on a all year high just in January this year.
both Nullsec minerals look rather healthy, with little change in trade volume.
Noxcium: went down, slightly increased volume Isogen: went down, slight increase in volume Mexalon: on a all year high, slight increase in volume Pyerite: went down, currently shows a slight upwards trend, increased Volume Tritanium: went down, slight increased in Volume
As you see, when you check yourself ingame, the market where Rorqual influence would show is healthy, the market of HS orcas/propoises increased general miningyield is on a downwards trend, but far from what I personaly call a crash.
This nerf won-Št impact the market, because it does not adress the source of the problem it wants to adress. Thats what the raw data aviable tells me. So CCP already stated it wants to nerf the rorqual even more after this nerf, and more and more until it mines only as much as a hulk berore they reliaze the Rorq has no signifcant impact on the market?
Not sure where to start with this so how about here.
Your interpretation of the raw data here is misinformed.
Megacyte and Mexallon are production bottlenecks based on the current distribution of Null minerals and what people were mining based on value. What this means is that as the supply of all minerals has risen these have lagged behind somewhat. This means other people are willing to pay more for them to be able to produce stuff with the more abundant minerals they have in large quantities.
The fact that we've seen these values plateau and even start to fall in the last month and change is strong evidence of a general mineral over supply beyond what the economy can absorb. This is also supported by that increase in volume sitting on the market, since that value generally remains fairly stable barring large changes to the game or to mining behavior, such as major wars.
On top of this the main source of ore is in Null, so High Sec is actually somewhat insulated from the glut of minerals, because transporting even compressed high end ores from Null to High Sec is fairly expensive and risky relative to the returns it provides. If you look at the Null markets you'll see minerals like Trit going from slightly above High Sec prices to significantly below them, and even Mexallon and Megacyte aren't showing the kind of large spikes in price that would be characteristic of a sharp rise in demand and a constricted supply.
Lastly, regarding terminology, this is pretty clearly a crash. Trit is down to prices that haven't been seen in 4 years, and Trit tends to be very very price responsive since the entire market volume clears out every few days. Same goes for Pyerite except we last saw these levels almost *5* years ago in 2012. When the price of something drops through 5 years worth of increases in a few months that is a crash.
Lastly, the Rorqual is clearly the source of this issue. The yields on barges and exhumers didn't change. This drop in mineral prices clearly corresponds to the introduction of the new Rorqual and the Excavator drones.
oresome eyes wrote:saying your not only proves my point. this is like saying im not spy....
Denial proves exactly nothing. I mean, I could just ignore this and not respond to it, but it's so hilarious I'm doing it for my own amusement. It's been a while since someone seriously accused me of being a CCP dev, and even claiming a ban because you spoke up in this thread is above and beyond the call of trolling.
That just tells me that you don't have any actual facts or solid arguments against the changes so you're just sowing as much chaos and mistrust as you can, either for your own amusement or out of spite. I will thank you for the laugh though, it's been a long week and I needed the amusement |
Quin Yi
The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 04:50:32 -
[694] - Quote
I know we're jack-hammering in this point, but it must be said: A very real alternative to the panic module needing an asteroid locked is: The panic module, when activated, turns off all warp disrupting mods, your entosis links and a cynosural field gen and further prevents you from activating them.
Alternatively, it could do both that and have a lower cycle time if the rorqual doesn't have a lock on an asteroid belt.
Thank you for your continued effort to make eve the great game it is and will be. |
Cade Windstalker
990
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 06:00:58 -
[695] - Quote
Quin Yi wrote:I know we're jack-hammering in this point, but it must be said: A very real alternative to the panic module needing an asteroid locked is: The panic module, when activated, turns off all warp disrupting mods, your entosis links and a cynosural field gen and further prevents you from activating them.
Alternatively, it could do both that and have a lower cycle time if the rorqual doesn't have a lock on an asteroid belt.
Thank you for your continued effort to make eve the great game it is and will be.
Fozzie already addressed why this is less ideal. They're already seeing people using PANIC as an "oh ****" button for Entosis, applying the same to tackle just lets the Rorqual be used as initial heavy Tackle and then swap out safely with PANIC when seriously threatened.
Also Rorquals as Cynos isn't really an issue, and being able to shut one off on demand would actually be an advantage in some circumstances since anyone can warp to an active Cyno.
I'm really not sure why everyone is freaking out over, of all things, the rock-lock-on thing. The only way for someone to realistically take advantage of this is to be sitting there watching you mine, at which point even in the current system there are ways for them to screw you over and kill you. |
Iminent Penance
Three Inch Wonders
168
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 07:04:55 -
[696] - Quote
If mining is "too toxic and easy" make guns where you have to aim them in space, not just hit f1.
If mining is "too afk" make combat drones need specific utilities like carrier fighters. All of them.
Kill "afk gameplay" right? /s
To those quoting mineral price trends, dont bother. Nobody from ccp will give a crap and then cade will come say "WATCH MY ECONOMICS: SUPPLY MEANS DEMAND AFFECTS IT" and write 5 paragraphs explaining how pve is bad for the game because it just is. Seriously he wouldn't need to type THAT MUCH if he had a valid point. Most his posts are inarguable jargon that isn't relevant half the time. YET HES ON EVERY PAGE.
HE DOESNT EVEN MINE YET HES HERE RIDING CCP's **** JUST BECAUSE IT HURTS PVE. That is the eve community.
It isn't rocket science, but damn sometimes the community and ...now devs.. sure make it look like it. |
Lord Vyper
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 10:49:30 -
[697] - Quote
Haha at all you people complaining what if I jump a gate. What if they get me off station? Why Can't I PANIC!!!@#$@%#$%
You die that's what happens. Welcome to EVE where your safety isn't guaranteed <3 |
Gisiona TrielGisre
Pyromaniacs Anonymous Brotherhood of Spacers
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 11:35:31 -
[698] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Megacyte and Mexallon are production bottlenecks based on the current distribution of Null minerals and what people were mining based on value. What this means is that as the supply of all minerals has risen these have lagged behind somewhat. This means other people are willing to pay more for them to be able to produce stuff with the more abundant minerals they have in large quantities.
That may explain prices but not trade volumes and they are the major points here. Both Nullsec sourced minerals have not seen a increased trade volume, the highsec sourcable minerals have. this is because you are dead wrong here:
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lastly, the Rorqual is clearly the source of this issue. The yields on barges and exhumers didn't change. This drop in mineral prices clearly corresponds to the introduction of the new Rorqual and the Excavator drones.
Highsec fleetmining yield has improved with the same expansion that introduced the rorqual. Mining fleets now sit on top of an Asteriod in belt, since the Orca sits there mining with its mining drones and th Barges also now have mostly mining drones out. They have become more viable options to use with the same patch, incase you have forgotten about that, or just didn-Št know in the first place.
It is not that easy to differentiate between market influences, but the data suggests that if you want to call it a market crash, it is more likely caused by highsec miners than null entities. |
Kaoraku Shayiskhun
The 1st Regiment Brotherhood of Spacers
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 12:28:59 -
[699] - Quote
So couse some big entities can mining in rorqual 23/7 you punish those, who can't? This is the lamest "fix" since I play this game. |
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 12:57:40 -
[700] - Quote
So you now warp in a Falcon jam the rouqual and light a cyno and he can-Št panic?
NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!
|
|
Sir BloodArgon Aulmais
Fortis Fortuna Adiuvatt Dot Dot Dot
53
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 15:18:22 -
[701] - Quote
Idk where all the tears are coming from. Since the rorqual got its new roll, and in every patch since, ccp has said
We will continue to make changes to keep prices in check
If your skill-injector-flogged brains can't comprehend that, don't buy a rorqual. |
Laendra
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
85
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 16:04:45 -
[702] - Quote
The "PANIC" - entosis issue could more easily be solved by disallowing fitting of both at the same time, and only allowing barges, exhumers and other industrial type ships to gain any effect from the activation of one. |
Death Ryder
Angels and Devils Hell's Pirates
25
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 16:05:00 -
[703] - Quote
Seriously CCP, why do you people listen to Fozzie???
Who exactly is it he works for, even though you pay him it's obvious by the way he's constantly trying to kill the game that he's been working for another mmog for years.
I know you people come up with most of your ideas while sitting together in a very small room smoking what ever crap it is you smoke there, but whos peace pipe is it that fozzie crawls around on his hands and knees smoking to stay working there? |
Serenity Hunter
ab18 Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 16:50:50 -
[704] - Quote
nice changes, once u working on the range of the Hulk just add a 3 laser pls :P The differences from Macki to Hulk are to small, Hulks a paperbags even on max def. There should be a reward for risking a ship like that for mining, otherwise we all can stick to skiff and macki....2 laser just sux |
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion
179
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 17:46:50 -
[705] - Quote
Read through all of this with a wry smile, THIS is what you wanted, sadly you did not think through the issue and factor in CCP to your calculations.
One group whined miserably that they wanted to be able to 'Get The Rorquals',
Another snivelled there Drones were to expensive and took weeks to get a payback on.
While yet another simply wanted to ride them as Big Battle Badgers, way to go homie's.
To name but a few on the 'I want', list.
And all through the thread well the haters just gotta hate don't you.
Get real you lot, CCP is looking to scalp the game of ISK, what better way than to have everyone buy really expensive ships, add even more expensive toys to it, settle down and mine like crazy then just as your about to make it to the big leagues, Kick you all in the face and nerf the crap out of the whole lot in the worst...for you that is...way.
Again you, The Players, wanted this, maybe next time you will remember CCP has never given the players in the whole history of Eve, anything worth having without a serious kick in the nutz to go with it.
End game solution.....Reprocess all the things and simply crash the market, Do not engage with anything Fozzie want to do, let him know he is not required any more. Good luck with that.
|
Cade Windstalker
993
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 19:59:32 -
[706] - Quote
Gisiona TrielGisre wrote:That may explain prices but not trade volumes and they are the major points here. Both Nullsec sourced minerals have not seen a increased trade volume, the highsec sourcable minerals have. this is because you are dead wrong here:
The relatively small volume increase is because most of the increase in minerals is happening out in Null and they aren't being transported in to High Sec, they're being traded and consumed out there, because transporting even compressed ore is expensive and risky relative to its value.
Gisiona TrielGisre wrote:Highsec fleetmining yield has improved with the same expansion that introduced the rorqual. Mining fleets now sit on top of an Asteriod in belt, since the Orca sits there mining with its mining drones and th Barges also now have mostly mining drones out. They have become more viable options to use with the same patch, incase you have forgotten about that, or just didn-Št know in the first place.
It is not that easy to differentiate between market influences, but the data suggests that if you want to call it a market crash, it is more likely caused by highsec miners than null entities.
This is not correct, the maximum achievable mining yield on a Hulk did not change significantly between before the mining support ship changes and after, and the Orca went from basically sitting off a station or in a safe AFK to take the spot of an active mining ship on-grid.
The possible yield of High Sec mining also didn't change enough to account for the drop in mineral prices.
Lastly we see changes and fluctuations in mineral price around the time of the first Rorqual nerf, which we wouldn't see if your theory here was correct.
You're looking at too narrow a slice of the data here, and you're assuming that the Rorqual isn't a problem and then looking for evidence to support that. Remember, CCP has access to raw mineral yield data and therefore has a much clearer view of market activity than players can ever achieve. So when the data we do have is murky there should be at least a slight bias toward CCP's conclusions since they have more data and better analytics.
Iminent Penance wrote:If mining is "too toxic and easy" make guns where you have to aim them in space, not just hit f1.
...
To those quoting mineral price trends, dont bother. Nobody from ccp will give a crap and then cade will come say "WATCH MY ECONOMICS: SUPPLY MEANS DEMAND AFFECTS IT" and write 5 paragraphs explaining how pve is bad for the game because it just is. Seriously he wouldn't need to type THAT MUCH if he had a valid point. Most his posts are inarguable jargon that isn't relevant half the time. YET HES ON EVERY PAGE.
....
It isn't rocket science, but damn sometimes the community and ...now devs.. sure make it look like it.
The game literally could not make guns aimable in space if it tried. A 2000 person fleet fight with collision detection on weapons would melt CCP's servers to a puddle.
If you're not understanding what I'm saying I could try simplifying it for you. I tried to keep most of the jargon out of what I was saying, which was the cause of some of the length, but if I've been unclear I could try clarifying. I think I'll need a more specific question or complaint than this to take a stab at doing so though...
Also nothing I've said here is about how PvE is bad for the game, it's about why a mineral over supply is bad for the game. I'm actually quite a fan of good and rewarding PvE content. The better the PvE is in the game the more people will stick around and blow each other up with the ISK they've earned in PvE.
Kinda makes me feel like you may not have actually read my posts much
marly cortez wrote:Get real you lot, CCP is looking to scalp the game of ISK, what better way than to have everyone buy really expensive ships, add even more expensive toys to it, settle down and mine like crazy...
Actually if CCP wanted to reduce the ISK supply in the game they'd leave the Rorqual as-is. Per Eve Prosper on the o7 show we've seen a drop in the ISK supply since the Rorqual was introduced as people have moved from ISK generating activities to ISK neutral or ISK negative activities like mining or selling things on the market. |
Soko99
Repercussus Northern Coalition.
77
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 02:27:10 -
[707] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Soko99 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:The Rorqual certainly has a significant set of defenses - Just a pity none of it really matters when you look at how easy they are to killKeep nerfing mining drone amount, they wil once again find themselves being a worst option. The problem with referencing zKill losses is that it only shows the ships that die, not the ships that live. I know several people who have had their Roquals dropped unsuccessfully, and I know at least one major Null Alliance has FAXes sitting around on standby (paid for by tips) to respond to drops on ratters and miners, with the result that you basically need a dread-bomb or better to successfully drop a Rorqual in their space. So because people are prepared, the ship is OP? Interesting mechanic.. better nerf all titans and Supercarriers, because generally those that field those are prepared thus the ships must be OP. No, the Rorqual is OP because of the very visible and obvious effect it's had on the mineral market and the very obviously skewed cost/benefit equation it's created. I was simply responding to the claim that some zKill losses mean that the Rorqual is 'easy to kill'. Also, to respond to your other comment about cost vs reward. Effectiveness has always scaled linearly while cost scales exponentially. For example a fully fitted Dread costs 3-4b, a fully fitted T1 BS costs 3-400m. With HAWs the Dread does between 2 and 4 times the DPS of the Battleship for 10 times the cost.
Interesting how you're comparing a capital ship with weapons intended for sub-caps as far as DPS is concerned. Why not compare the DPS of a BB vs a Dread DPS.. with the proper guns, not the subcap ones? you're DPS increase is way more than 2-4 times. not to mention your EHP. Just compare running anoms to running level 4s. if you really want a proper risk/reward comparison.
Also.. the highly skewed risk/reward ratio is exactly that. You're risking a 13bil ship for a lot more minerals pulled it. But of course, you have to be in low or null, which means you're vulnerable a hell of a lot more, than your HS AFK mining fleets that are in abundance all over new eden. The fact that CCP is stepping in.. is making me realize that they really do not want nullsec/lowsec to be self sufficient. What they want, is for the risk averse HS players to keep getting more and more comfy and jammy..
|
Raven Ship
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 04:51:55 -
[708] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Soko99 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:The Rorqual certainly has a significant set of defenses - Just a pity none of it really matters when you look at how easy they are to killKeep nerfing mining drone amount, they wil once again find themselves being a worst option. The problem with referencing zKill losses is that it only shows the ships that die, not the ships that live. I know several people who have had their Roquals dropped unsuccessfully, and I know at least one major Null Alliance has FAXes sitting around on standby (paid for by tips) to respond to drops on ratters and miners, with the result that you basically need a dread-bomb or better to successfully drop a Rorqual in their space. So because people are prepared, the ship is OP? Interesting mechanic.. better nerf all titans and Supercarriers, because generally those that field those are prepared thus the ships must be OP. No, the Rorqual is OP because of the very visible and obvious effect it's had on the mineral market and the very obviously skewed cost/benefit equation it's created. I was simply responding to the claim that some zKill losses mean that the Rorqual is 'easy to kill'. Also, to respond to your other comment about cost vs reward. Effectiveness has always scaled linearly while cost scales exponentially. For example a fully fitted Dread costs 3-4b, a fully fitted T1 BS costs 3-400m. With HAWs the Dread does between 2 and 4 times the DPS of the Battleship for 10 times the cost. Interesting how you're comparing a capital ship with weapons intended for sub-caps as far as DPS is concerned. Why not compare the DPS of a BB vs a Dread DPS.. with the proper guns, not the subcap ones? you're DPS increase is way more than 2-4 times. not to mention your EHP. Just compare running anoms to running level 4s. if you really want a proper risk/reward comparison. Also.. the highly skewed risk/reward ratio is exactly that. You're risking a 13bil ship for a lot more minerals pulled it. But of course, you have to be in low or null, which means you're vulnerable a hell of a lot more, than your HS AFK mining fleets that are in abundance all over new eden. The fact that CCP is stepping in.. is making me realize that they really do not want nullsec/lowsec to be self sufficient. What they want, is for the risk averse HS players to keep getting more and more comfy and jammy..
ISK thing come and come back all the time, Now take BS like Raven, it have some DPS, I will be non accurate but this is just for general figures, DPS of 800, and it cost 1b, now progres for this Raven would be better fit, and there are options available, like 4% more dps on module from officer ballistics, but those cost 4-5b each, and u want 4 of them, so you have ship costing now 20b, for progress in DPS from 800 to what 860? That said this is how much more Rorqual, should mine over Hulk, anything above is over performing in this game environment. |
Cade Windstalker
996
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 05:00:47 -
[709] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Interesting how you're comparing a capital ship with weapons intended for sub-caps as far as DPS is concerned. Why not compare the DPS of a BB vs a Dread DPS.. with the proper guns, not the subcap ones? you're DPS increase is way more than 2-4 times. not to mention your EHP. Just compare running anoms to running level 4s. if you really want a proper risk/reward comparison.
Also.. the highly skewed risk/reward ratio is exactly that. You're risking a 13bil ship for a lot more minerals pulled it. But of course, you have to be in low or null, which means you're vulnerable a hell of a lot more, than your HS AFK mining fleets that are in abundance all over new eden. The fact that CCP is stepping in.. is making me realize that they really do not want nullsec/lowsec to be self sufficient. What they want, is for the risk averse HS players to keep getting more and more comfy and jammy..
Because Caps using cap guns run on a different scale vs sub-caps for balance reasons. For those same balance reasons those same cap-guns deal massively reduced damage to sub-caps, to the point that you're better off being in a Battleship than trying to shoot a Battleship with cap-guns.
This isn't equivalent to the Rorqual. The equivalent case for a mining ship would be if there was some ore that the Rorqual had a specific bonus to mining. Sub-caps could still mine it, but the Rorqual had special drones oor something that were way more efficient but only against that ore. Since there's nothing like that I'm going to use HAWs for the comparison here because those operate on the same scaling as sub-caps.
If you'd like we could also compare T1 Cruisers to T1 Battleships, where you're looking at roughly double the DPS more or less for something like a 10x cost multiplier.
As for vulnerability, yes in theory, but in practice you can mitigate a lot of that. It's not easy by any means, but the practical results of this have still been a massive over-supply of minerals far beyond what even Null can absorb without consequences. Even with these nerfs Null is still perfectly capable of being self sufficient, the only thing stopping that is people not wanting to go out and mine, which is fine. The price of minerals is more or less regulated by the willingness of people to mine vs carrier ratting and other activities that produce raw ISK as opposed to materials. |
Amphal Deka
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 16:55:02 -
[710] - Quote
Please place the excavator mining drones in LP store. With reducing the need for parts they should not cost 1.5b each. They should cost around one hulk. Let the orca use them as well ffs. |
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
164
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 17:21:23 -
[711] - Quote
No to the orcas using them. People need to move out of high sec if they want to actually make decent money. Giving them new or improving their faucets only encourages them to stay.
I'm all for cheaper T1 and T2 variants being released under similar mechanics to lasers. T1 are cheap with a low yield. T2 could be ore specific with higher yeilds than excavators (where ever their yield winds up)
One thing's for sure for the above to work they need to reduce the size of them. I'm not even against these drones requiring crystals to function or "burning out" as long as they're kept cheap.
Having them require crystals may actually be a good route if they changed them into something more like a fighter to require more micromanaging therefore limited the actual ability to multibox large fleets of them. Then they may be able to actually start easing up on the nerfs as well. |
nairu krop
THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two
11
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 00:38:45 -
[712] - Quote
Give the Industrial core bonus's to local armor and hull reppers, just mirror the current shield bonus.
|
Cade Windstalker
999
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 04:04:30 -
[713] - Quote
nairu krop wrote:Give the Industrial core bonus's to local armor and hull reppers, just mirror the current shield bonus.
Hull logi is intentionally left unbonused on any ship, largely because it doesn't make sense for a ship to devote specialized system space to faster hull repair. Generally if you're into Hull you have bigger problems. From a design perspective there are also potential issues due to the omni-tanked nature of hull and the relatively high resists it can easily achieve.
Also not much point beyond a few cheesy fits to giving the Rorqual a local armor rep bonus. You're basically never going to just local armor tank the thing, so the only likely use is a cheesy dual-tank fit or something equally ridiculous that would give the ship a tank buff it really doesn't need. |
Jasper Binchiette
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 09:39:08 -
[714] - Quote
I refuse to believe the folks at CCP are stupid or lack intelligence, so what's going on? |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
177
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 10:59:25 -
[715] - Quote
So nothing wrong with ice excavators then?
|
Cade Windstalker
1001
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 13:44:46 -
[716] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:So nothing wrong with ice excavators then?
*shrugs*
Ice market isn't crashing like a rock. Personally I think they should probably nerf those a little too, but ice is more supply limited than mining rate limited, so the impact of the Rorqual is going to be pretty minimal compared to the ore market.
Heck, maybe CCP are hoping that Ice Belts will start generating more conflict over their use. |
Raven Ship
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 14:59:28 -
[717] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:So nothing wrong with ice excavators then?
Ice in nullsec is not mined most of time, thing is related to volume of compressed ice and products from ice, in relation to there value, this relation is much more generous for ore, that is why there is spodumain and crokyte oversupply flood. |
HuntingFighter Trades Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 15:07:03 -
[718] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:I don't think you needed to touch the way PANIC works
If you want the Rorqual to just use PANIC to support mining fleets then take away the ability for it to run warp scrams
The thing is that i saw a lot of rorquals till today that use Warp Scrams to prevent their excavators from getting booshed so I don't think this would solve the problem. Maybe it could be solved by saying you can't use scrams while having PANIC activated because a Rorqual who needs to prevent his Drones from getting Booshed and has to PANIC at the same time deserves to lose them since he is just incredibly dumb then. |
Iminent Penance
Three Inch Wonders
168
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 17:29:25 -
[719] - Quote
Jasper Binchiette wrote:I refuse to believe the folks at CCP are stupid or lack intelligence, so what's going on?
multiboxing exhumers being more cost efficient = more accounts to plex.
Or fozzie is just trying to be an edgelord like his brilliant sov that made people literally quit because of how burned out they got.
Rorquals get 55% hit BEFORE travel time issues (which by the way 300m/s is slow)
Carriers get "your drones get shot a little more"
Don't worry though, ccp doesn't give a rats ass about blatant bias any more apparently.
|
Cade Windstalker
1003
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 18:57:00 -
[720] - Quote
Iminent Penance wrote:multiboxing exhumers being more cost efficient = more accounts to plex.
Except this thread is full of people saying how they re-subbed accounts to fly Rorquals and anyone who was using Exhumers before is either still doing so or trained/is training them to Rorquals... so this doesn't make much sense.
Iminent Penance wrote:Rorquals get 55% hit BEFORE travel time issues (which by the way 300m/s is slow)
Um... no? This change is a roughly 25% nerf, the last one was a 25% nerf on the old value, the combined effect is something like 46% between the two. No idea where you got 55% nerf but it wasn't math. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |