| 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) |
Sgt Warlock
30plus
Fidelas Constans
8
   |
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:10:24 -
[361] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Sgt Warlock wrote:they should increase the mining drone yield so it mines similar to 2 or 3 hulks when not in siege, and then remove the industrial core.... that is a solution I would not mind How is that even balanced?
the rorqual mines a lot less, but it can move... So it is not a juice plum beeing picked, but a actual ore mining vessel.
Not beeing able to move, not beeing able to defend yourself, not beeing able to jump makes it a bad investment.
15 bill for my drones equals 75 hours of non stop mining
10 bill for a fit and ship equals another 50 hours.
is 125 hours roi
3 bill for a archon and a fit equals 20 hours to return on investment
There is imbalance in that . removing the extra 25 % means you need 165 hours more or less of nonstop mining.
If you work, have a wife and kids that equals over a year of mining before you make your money back.
that is 165 hours of sitting duck. If you have goons with 1000 rorqs, that doesnt matter.
But as a smaller alliance with like 3-4 rorqs who need to dock and unsiege everytime someone pops in, that is not worth the effort
if you can buy a hulk and fit it for 400m and can move and be safe when something happens.
One rorqual loss would set you back a year worth of mining if you are not mining 23/7.
One hulk loss would make itself back in 10 hours... |
Cade Windstalker
899
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:17:40 -
[362] - Quote
Rusty Boon wrote:There is not one argument for these changes... there is not any kind of reasonable explanation way this is really being done.
This game has always been a market simulator at heart. A living breathing creature that both gives and takes. Manipulating the Market takes you CCP out of the realm of the observer of the game into INTERFEREING with it.
So, what you're saying here is... CCP should never have buffed the Rorqual in the first place because that interfered with the market?
Seriously, if this is how you think the game works you haven't been paying much attention for the last... 14 years or so. Give or take.
CCP work to make sure the game is healthy, including the markets. That means roughly balancing mineral sinks and faucets or ISK sinks and faucets and leaving the details up to the players. The Rorqual is getting nerfed because it's too big of a mineral faucet.
Panther X wrote:Yes, the Core makes you immune to ECM, but with the change in anomalies, rocks becoming farther apart, Rorqs are going to have to move more frequently to stay in optimal range for the travel time of the drones. That's the biggest weakness of the system as is; the drones are horrendously expensive, and to try to protect them, you should be within 10 km of the rock you are stripping.
It takes a bit of maneuvering to keep you in that 10 km bubble, so you wind up being on the move more often than one would think. You aren't in siege when you are moving. Sure you can just hit siege when a neut shows up in system, but that isn't the point.
The point is the heavy handed multi-point nerf bomb being dropped on the player base AGAIN, like bombs over *insert besieged city name here*
That just means you're jammed for 20 seconds, at the most, before the jam clears after you siege up. If you can't survive for 20 seconds then I'm pretty sure you weren't going to survive that attack anyways.
As for the increased movement, that's part of the point here, to make using the Rorqual a bit more of a trade off, as opposed to right now where there's no reason to even bring a Hulk into a belt if you can fly a Rorqual, and there's basically no reason to use the Rorqual for boosting.
Maybe with these changes some people will decide the drones aren't actually worth it and will just use the Rorqual for boosting and support for a fleet of Hulks. Since the Rorqual with Platinum insurance pays out about 2.2b you can run a pure boosting one fairly cheaply, especially if you keep your Hulks ready to warp out so you only lose the Rorqual when you get dropped. |
White Bull
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:19:43 -
[363] - Quote
Icant speak english well . So i hope everyone understand what i try to say .
1. Rorq is a final ship on mining area . So thats means rorqual like a titan .. so that ship must be a very stronger and very skill needed ship on mining area. Thats normal .. So If u say" rorq is a too much stronger.. " thats not a understanable .. If rorqual is a final ship on that section obsultly must be storonger that other mining ship.
2- On pve area ( Ratting ) : Cruisers < Battle cruisers < battle ships < carriers< super carriers< titans
Hourly gaining isk : 35 m < 50 m < 70 m < 120 m < 250 m < 500 m
Ship costs : 70 m < 200 m < 400 m < 2 b < 25 b < 80 b
Ship cost / gaining hourly isk : 2 hours < 4 h < 6 h < 15 h < 100 h < 160 h
So all of u have enought Brain for calculated mining ships hourly gaining and ship costs ..
3- My Opinion : Iif rorqual is a final ship on mining section , that ship must be like titan ot super carriers .. So CCP must be configure skill needed re configured for rorqual .. Not nerf .. give more skill point on that ship needed .. If u want use rorqual u must spend more time to gaining this title : Rorqual Pilot like titan pilot .. .. final ship on mining section. Why ? This is FINAL Ship on mining area.. no one use this ship easly .. |
Cade Windstalker
899
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:20:53 -
[364] - Quote
Sgt Warlock wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Sgt Warlock wrote:they should increase the mining drone yield so it mines similar to 2 or 3 hulks when not in siege, and then remove the industrial core.... that is a solution I would not mind How is that even balanced? the rorqual mines a lot less, but it can move... So it is not a juice plum beeing picked, but a actual ore mining vessel. Not beeing able to move, not beeing able to defend yourself, not beeing able to jump makes it a bad investment. 15 bill for my drones equals 75 hours of non stop mining 10 bill for a fit and ship equals another 50 hours. is 125 hours roi 3 bill for a archon and a fit equals 20 hours to return on investment There is imbalance in that . removing the extra 25 % means you need 165 hours more or less of nonstop mining. If you work, have a wife and kids that equals over a year of mining before you make your money back. that is 165 hours of sitting duck. If you have goons with 1000 rorqs, that doesnt matter. But as a smaller alliance with like 3-4 rorqs who need to dock and unsiege everytime someone pops in, that is not worth the effort if you can buy a hulk and fit it for 400m and can move and be safe when something happens. One rorqual loss would set you back a year worth of mining if you are not mining 23/7. One hulk loss would make itself back in 10 hours...
The Rorqual isn't supposed to be the end-all and be-all of mining. The whole point of the core is that you trade a major risk for a major benefit. The PANIC mode exists to alleviate that, not remove it entirely.
If you're not finding the drones worthwhile then you could just use the Rorqual as a boosting ship for a fleet of Hulks, get that return on investment waaaay faster, and if you lose the Rorqual with insurance then the net loss is something like 1.3b or less on a cheap fit. Less if you build your own Rorquals with minerals rather than buy them off the market. |
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
125
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:49:56 -
[365] - Quote
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 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
14727
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:51:44 -
[366] - Quote
Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far!
I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes:
There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
- 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.
Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems.
In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed.
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. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important:
- There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
- If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
- Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.
As for the reasoning for this proposal including a target lock restriction instead of a proximity check, the main motivation is to avoid the server load associated with large area proximity checks. For people concerned about jams and damps, remember that the Industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance and 75-80% damp resistance while active. 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.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
14727
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:51:48 -
[367] - Quote
Now for some Q&A from the thread so far:
Porthos Jacobs wrote:So if I bring Ewar to get a rorqual it cannot panic now. bonus The industrial core provides 100% ecm resistance (as well as very strong damp resistance). There's currently a bug that prevents the ECM resistance attribute from being displayed in the show info window, but we'll be fixing that bug at the same time.
Retar Aveymone wrote:be honest, did you make the PANIC module a mining laser in some hilarious internal work-around for this issue Heh. No, the code just iterates over the list of locked targets and looks for something in the asteroid category. It doesn't even require the asteroid to be the selected target, just locked.
Wibla wrote:Didn't see that nerf coming - oh wait, who am I kidding.
If you want to make the mineral market healthier, have a look at the ore composition in nullsec ore anoms vs mineral usage. Mexallon is a bottleneck, while some other minerals are basically waste material at this point.
The PANIC mod change is at least a first stab at a solution. There is definitely an imbalance between overall mineral use and the composition of the prospecting array anoms (much smaller than it once was, but there is room for more work there), although that is a separate issue to the overall mineral supply issues caused by Rorquals being too strong.
Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. ... and what about ice fields? For these purposes, ice counts as an asteroid (technically it's anything within the "asteroid" inventory category). I'll edit the OP to clarify, good question.
Luna TheMoonrider wrote:I don't have the numbers and all the big data, but it's seems a bit hard, second nerf in a row, without trying to effectively reduce the price of these very expensive drones.
If the price drop accordingly, why not, but I feel sad for my mining friends. The current prices are a symptom of extremely high demand. Once the market cools down a bit we'll definitely re-evaluate and make changes to the components as needed. The price of Excavators is set by the player market and will only stay at whatever level people consider worth paying. If player's evaluation of how much they're worth changes, the price will change.
Taunter wrote:Little bit of a kick in the balls Fozzie. Lets be honest.
You shouldn't of had to nerf it, if you did the rebalance right in the first place.
I'm not salty, I'm still going to use mine. I just think you wasted time. I'll readily admit that we went too high with the numbers in the initial release. However these kinds of things can always happen, and the only true solution is to be willing to make changes as necessary and observe the results. I would absolutely love to have an exact formula for predicting player behavior, but barring that all we can do is make our best guesses (taking player feedback into account) and then tweak and tweak again.
Or'es'ka wrote:welp, CCP, you did it. You ruined the rorq for actual miners. Cant justify the 8 bill in drones plus another 2.7 bil for the ship, not to mention another 2-3 bil for the fit..... This is almost a 50% reduction. You need to seriously adjust the required mats to build excavators because they arent worth the insane price anymore. I can understand why you might feel that way right now, but people said the same thing when we announced the last Rorq nerf (and I'm sure they'll say the same thing when we announce the next Rorq nerf someday). If this change ends up going too far then we can always tweak up a bit, but these changes are actually relatively conservative considering the behavior changes that we're seeing and that we saw after the last set of changes.
Jura McBain wrote:
2 hulks 600M
1 Rorq 12B.
Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs?
There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.
Jura McBain wrote:CCP in August 2016: " Rorqs need love so people will use them again"
CCP in Feb 2017: " Rorqs must be nerf"
CCP are you mad? Please Sthaapppp Sthaapppppp We're confident that Post-March Rorquals will still be vastly more powerful than they were pre-Ascension.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
Exia Lennelluc
Unholy Knights of Cthulhu
Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:52:36 -
[368] - Quote
Theres a player in alliance who runs 37 procurer with a boosting rorqual, he mines the 5 rorquals in ore a hr.
Nerfing the mineral faucet of the rorqual wont do a thing, players will either still mine in rorquals or have massive mining barge fleets aka a mineral faucet.
|
Morgan La Faye
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:59:59 -
[369] - Quote
I can see your point in the nerf of the mining volume of the excavator drones to keep the market healthy.....but i miss the point were you try to balance the market on the drones itself? where is the tweak of a ridicoulus amount of money you can make out only in the dronelands while the price for the excavator drones is going through the roof?
Where is the tweak on the risk you put on the mining drones while stretching out the belts even more. you can lose a set of drones worth ~10b ISK to a 60m t2 destroyer with a jump field generator.
Start lowering the prices of the drones drastically and i dont feel bad if you are hitting the Rorqual with the nerf bat again....but without doing so you are screwing over everybody who believed your words about a powerful mining platform on its own. you are destroying the risk/reward ratio to much in my eyes. |
Lukka
12
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:00:55 -
[370] - Quote
Bit of a draconian nerf, isn't it Fozzie? Nerfing so many aspects simultaneously results in greater unpredictability regarding the results.
Might it be better to take a series of smaller steps and perhaps to address some underlying issues promoting their excessivs employment?
One of the big issues is that Rorquals favour the largest alliances who can defend them at the drop of a hat (cyno). This is problematic because it allows massive economy of scale to those alliances. As usual, power projection is a major underlying cause. While I am a fan of the Rorqual being able to defend itself, I would suggest review of the PANIC button as follows:
Panic module protects mining fleet, but no longer protects the Rorqual. Rorqual and protected mining ships may not light cyno while PANIC active.
Mining mechanics are too mundane to prevent players from up-scaling operations. We have all heard about the guy in Goonswarm running 30 Rorquals. Maybe it's time to look at the fundamental mechanics of mining to encourage active gameplay rather than 'assign mining drone to rock x'. |
|
|
Exia Lennelluc
Unholy Knights of Cthulhu
Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:11:11 -
[371] - Quote
CCP Fozzie im still trying to understand why the drones are being nerfed, they are making null sec finally for the most part not relent on High sec except for moon goo.
I wont be surprised if the next nerf hits the drones down to the t2 stats |
Ezra Endashi
LightningStrikesTwice
Elemental Tide
16
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:19:34 -
[372] - Quote
I totally support resizing of Ore rocks in space. Pls make them larger. That would change the feeling when you are in asteroid belt. It will look like you are in a real mining field  |
Pizza Thief
The Price Of Freedom
Get Off My Lawn
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:19:46 -
[373] - Quote
Come on CCP, I literally spent close to $200 us dollars in plex for one set of ore drones less than a week ago. Now your gonna take my money and **** in my pot? Good to see you care about thone of us willing to deal with your terrible balancing of drone sites in space while creating a high demand for one of the rarest drops in drone sites. Forcing us to plex into or spend ungodly amounts of isk to actually aquire something that you consistently nerf but have no plans of making easier to get. "They are now 25% less effective, same price, same availability, AND your 12b is now less secure with the PANIC changes." You can pull the knife out of my back now CCP and Fozzie. |
Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
Central Omni Galactic Group
77
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:20:27 -
[374] - Quote
Youv'e said a few times now that you're not worried so much about the Excavator costs - because the cost is due to demand. But given the whole nerf to yield is in part due to the affect on the economy - surely you can see that it's because the only way to get the parts for an Excavator drone is from L4 missions or Drone Regions (or the rare drone site outside drone regions).
It's a problem with the resources needed to make, not demand itself. There needs to be significant increases in the drop rates of the parts required to make an Excavator. Similar to how you guys rescued the Nestor from being a 1.5bn isk battleship hull.
Surely you guys have teh market data to see that.
RE:
Quote:There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.
At the moment the Rorqual only gets brought out if I have a few logistics pilots available, no interceptor gangs roaming (read uncatchable hit and run tactics with almost no counter) within 5 jumps and a good few friends out mining to benefit from the boosts. Because honestly - 9bn isk worth of hull, locked in space, compared to just using a porpoise or jetcan mining from a hulk seems like the answer is pretty obvious. |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
175
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:24:45 -
[375] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Luna TheMoonrider wrote:I don't have the numbers and all the big data, but it's seems a bit hard, second nerf in a row, without trying to effectively reduce the price of these very expensive drones.
If the price drop accordingly, why not, but I feel sad for my mining friends. The current prices are a symptom of extremely high demand. Once the market cools down a bit we'll definitely re-evaluate and make changes to the components as needed. The price of Excavators is set by the player market and will only stay at whatever level people consider worth paying. If player's evaluation of how much they're worth changes, the price will change.
I'm not sure this will work out in the end. I need to go back and look over all the different blueprints, but last I looked, the new mining excavators used the same (or at least the same rare ones) parts as the Augmented drones. Augmented drone prices were already high and for the most part did not drop.
The price of these two groups are now tied together, so both will remain high as a result since they both pull from the same limited supply stock as inputs.
Yes, you could consider both items "luxury items" but the current high price is due to limited input stock just as much as high demand here. Look at the price history for Augmented drones and you will see this. |
Flashmala
Rogue Clones
Yulai Federation
58
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:35:15 -
[376] - Quote
javer wrote:
solution is disable offensive mods if panic in use
This.
Age does not diminish the extreme disappointment of having a scoop of ice cream fall from the cone.
|
Tribal Trogdor
Better Off Red
Unspoken Alliance.
33
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:37:18 -
[377] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far! I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes: There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module: - 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.
Use case #1 is the one that we've heard the most concern about from players and the one that many people have been suggesting alternate fixes for in this thread. However use case #3 is probably the most important one to study to help identify the best possible solution to all three problems. In the context of use case #3, simultaneous use of the PANIC module and entosis link isn't the problem as that is already disallowed. You can't activate the entosis link while the PANIC module is running and activating the PANIC module breaks the entosis connection and halts the capture progress. However even with these restrictions the sequential use of entosis links and the PANIC module can be very powerful. A Rorqual can start capturing the node and only activate PANIC if it comes under too much fire to tank normally. Then the PANIC module provides the time needed for a reinforcement fleet to arrive at the command node and drive off the attackers. In this case the issue isn't that the PANIC module can be used at the same time as the entosis link, but that the Rorqual can use the entosis link and keep the PANIC module as a "get out of jail free" option as needed. 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. I'll list them below in order from least important to most important: - There's value in trying to reach the same goal through a smaller number of rules that players will have to remember. Three separate rules (one for ewar, one for cynos and one for entosis) could probably be used to solve these problems but if we have an opportunity to reach the same goal with fewer exceptions we'll generally prefer the single rule.
- If possible, we would like to preserve the use of both cynos and ewar by mining Rorquals while they are defending their fleet with the PANIC module. Cynos serve a valuable purpose in helping them get support fleets to their position, and ewar helps them present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period.
- Most importantly, we were concerned that if we tried to solve the tackle and cyno use cases by restricting those functions while the PANIC module is running (similarly to how ewar is restricted while triage is active) or even by removing the ability to lock targets while the PANIC module is active, we would simply shift the problem into something more similar to what we're seeing with entosis right now. Although such restrictions would prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing with PANIC active, it would not prevent a Rorqual from tackling or cynoing and then saving the PANIC activation as a "get out of jail free" card in case they come under too much fire. Considering the fact that people have the option of using multiple Rorquals and that even threatening a Rorqual's tank requires a fair amount of DPS to start with, this end result would be only a slight improvement on the current situation.
So, you had to stick arbitrary rules on an interceptor to make it fit in with how entosis works. Now you have to do arbitrary restrictions on the Rorqual because of entosis...Clear issue with the sov system aside, whats wrong with disallowing fitting both a panic and an entosis? That would solve issue 3
Issue 2 isn't really an issue. Yes you can use it as a heavy cyno, but you say that it needs that to fill its role. You can't say its okay to make it be an invulnerable heavy cyno, but only if you're in an asteroid belt. That still lets people sit in belts, and be bait to cyno in more dudes. I can fit small autos to my tornado and kill frigs that think they got me. Its not meant for that, but sandbox. At the end of the cycle, if the attackers have more, the Rorq still dies.
As for issue 1, you seem to only want to keep the tackle as a means to "present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period" but thats not the goal of the PANIC, correct? The goal is to keep your fleet and yourself alive. Because you're in a situation where you yourself cannot handle what's come to kill you. Its a defensive, oh **** module. Not a "haha, got you with my invulnerable tackle so my friends can come kill you" module. Same thing as issue 2. You cant be unhappy with it being invulnerable tackle, but only outside of belts. So its better to just give it NSA restrictions.
Seems like two simple changes: No Entosis + Panic mod, and no ewar in panic. Issues 1 and 3 solved, issue 2 still out there in a sense, but again, its not major, and is necessary
|
mkint
1500
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:40:18 -
[378] - Quote
When you're doing these mining output balance changes, are you actually doing a breakdown of the mineral faucet? Are rorqs producing too much ore, or are the command bonuses in general? Do you have a target rate for "mineral inflation" like you would have for isk inflation?
Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
|
Kahrnar
Querious Industries Co
Integritas Constans
11
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:00:32 -
[379] - Quote
Bottom line CCP shouldn't be "fixing" the market. The whole eve game should dictate the pricing in game... |
Benaf Christacer
Brooklynn Eve and Co.
Here Be Dragons
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:02:38 -
[380] - Quote
And, here comes CCP not sobriety testing their Dev's again. You know there's an app for that now?
CCP Fozzie, for the amount of training time & investment it takes to get into a well skilled Rorqual, the yield is perfectly fine. If the drones are getting nerfed, you should cut the build requirements in half for them and decrease Rorqual trains too, or leave things alone. Im sorry an industrialis bullied you as a child but please dont take it out on my rorq pilots. Im also terribly sorry that people overused combat rorq's but there are better ways of dealing with that than taking away their only viable defense should they, say, get caught in a bubble. Why not make them immune to bubbles, then? You're a fan of awful ideas so that one should catch right on... |
|
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
711
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:04:11 -
[381] - Quote
Benaf Christacer wrote:And, here comes CCP not sobriety testing their Dev's again. You know there's an app for that now? CCP Fozzie, for the amount of training time & investment it takes to get into a well skilled Rorqual, the yield is perfectly fine. If the drones are getting nerfed, you should cut the build requirements in half for them and decrease Rorqual trains too, or leave things alone. Im sorry an industrialis bullied you as a child but please dont take it out on my rorq pilots. Im also terribly sorry that people overused combat rorq's but there are better ways of dealing with that than taking away their only viable defense should they, say, get caught in a bubble. Why not make them immune to bubbles, then? You're a fan of awful ideas so that one should catch right on...
Or make them unable to use an entosis link?
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
28210
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:04:46 -
[382] - Quote
I think PANIC should just deactivate any active module on Rorqual other than PANIC and prohibit their activation. And that would be sufficient.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:05:27 -
[383] - Quote
I can see some of the concerns here - let me see if I can address your three main triggers for the need in change in rorqual Panic usage.
Quote:#362 - 2017-02-24 16:51:44 UTC | Like 2 Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far! I'm going to go through a bit of Q&A from the thread so far, but first let's spend a little time diving into the specifics of the proposed PANIC module changes: There are three separate use cases that we are at least somewhat concerned about with the PANIC module:
- 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.
Point 1 - alternatively, just take the ability to mount warp scramble/tackle modules from a Rorqual. Or, add a penalty to the Panic module that imposes a passive 100,000% capacitor use increase for all warp disruption modules. This functionality penalty/bonus is already coded in the game in several different ways (NSA, reduction for tackle frigates etc), so reduces follow-on effects and reduces server load.
Point 2 - I can see where the issue about this is, but not sure how much of a change is necessary at this point, I don't see any good options at this time.
Point 3 - Add Rorquals to the disallowed ships just as interceptors are OR just make it that active Entosis disallows PANIC
I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Cade Windstalker
901
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:05:28 -
[384] - Quote
Flashmala wrote:javer wrote:
solution is disable offensive mods if panic in use
This.
Someone didn't read Fozzie's post...
Exia Lennelluc wrote:Theres a player in alliance who runs 37 procurer with a boosting rorqual, he mines the 5 rorquals in ore a hr.
Nerfing the mineral faucet of the rorqual wont do a thing, players will either still mine in rorquals or have massive mining barge fleets aka a mineral faucet.
That's absolutely doing something. There's still a massive difference between someone out mining with 38 accounts one of which is in a Rorqual, and someone out mining with 38 accounts all in Rorquals (or 7, to reference a recent killboard event...).
You'll note that they actually buffed Rorqual boosts with this change so your friend is clearly in the minority of players right now and is playing in a way CCP would rather encourage over massed Rorqual-hoovers.
Tribal Trogdor wrote:So, you had to stick arbitrary rules on an interceptor to make it fit in with how entosis works. Now you have to do arbitrary restrictions on the Rorqual because of entosis...Clear issue with the sov system aside, whats wrong with disallowing fitting both a panic and an entosis? That would solve issue 3
Issue 2 isn't really an issue. Yes you can use it as a heavy cyno, but you say that it needs that to fill its role. You can't say its okay to make it be an invulnerable heavy cyno, but only if you're in an asteroid belt. That still lets people sit in belts, and be bait to cyno in more dudes. I can fit small autos to my tornado and kill frigs that think they got me. Its not meant for that, but sandbox. At the end of the cycle, if the attackers have more, the Rorq still dies.
As for issue 1, you seem to only want to keep the tackle as a means to "present an actual threat to their attackers during the PANIC period" but thats not the goal of the PANIC, correct? The goal is to keep your fleet and yourself alive. Because you're in a situation where you yourself cannot handle what's come to kill you. Its a defensive, oh **** module. Not a "haha, got you with my invulnerable tackle so my friends can come kill you" module. Same thing as issue 2. You cant be unhappy with it being invulnerable tackle, but only outside of belts. So its better to just give it NSA restrictions.
Seems like two simple changes: No Entosis + Panic mod, and no ewar in panic. Issues 1 and 3 solved, issue 2 still out there in a sense, but again, its not major, and is necessary
First off, #2 very much is an issue I can assure you, it just may not be an issue for you...
Your solution doesn't actually work for #2 since you can still fit an Entosis on a Mining Barge and then PANIC, protecting both you and the barge, when you come under attack.
If I can't present an actual threat to someone on grid then they have a lot more freedom and a lot more options to threaten me and my mining fleet. The point is to protect the miners, not only bubble up and wait for rescue. Killing, jamming, webbing, ect a small group of aggressors absolutely counts as protecting a mining fleet.
Plus nothing here guarantees that players won't find something else to abuse (like we're already starting to see in small amounts with Rorqual Logi) at which point CCP then need to find another thing to restrict to keep PANIC from being abusable outside of mining applications, or they could just go with what they've done here. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Mercenary Coalition
3159
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:07:26 -
[385] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're confident that Post-March Rorquals will still be vastly more powerful than they were pre-Ascension.
TBH that's not saying much. |
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard
The Volition Cult
146
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:25:14 -
[386] - Quote
Arenthor Doran wrote:How high are you right now fozzie? Stop having ideas
Fozzie has single handedly destroyed this game repeatedly the last 2-3 years. its time for him to go. |
01d Man
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:25:57 -
[387] - Quote
CCP trying there hardest to kill Eve with a nerfbat |
Pesadel0
Zonk Squad
Badfellas Inc.
128
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:26:56 -
[388] - Quote
Quote:There has always been a premium for more powerful ships and abilities in EVE. As power increases, cost increases faster.
We'll be happy with Rorq balance someday when players have interesting choices to make when deciding how many Rorquals to bring and how many Hulks to bring.
Maybe if you tied the amount you mine depending on the amount of people mining with hulks and with the support from rourquals ?
But this isn't really a discussion i think if you already changed and posted here it will go live so ...I find it funny that you say you cant influence the escavators price on one hand ,then tell us that the market is crashing because of the amount rourquals are mining, maybe it is a language barrier this isnt my main language , so you wont change the requirements of the Escavators when they got a big nerf but will change them IF you see the market wont price them lower?
So you think it is a good change when a guy will change a static target that can be killed costing 11B to mine the equivalent of two hulks is a good change ?Why would anyone put more than a rourqual on the field with this change , i honestly cant understand. |
TeflonMag Usoko
Aerodyne Collective.
Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:28:43 -
[389] - Quote
Why not make Rorqs mine as a Venture? and why not cut one mid and one low???
And why not slow down all fighters to fly as the Excavators do?
|
Shkiki
MastersCraft
4
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:38:04 -
[390] - Quote
Don't try to sneak drone nerfs under the radar of panic button nerfs. This is about money. CCP wants more cash flow so they put out something that's going to cost hundreds of dollars to get and then less then 90 days later they nerf it like it was nothing. We know you want people with 12 hulk accounts paying monthly to get the ore needed to build larger ships. Nothing about this has anything to do with game play, they want cash. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |