Translation: treat indy ships like EVERY OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME when nerfs happen. Imagine if t3 ships all got a 30% ehp reduction, 30% dps reduction, no more instawarp, no more covert ops config, AND more mass for "wormhole balance"

The same people who have their heads up their asses would be crying enough salt to supply every mcdonalds in the world.

And that's NORMAL. "blanket nerfs" where you hit literally every aspect of a ship in terms of its mainuse + survivability, people have issues with it. Because it's ********.

someone did the math, you'll loose fully 25% of ur optimal yield...
http://pastebin.com/8WbfwhGU

i don't think i've ever seen CCP take such massive nerfbats to anything... maybe CCP should try nerfing carriers 25% dps, see how that goes over

Fozzie literally just addressed this in a post

After these changes the Rorqual absolutely maintains its title as the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden. Nothing else comes close to its mining ability (not to mention all the other things it does).

By that logic nerf all ships to make capitals barely 2x subcap dps and super capitals 2.5x tops. Cut dreads dps, carriers, Titans, and supers by 55%. They'd still be "the best" by this deranged logic of "balance"

Then use the "see nothing still comes close!!!!111!!" Argument... And watch the reaction.

See now why people disagree with you? It's basic logic. It really is.


I know you really really really don't want to acknowledge this. But you know it's true.

Noooo... you're sliding down the slippery slope at the speed of Inty-warp.

Capital DPS doesn't need this kind of reduction because it's a completely different balance case from Rorqual mining. Capital HP, tank, and all the other factors that DPS comes into contact with are balanced around that current value of DPS. Cutting it by a large whack would be imbalanced because it would imbalance all the other things associated with it. Without a compelling reason there's no need for change.

You've basically taken one very limited statement here and run with it like a 2 year old on a sugar rush.

Couple of issues with this. First off, just hard limiting the Rorqual like this isn't really in the spirit of Eve.

On top of this Battle Rorquals have a long and storied tradition in this game,

and it would be a shame to lose that, because the Rorqual on its own isn't OP, it's just Rorqual plus PANIC that's causing problems.

If you just disallow offensive module activation while PANIC is active then you create the current Entosis situation.

If you make it so you can't PANIC while an offensive module is active then you basically cripple the Rorqual's ability to defend itself or its friends even if it does have offensive modules fitted because it can't risk getting caught and unable to PANIC while a module is cycling.

Cade Windstalker lays out a sound case as to the economics.

Normally I tend to rage on about any nerfs to my mining ships. It has been way too long and way to little on the buffs until the Rorqual. That being said, I do see some need for some balancing

Nerfing the Invulnerable pointing Battle Rorqual is perfectly fine. This is easy to see as not intended.

Continued nerfing of the Excavators was initially infuriating to me but I now see a benefit. I WAS going to stand up a fleet of 12. With this latest nerf, that plan is now cancelled, I will still have my booster mine and use my other Rorquals as replacement spares while continuing as always have with Exhumers.

The new bright light for me is Rorqual prices are tanking as many of them are hitting the market or contracts again. Acquiring replacements is getting cheaper by the day.

CCP Fozzie "We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. I know it never feels good when things get nerfed but we're very confident that the Rorqual will continue to be an extremely powerful mining ship after these changes (not to mention the value provided by its other functions such as foreman links and defenses). We plan on continuing to make changes in this area as necessary over the coming months with the goal of keeping the mineral market healthy and ensuring that a wide variety of mining ships are viable."

That last part means even more Rorqual replacement discounts are in my future as further nerfs are applied. Looks like the Rorqual market is getting shorted [Stock Market Term] and I get to cash in!

This is why Eve is struggling with low player base. These changes are just stupid for the most part, there were other ways to fix this. I wonder did they even ask a true rorqual pilot what he thinks about the changes or what changes would he make .............

I love Eve <3 but wow your ignorance even impresses me

I refuse to believe the folks at CCP are stupid or lack intelligence, so what's going on?

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.



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.

That is Cade you're talking to. He would like everyone to believe he has any actual game development experience. I have a feeling he interned somewhere when he was younger (if even this much, likely just likes reading up on it) and thinks that gives anything he says credence.

I will say this though, your math is wrong. We will be mining (on paper no travel time) 56.25% what we were before. That mean's a 43.75% combined nerf.

However, where devs seem to love ignoring is that even sitting at 0 on an asteroid we will never see those numbers. Asteroids have a size in space, orbits occur around the outside of that radius, not the center point, which means their plans to increase the size of the asteroids means wider orbits for the drones. Wider orbits means even sitting at zero like we do now, the drones themselves will have futher to travel to get back to our ships before returning back to the asteroid again to begin their mining cycles.

As each most asteroids have a different radius, and it is typically unwise to actually sit zero on an asteroid due to risk of bumping when you do inevitably need to warp out it is nearly impossible to even get a true average travel time between asteroid and ship. It's best to figure that each time a cycle ends it takes about 5 seconds from cycle stop to cycle re-start for a well placed rorqual currently - assuming the drone doesn't bump off the backside of the asteroid itself. Assuming no change to belt or asteroid size that means each cycle as far as we are concerned will take approximately:

Best case: 26.92% nerf from current values
Wost cases: 27.94% nerf from current values

That is not taking into account the time it takes to re position the rorq between asteroid as that has too many variables to properly account for. Distance to ping location, burning towards rock, unknown increase in roid and belt size after patch, etc. However, it does give you an idea of how much increasing the current small radius of an asteroid could have if they increase it to the point where they become visible at most distances.

The above simply being solved by not adjusting these features as they do effect yield to a degree by simple giving asteroids brackets.

Ya, I can see, but until it goes live I can't speak for the sizes we'll see is all I'm saying. I was jsut giving an example to the nerf the travel time adds to the yield with current values.

CCP likes goes with paper values ignoring all other factors it seems which is why I gave the examples in the way I did. I even indicated on paper, meaning I know they aren't realistic.

And yes, if the changes go live we are likely going to be seeing a 5-15 second travel time on the larger spod rocks. But CCP likes dealing with optimal for some unknown reason rather than averages which is how it's done everywhere in the industry with min/max values and trying to reduce the difference between the two rather than increase that gap.

In other words, decreasing the value between min/max allows for easier balancing, however reduces effect of skill/positioning. That is why mining lasers can be more easily fine tuned, where as drones cannot.

-> This is why if we could go back to the original drawing board I'd have argued for short range capital mining lasers, not drones. I'm not a masochist when it comes to game development and like things I can balance without several uncontrollable factors.

-> go further back I'd have made all mining based off lasers and a type of minigame similar to hacking. The more successful you are the more ore you get up to a max value. Which is repeatable until the asteroid is depleted.

Sounds like a good idea to me, and a heck of a lot less boring than solo-running sites.

Seriously though, no one's saying you *have* to multibox this to make it efficient. The Rorqual still mines the larger rocks better than a Hulk, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it's more in your interest to add some Hulks now. Whether that's friends or alts doesn't matter too much, but mining is an often multiboxed activity and nothing in these changes is going to change that.

They've really not done a thing to prevent the battle/tackle Rorq in belts.

ie:

Tackle Rorq jumps into belt and tackles a mining Rorq. Tackle rorq targets rock. Boom PANIC, safe. No change from before. CCP Dev does facepalm wondering why he didn't think of that..

Deleted some off-topic posts as well as some posts with offensive language.

[img]http://i.giphy.com/l4FGkR6E0Jg100H3W.gif[/img]

Please remember to be respectful!