EVE Search - Sticky:[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 155	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:09:36 - [1] - Quote Some of this seems okay other bits like the PANIC and combination of excavator nerfs make me wonder WTF are you thinking Fozzie/balance team.?! Might I suggest: PANIC: Drops all targets when used like the old siege module did. Prevents all activation of EWAR modules. Logic: You're using this to delay the fight for a reinforcement fleet because you feel you will die without it. These vessels should not have the ability to forcefully keep the opposing ship(s) on grid while being themselves invulnerable. If you want this, bring a friend to keep them tackled. Excavators: Reduce base yield 50% Reduce cycle time 45% (42.5?) Increase drone speed 1.5x Logic: Reduction in total yield, but increase in speed to slightly counter the increased number of trips to be made by the excavators. They're still slow as all hell, so this will still come out as more than a 20% nerf, which I feel was your aim as you guys have a thing for 20%. Asteroid belts Don't touch them WTF are you even thinking here? Spreading them out? More? Just stop. Add brackets for asteroids! Re-rebalance the ore anomalies. From what is found within them, to again what the ores contain. I know you just did this, but it was done without Rorquals in mind I feel. Logic: 1) I'm actually using logic here, don't spread out the belts even more. Seriously wtf are you guys on doing that and wanting to increase cycle times on drones with no speed buff to them. Just stop. I fear you actually thought of this interaction and thought it would sit right with anyone. 2) If you want the roids to be more clear, give us a way to see them clearly like anything in combat. Give us brackets! --- Can a dev please be named for the locked asteroid so we can name and shame? Seriously, you may as well said you must have a wreck and asteroid targeted and be in a fleet for activation. Any other combination will cause you to SD.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 161	Posted - 2017.02.24 23:54:41 - [2] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The use of the PANIC module alongside tackle modules (such as the Heavy Warp Scrambler) to provide very durable tackle for capital fleets. The use of the PANIC module alongside cynosural field generators to provide very durable secondary cynos for capital fleets. The use of the PANIC module as a survival mechanism for entosis Rorquals that come under significant attack. They have chosen to go invulnerable to bring in a support fleet. Their ability to support or harm any friently/hostile fleet outside of a cyno ends the second they hit that button and make themselves invulnerable to harm. This is less of an issue as if the fleet coming in lives so will they. If they die, so will they in 5-7.5 minutes. An entosis modules is effectively an offensive sov module and falls under the same rules. When they chose to make themselves invulnerable, they chose to take themselves out of the fight entirely. CCP Fozzie wrote: Keeping the three troublesome use cases above in mind, there are three core reasons we were attracted to the idea of approaching the problem with a situational PANIC activation restriction rather than through a similar restriction to what we already use with triage and the networked sensor array. Uh, what? Why? Who but the most experienced players amonst us are even going to think these are going to be allowed. Simply stating hey, this is the most powerful defensive modules and while active it prevents all actions from being taken aside from a cyno. Or for all it matters, make the PANIC module require liquid ozone to activate and upon activation lights a cyno! No cyno needed, remove a high slot to compensate. There, now you have successfully written off how a cyno can be lit when no actions are supposedly able to occur while in PANIC. While at the same time removed their ability to directly effect the field they have made themselves invulnerable to. CCP Fozzie wrote: This proposal does mean that Rorquals will be more vulnerable after finishing the last rock in a belt and while moving, but our current impression is that those limited periods of extra vulnerability have the potential to generate interesting gameplay. ItGÇÖs also worth remembering that the Rorqual has a very significant set of defenses even without the PANIC module. We are very interested in hearing suggestions of alternate concepts for solving these problems, but I'd caution against assuming that this question is a particularly simple one. I'm sorry, are these hugely expensive PVE hulls and fits not dying often enough for you? Did they need increased risk with reduced possible market based income on top of their already being stuck on field for 5 minutes at a time? How about this, aside from your ideas already being ridiculous, how about you look at reducing the IC siege time on top of a reduction in fuel cost to strike a balance with the reduced time?
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 162	Posted - 2017.02.27 21:28:28 - [3] - Quote Cade, seriously get off you're damned horse. You do this **** in every thread and it triggers me every time. Go take a break and get your nose out of CCP's ass for a moment so those who are directly involved in mining can give their opinion on how to fix the addressed issues rather than praise your almighty CCP who can do no wrong. breathes Okay rant aside. PANIC -Simply disable use of all external modules for the duration. The player has chosen to take themselves out of the fight by making themselves immune to it. The reasoning here should be simple enough to understand. -Possibly act as a cyno when activated and be given a LO requirement for activation (to get around the above. Alternatively, no cyno, get a friend to light that cyno). Industrial core should either: 1) Have a reduced cycle time/HW usage to compensate for higher movement requirements from increased belt size 2) Act as NSA and not lock you in place. In return it loses it's current defensive and offensive bonuses. I'm partial to #2 as this bring's it's risk more in line to that of a carrier/super with equivalent rewards. Excavators should not have their yeild reduced at all from the current. What you should do is look at anomaly spawn times within 0.0 space as well as re-look at mineral balance within the belts to reduce the desire to export excess to market hubs like Jita.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.05 17:21:23 - [4] - 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.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.06 20:40:53 - [5] - Quote Gadzooki wrote: You might want to check your math, shorter cycles is infact a nerf (more time in transit). Or are you one of those "my minerals are free" morons? 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.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.06 21:08:39 - [6] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: Usually the average distance you will achieve is 1000m give or take and that's ignoring a TON of travel time and other factors that decimate the yield i mentioned (drone sharpshooting can add 1km optimal... more travel) The actual travel time + the orbit radius + average distance being beyond 0 (which it will be until asteroid tractor beams exist, and they wont)allows drones to return from a 4000 range up to 11km away, If they have to hit that scenario more often due to the shortened cycles, it amplifies the effect. So the math isn't wrong, it is just the "optimal case" perspective people are choosing over realistic cases also check sisi. Rock sizes have... indeed changed https://i.gyazo.com/e88e90afcebf3a0fb4a6a8651dd3b575.jpg 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.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.07 00:50:41 - [7] - Quote Dolly Varden wrote: I really laugh when these things happen. Why can a ship made for boosting mine better than the top tier ship made for mining. Why did a rorqual mining 5x a hulk ever get implemented! Of course everyone that is able is going to switch to rorqual mining! Even now if it is about 2x the mining of a hulk everyone who is able is going to use a rorqual. If Devs want hulks to mine then they actually need to be the best mining ship. Also i've been gone from the game for a while and why oh why is the command boost range so laughably small for mining. I guess you slightly made up for it by letting an orca mine a lot with drones but still such a dumb change. Because the rorqual is a capital mining vessel which can boost. This was their intention with the patch. It just had a more welcomed reception than they expected with the existence of injectors. They were expecting one number of rorq pilots, and got 100x that. Now they're preaching market stability and nerfing it repeatedly. They want null sec to be self sufficient yet rely on other regions for moon/ice materials. Yet when we are suddenly on the brink of such a thing it's quickly being snatched away. It's like they are caught in a catch-22 situation. They have a goal for null space in mind, but in obtaining that goal it will innately destroy a HS income source, and they want to prevent that from happening.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.07 06:07:51 - [8] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: Tested on singularity. 700m froma spod rock = excavators travel nearly 15km away. THAT ADDS UP TO 60 SECONDS OF TRAVEL PER BAD CYCLE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY HUGE Yes I saw and replied to you. You are pointing out the extreme nerf that I was hinting at that could be caused be increasing the size of the asteroids. If you haven't caught on, I'm not for that change in the least. I think it's a horrible decisions to solve a perceived problem by CCP which could have been solved by giving asteroids brackets again. I'm curious how many people actually mine with more than their local and overview showing on the side of Netflix, let alone actually looking at the roid spin in space for more than a minute before questioning their life choices.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.10 21:53:38 - [9] - Quote Cade I'd like for you to take a moment and reflect on each post currently pinned on the front page here. Look at how many times you have posted compared to literally anyone else. Look at the reasonable posts speaking from personal experience, then look at yours quoting friends you apparently have that are involved in every aspect of EVE. Yet, for someone so amazingly connected, I'm sorry to say in game I have not heard of you at all. And when I have aksed around all l or anyone else seems ot know you for is being a damned white knight forum warrior who we all question how much time you actually spend playing the game itself. Your arguments are rarely "sound" as they typically revolving around what CCP give us as evidence even when they say themselves what they have provided is incomplete or not entirely transparent, or some amazing reliable connection you have who is tied to that style of play. And might I point out that, we all have friends or some amount of experience in each aspect of this game yet we dont find ourselves or our friends to be experts in that field as ALL of yours apparently are. You seem to take all your friend's statements as fact, and anyone coming to this thread to give their feedback personally, as unreliable rants from an angry player. Why, may I ask, can your friends never speak for themselves? Why do they not come here and back up your statements where you are apparently paraphrasing them? We all know you're full of hot air and you need to quit and play the game. Get some real experience, then come back and tell us what you think or find to be true. Nobody wants your feedback on something you overheard as that is not even your 2 cents you're trying to give us. --- Myself, Jizzah and many others on multiple occasions have given you actual math behind what we say as well as less extreme solutions to the perceived problems. I even take a step back most of the time from my personal stance that it should be literally impossible to plex an account from HS space outside of playing the market. Meaning gut the ever loving hell out of incursions and mining ore+ice. I feel that for the best to occur people must be pushed fully into wh/null/low for the game to flourish and new players can experience the game without competing against people who have been playing for multiple years from HS with no actual knowledge about the game to pass on to them outside of how to avoid pvp. CCP has stated on several occasions they wanted null to be self sufficient yet rely on other areas of space to encourage territorial wars and trade. WH has a mix of nearly everything minus moons, moons/ore give null their place, HS space offers centralized trade hubs. The ONLY region of space that actually needs saving is low. And I'd love to see a lot more love thrown their way to encourage players to venture there as they are starting out, a true first step to WH/Null living. But that is on CCP to make happen, I have my own ideas of how that could occur, but I've already taken this far enough off topic. TL DR - Cade go play the damn game and get some real experience before you fill this forum with your trifle crap. We have offered evidence repeatedly, and no quotes from imaginary friends or links to incomplete data can combat this. Nobody can play optimally 100% of the time, therefore to balance all things based on that rather than averages is foolish and bad design. End of story.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 169	Posted - 2017.03.14 19:15:09 - [10] - Quote And so the long awaited Rorqual rework is undone in less than 6 months time returning it to purely a boosting role stuck on grid for 5 minutes at a time. So Fozzie, when do we get our capital mining barge with short range mining lasers?

Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 169	Posted - 2017.03.14 22:41:40 - [11] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: And so the long awaited Rorqual rework is undone in less than 6 months time returning it to purely a boosting role stuck on grid for 5 minutes at a time. So Fozzie, when do we get our capital mining barge with short range mining lasers? Actually, I kinda want that, or even a battleship size barge I was being serious believe it or not. Since the players have shown they want a capital level mining vessel. Mining lasers are more easily balanced than mining drones, this is a fact. Short range means they have to move around rather than sit in one place vacuuming everything in sight. Making it a whole new ship will allow for them to avoid allowing it to use the panic module and industrial core meaning no super tank or invulnerability shenanigans. Mineral market will adjust and strike a balance with other activities, it always does. Which is why these nerfs never made sense to me in the first place other than to protect high sec miners who refuse to move to null where it would be more lucrative and just as, if not more, safe than their current venue.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 172	Posted - 2017.03.29 17:17:52 - [12] - Quote Ghost Blackman wrote: Steve Ronuken wrote: Ghost Blackman wrote: Boy was I sad when I found out I could not USE 5 mining drones with the rorqual. Please increases the bandwidth. I would like to be able to use 5 mining drones with my rorqual. Currently with our set up you only allow 2 as it;s set to 50 and not 25. How sad. uhhh, what? Rorq bandwidth is 125 Mbit/sec For use with https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=41030 Yes, please ask to have it updated. You can only deploy 2 "ice" mining drones because of the bandwidth is 50 for these things. It's a capital ship. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be allow to use 5 of them instead of just the 2... Ice mining drones and ice excavators are two different things. Try using the excavators... as was intended. https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=43681

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.