|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:51:50 -
[1] - Quote
Welp |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:32:06 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Any more legible now? Logibro broke the text up a bit.
Are you able to at least comment on why the Rorq is being handicapped even further? Is there a plan or any information? These changes combined with how awful the Rorq is already really ruin it. If there was at least some sort of comment from CCP other than "we know it needs a rebalance at ??some point??", that would ease the frustration a bit.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:47:05 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: In the choice between "keep drone bonus" and "keep jump range", we landed marginally on the side of the former. We're very prepared to revisit that, we just didn't feel we'd had enough input on the matter one way or the other to sway the decision.
Thank you for some feedback.
This is a serious follow-up question: Was there anyone that actually wanted to keep the drone bonus over the jump range?
From the discussions in the other threads, it seemed pretty unanimous that the drone bonus was not worthwhile and most (if not everyone) preferred the jump range instead.
Even considering that Rorquals currently need a large fix, most of the intended functionality of the Rorqual becomes a moot point. Why have a ship hangar to store mining ships when you can just fly those ships through gates faster than the Rorq can jump there?
The actual use, aside from stationary boosting at a POS, is as a local logistics tool from a central hub. Jump Freighters are used to move goods to central locations, and rorquals are used to distribute from that hub. Forcing the secondary distribution on to Jump Freighters won't result in more PVP or destruction*, it will just make an already boring task even more tedious.
We're not asking for anything exceptional here, just to trade an offensive bonus - on a ship that really doesn't need or use it - for a range bonus so that the ship is not kneecapped.
*Note: I'm discounting bad decisions, because you can make a bad decision with any ship and get destroyed |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:30:59 -
[4] - Quote
Greyscale- Seriously, please look at this thread related to CCP's Rorqual Comments at Fanfest/on Twitter:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4539226#post4539226
This is from the beginning of May- nearly 6 months ago.
How many more months will pass before major changes are made to the Rorqual? Even if it takes several more years to balance, there is still a function for the ship in the logistical role it provides. Without the jump distance, the multi billion isk ship turns into purely a POS ornament for mining teams.
Run any poll or report on Rorquals- you will see that the drones are hardly ever used in comparison to the jump distance.
CCP Greyscale wrote:we landed marginally on the side of [drone bonus].
Please realize that this "landing marginally" on the drone bonus instead of jump range only hurts the players and provides no added benefit whatsoever. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:38:59 -
[5] - Quote
Akita T wrote:As per how somebody else explained some time ago, NOT having ALSO a ship-based jump fatigue stat will mean large alliances can still move their supercap fleets around at will thankyouverymuch by simply switching PILOTS on the ships between jumps. And don't give me the "but, but, packaging" excuse - the ships most affected by this can't (or at least shouldn't) be packaged anyway.
I don't understand the basis of your argument here, considering that all of the large coalitions have given up vast swaths of space and Phoebe hasn't even hit yet. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:54:33 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The feedback in the update thread was on the side of keeping the range bonus, yes. However, it's impossible to tell from that whether that's because majority opinion is on that side of the fence or simply that the people who wanted the damage bonus read the first post, were satisfied and didn't bother to reply. The only way we'd get feedback from the people who want the damage bonus is if we said we were taking it away, and then if there was significant outcry we'd probably have to switch it back again, and we want to avoid flip-flopping on these things wherever possible, mainly because it just confuses people.
I understand it is not easy to get a true representation of all opinions via the forums, but I implore you to look at the data behind Rorquals using drones in combat.
Furthermore, if possible, how many of those Rorquals used drones after doing more than a 5 ly jump.
OR EVEN BETTER
Run a report on how many active accounts with Rorquals actually have level 5 Capital Industrial Command for the full 100% drone bonus. Or just do a report on active Rorqual pilots and what their capital industrial command skill level is. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:35:19 -
[7] - Quote
Greyscale- here is some data for you on Rorquals using their drones in combat:
Rorqual zKillboard
People set traps with rorqs for actual "pvp" maybe once a month. Other than that, it's just shooting POS stuff, random WH losses, etc.
Drone bonuses aren't needed for NPC belt protection, 5 heavies kill the infrequent waves off fast enough. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:45:41 -
[8] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote: The drone bonus isn't about rats on belt, because even a small fleet of exhumers can actually handle that all on their own... it's about killing things that tackle and being an actual capital ship instead of a 1/3 cost/capacity JF.
If it's about killing things that tackle the Rorq, where are the kills for them? Because there are very few on zKill |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:03:34 -
[9] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Because having the ship on belt is just asking to get hot dropped pre-phoebe, and is still dumb after phoebe. Having to sit the ship in siege on a belt makes its a lossmail in waiting, but without that one drawback (one which is totally unjustified by the bonus) suddenly does make it viable and saves me a hauling toon (one I'm actually going to need to leave away from a belt anyway for jump freighter cooldown).
Actual miners... using rorquals on belt... if that's the goal, the drone bonus has to stay.
Right, if the Rorq were worth sieging at a belt, then yes, a drone bonus would be viable. But as you said, parking a Rorq at a belt is not viable- therefore, for the immediate changes coming up, dropping drone bonus for extended jump range makes sense- right?
Having increased drone damage on a ship that currently rarely sees belts for an extended period of time is laughable.
I realize the ship needs a full rework. "So does CCP". But they've been saying that for nearly a year now, and zero changes have come except this one. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 21:18:31 -
[10] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:You're being obtuse for the sake of being a smart ass... it's a lot of loss to be warping barges, that's why a lot of people don't do it. 20 au warp in a slow ship + positioning + targeting adds up quickly in bulk mining scenarios. CCP wants Rorquals on field, PvPers want Rorquals on field, as a miner I WANT RORQUALS ON FIELD...
but it's completely useless if they're stationary pinatas waiting for a decent neut fleet or someone with a capital in range.
As someone who has a mining fleet and has warped rorqs to belts before (as a hauler ), I agree with you here. That said, the Rorq is not in a place where it can be feasibly parked in a belt, which is why we're pushing for jump distance instead of drone damage. It's pretty clear that the jump usage outweighs the drone damage bonus by an enormous margin. Removing the drone damage might upset a handful of people because their trap rorq is no longer quite as effective (but rarely did it ever solo kill, so ). The jump range nerf hurts everyone that uses rorqs for POS logistics, which is a LOT of people from all groups. |
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
185
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 22:19:10 -
[11] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:[ It may be more work but isn't warping the rorq in and out a feasible alternative? You certainly don't need the drone bonus for that.
If you're just hauling ore you could refit lows to I-stabs and surely you could find a spot on one of your barges for webs.
That's what was implied as a hauler- that is basically the current use if you're using it a belt. It's a glorified hauler that can fit a cloak or jump out if hostiles are in the system.
Even then, at a certain capacity, even a rorqual is not enough haul for the job (that's where a freighter comes in) |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 21:12:44 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:I'm going to go and have another look at the stats tomorrow and see where they stand. We're not in a position to throw the necessary resources behind a Rorqual rework right now, unfortunately (it will likely need fairly substantial code support in addition to balance resources).
How do the stats stand? Any that you can share with us? If the lot of us are wrong and drone usage is off the charts, it would be helpful to have some data to back that other than an abysmal Zkill log. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 19:08:22 -
[13] - Quote
Greyscale- not that you're actually still looking at this, but consider the below:
What is the point of a 5ly max range on a rorq (4 minute wait between jumps) yet a cyno lasts for 10 minutes? That means unless the rorq has multiple cyno pilots every 5 ly, the rorq is still going to have to sit and wait at least 10 minutes to move- which would be roughly the same if it had a 10ly max range. This combination is very poorly thought out and will only hurt and frustrate the playerbase that use Rorqs. Especially considering you're keeping a hardly used feature on the Rorq in the place of the feature that most Rorq users want. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
205
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 18:24:19 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update on the Rorqual metrics front, now that I've found time to poke at it: it looks like it's definitely being used as a mining support ship substantially more than it is as a PvP ship (somewhat unsurprisingly). I'm not sure what (if anything) we will do in the short term; the ship's clearly in a wonky state, but we don't have the balance bandwidth to look at it right now.
Greyscale. Seriously. You just nerfed the jump range from 10ly to 5ly, admitted that substantially more use is not related to combat, and then tell us "we don't have balance bandwidth to look at it right now". There might be two people in all of eve that are upset that the drone bonus goes away for the jump range, right now, which is something that you can immediately do. Or if you're worried about the removal of drone bonus, just fix the range and don't touch drone bonuses.
Or, better yet, look at the features and ideas forum every once in a while to see some good ideas on How To Fix The RorqLOL.
You want to centralize production in nullsec? This is a good step in that direction.
Next, re balancing ore anoms. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
206
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:14:26 -
[15] - Quote
I will never understand the game design decisions that CCP makes. I am trying really hard to have faith in CCP, but it is amiss after years of repetitive, ******, decisions.
1) Nerf Rorquals to be even more kneecapped 2) Spend lots of resources designing a new very narrow use ship for high sec only (seriously what is this ship for) 3) Say that there is not enough bandwidth to revisit the Rorqual at all, despite announcing the need to change the ship nearly a year ago.
The solution to get to CCP's own goal is pretty simple, yet CCP can't see it.
-Centralized production in null requires reliable sources of basic raw materials (ORE). Ore anomalies in null have a horrible distribution of minerals. Rebalance ore anomalies.
-Rorquals are too worthless to actively use outside of a POS/POS Logistics. Fix the rorqual with any meaningful changes (example being the suggestions I linked above), both encouraging additional mining and combat opportunities in null.
-Revisit the changes to jump bridges to enable casual use without allowing groups to travel multiple regions. Example: increasing fuel cost by a very large percentage, making it literally impossible for a full fleet to use jump bridges without serious logistics.
-Once the above changes are made, nerf jump freighter range. This will raise the cost of imports/exports and stimulate local industry in null. This also provides even more choke points for people to control. |
|
|
|