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 [?]

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)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14697	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:45:55 - [1] - Quote Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance. Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment: Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Kara from Marketing Missing Zeroes 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:54:13 - [2] - Quote NEION
lanyaie Nocturnal Romance The Initiative. 1163	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:54:33 - [3] - Quote RIP my combat rorq Spaceprincess
Doomchinchilla Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion 157	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:54:45 - [4] - Quote WTF I hate CCP now.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition 3147	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:54:55 - [5] - Quote I will fondly remember this time as a time when even supers cowered in fear at the thought of a mining ship.
Davidus Fortuna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:56:09 - [6] - Quote F
Arenthor Doran Tritanium Industries and Technology Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:57:00 - [7] - Quote How high are you right now fozzie? Stop having ideas
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:58:06 - [8] - Quote PRAISE BE THE RORQUAL. THESE BOOSTS SHALL BE A BOON TO MY GRAND MINING FLEETS! The PANIC change sucks, what if a Rorqual is caught off a station? Solidus for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
Jay Amazingness GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 59	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:58:24 - [9] - Quote muh...muh...muh rorquals CEO of serious space alliance I too am gay, a member of the Memeperium
Michael Oskold BURN EDEN Northern Coalition. 27	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:58:33 - [10] - Quote good changes, godbless

Porthos Jacobs Tritanium Industries and Technology Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:58:38 - [11] - Quote So if I bring Ewar to get a rorqual it cannot panic now. bonus
Tribal Trogdor Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 20	Posted - 2017.02.23 17:58:39 - [12] - Quote Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here
Yizdale Bolmara McD Playhouse 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:00:36 - [13] - Quote What? No
lanyaie Nocturnal Romance The Initiative. 1164	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:00:54 - [14] - Quote Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here They are immune to ECM in industrial core Spaceprincess
Tribal Trogdor Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 20	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:01:04 - [15] - Quote Quote: Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. Maybe this issue will be addressed with drilling platforms, but can we get regular nullsec belts to not span over a range of 2k km? Makes doing stuff in orcas/rorqs pretty rough
Cephei Kells Adversity. Pandemic Legion 33	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:01:34 - [16] - Quote This is the only time you've ever posted that i like the post.
Retar Aveymone DJ's Retirement Fund Goonswarm Federation 1081	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:01:49 - [17] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: [list] Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. be honest, did you make the PANIC module a mining laser in some hilarious internal work-around for this issue
Oddsodz Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 188	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:01:51 - [18] - Quote "Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid." Interesting way to address some issues. But it now opens the old foe of ECM to powerful. Think about it. Falcon decloaks and points and scrams the RORQUAL. Now it can't PANIC or warp. Oh and lets not forget the awoxing Griffin ;-) Interesting times ahead
Whitenight SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:02:13 - [19] - Quote Just another bad fix, Fozzie do you come up with these ideas by looking in the toilet after you take a dump?

CCP Lebowski C C P C C P Alliance 850	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:02:25 - [20] - Quote Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here I mean he can panic, just not PANIC CCP Lebowski \| EVE Quality Assurance \| Team Five-0 @CCP_Lebowski


Tribal Trogdor Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 20	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:02:36 - [21] - Quote lanyaie wrote: Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here They are immune to ECM in industrial core Yes, but you don't technically have to be running the core to be relevant :P
Scotsman Howard S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 172	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:02:53 - [22] - Quote LOL can't be having supers and titan prices falling to much now can we.
Jay Amazingness GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 59	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:03:09 - [23] - Quote I feel like people will just wait until the ore anom is dead and then be like I HAVE YOU NOW RORQUAL SCUM and tackle them. CEO of serious space alliance I too am gay, a member of the Memeperium
Igzorn Buelle 6	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:03:42 - [24] - Quote on the subject of "Other misc mining changes" can we have some better selection of ores in combat sites ? i would love to see "combat mining " as a viable playstyle.
Wibla Tactical Narcotics Team 170	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:03:42 - [25] - Quote 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. PANIC mod - good change.
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 222	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:03:56 - [26] - Quote So you are removing the panic from rorquals then? Because you just wait till the anomaly is poped and then warp in tackle all the rorquals and kill them all super quick with no chance to panic.
Schlampa Bat Country Pandemic Legion 7	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:04:31 - [27] - Quote That PANIC change is hilarious.
Xynthiar Tactical Narcotics Team 23	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:04:54 - [28] - Quote Edit: derp
Andrew Xadi Easy Co. Get Off My Lawn 12	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:05:51 - [29] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. ! so if i jam a rorqual, it can't panic, if i catch a rorqual after it killed a belt, it can't panic, why can't you just make it so that you can't panic like 20 min after jumping?
Inomares Tax Evasion Corporation 3 I too am gay 21	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:07:19 - [30] - Quote So we're looking at: - 25% lower yield on paper (110m3/60s vs 220m3/90s) - More travel time due to lower cycle times, meaning lower yield (hard to tell how much) - Even more travel time due to asteroids being spaced out, meaning lower yield yet Excavator prices are still crazy high, and perhaps more importantly heavy water prices across the universe are going absolutely crazy without any signs of slowing down. I'm wondering if, all in all, this couldn't be a bit too much to hit the rorq with all at once?

Enochia Starr Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 122	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:07:44 - [31] - Quote I think the nerf is too high, the current problem is mineral prices... There's just so much supply with little demand, another B-R needs to happen so we can lose 200 titans and drive the prices back up. With the above mentioned from the other guy, we're already shelling out 10b in drones... Now you want to knock the yield? Hmm
Tribal Trogdor Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 21	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:08:29 - [32] - Quote Andrew Xadi wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. ! so if i jam a rorqual, it can't panic, if i catch a rorqual after it killed a belt, it can't panic, why can't you just make it so that you can't panic like 20 min after jumping? All they need to do is give it the system as the NSA. Cant use ewar while you have it running. Solves the problem, right?...Right?
Enochia Starr Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 122	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:09:31 - [33] - Quote Tribal Trogdor wrote: Andrew Xadi wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. ! so if i jam a rorqual, it can't panic, if i catch a rorqual after it killed a belt, it can't panic, why can't you just make it so that you can't panic like 20 min after jumping? All they need to do is give it them system as the NSA. Cant use ewar while you have it running. Solves the problem, right?...Right? This, exactly this.
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 373	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:10:07 - [34] - Quote What about excavator drone costs? This just reads as the biggest fuckup in introducing an overpowerd feature that can't be properly balanced since introducing Super capitals Baddest poster ever
SouthsideDevil Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:10:15 - [35] - Quote Ok now i must buy me 2 additional Rorqs for the same income **** happens
Tribal Trogdor Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 21	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:10:36 - [36] - Quote Enochia Starr wrote: I think the nerf is too high, the current problem is mineral prices... There's just so much supply with little demand, another B-R needs to happen so we can lose 200 titans and drive the prices back up. With the above mentioned from the other guy, we're already shelling out 10b in drones... Now you want to knock the yield? Hmm That's why they're lowering the supply
The Slayer Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation 337	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:10:55 - [37] - Quote Tappits wrote: So you are removing the panic from rorquals then? Because you just wait till the anomaly is poped and then warp in tackle all the rorquals and kill them all super quick with no chance to panic. Leave merc to last. Warp rorquals out. Mine merc with barges. Duh.
Sophia Baccarin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:11:39 - [38] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module.
Jay Amazingness GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 61	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:12:24 - [39] - Quote The Slayer wrote: Tappits wrote: So you are removing the panic from rorquals then? Because you just wait till the anomaly is poped and then warp in tackle all the rorquals and kill them all super quick with no chance to panic. Leave merc to last. Warp rorquals out. Mine merc with barges. Duh. strategic mining planning from goonswarm's finest, nice one slayer CEO of serious space alliance I too am gay, a member of the Memeperium
Atlas Aurilia Stain Security Forces X13 Alliance 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:12:53 - [40] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So your saying Jump in a falcon and your ******? won't be able to activate panic beacuse you can't hold a lock on a rock to enable panic?

Tyr Carter Hold On To Your Dookie Its About To Get Spooky My Mom Says Blobbing Is Bad 12	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:13:46 - [41] - Quote DENIED :D I love it :)
Sister Bliss Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 99	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:14:33 - [42] - Quote Honestly these are terrible changes and once again I shudder at the game design principles you adhere to. Why would you nerf the yield of a ship which is so expensive to field in the first place and introduce other risks which are going to make it so much more vulnerable. Surely reduced ore respawn rates or dimished resources which would force territorial conflict is a better answer? Instead we're force fed a mind numbing solution to a problem of I don't know what. We want more tools for self reliance and generating conflict, not more agonizing tedium. What actually is the design problem these changes are meant to resolve?
Awkward Pi Duolus Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 189	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:16:57 - [43] - Quote Ahahaha - ingenious fix to the PANIC problem!
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2664	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:17:04 - [44] - Quote Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT. I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals. If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Claevyan The Suicide Express Rejection Of Sovereignty 8	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:17:42 - [45] - Quote Tribal Trogdor wrote: Andrew Xadi wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. ! so if i jam a rorqual, it can't panic, if i catch a rorqual after it killed a belt, it can't panic, why can't you just make it so that you can't panic like 20 min after jumping? All they need to do is give it the system as the NSA. Cant use ewar while you have it running. Solves the problem, right?...Right? The Industrial Core that Rorquals use makes it 100% immobile but also immune to Ewar for like 300 seconds. so that is a "decent" way to avoid being ECM'd out of target lock. however, if you are a Rorqual pilot and you have not activated your Indy Core... and a tengu uncloaks next to you your first reaction will probably be to try and warp, or to cyno or to lock the tengu up... something other than activating Indy core. CSM 12: No Sov. No Agenda. No Promises.
yogizh GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 28	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:18:06 - [46] - Quote So mineral market sucks, let's nerf some ships. :V What about making changes that would require use of hmmm lets say battleships. I blame the stupid small ship entosis game, overpovered destroyers and unability to force people to engage is mass pvp activites. Rejoice, we will Burn Jita to the ground, your mineral prices will go up.
Malkshurr CBC Interstellar Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:18:40 - [47] - Quote At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ?
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2665	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:19:54 - [48] - Quote Well, I lied, I guess I will comment on the nerf: was there a technical challenge involved with giving PANIC the same malus to electronic warfare capacitor usage that Networked Sensor Arrays have, or was it a deliberate decision to not go that route? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
javer 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 28	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:19:59 - [49] - Quote sigh why do ccp have to show off there most clueless dev yet again? fozzie, you do know how to do some math? around 30% reduced income on rorq's with investments being nearly the same as a super carrier. then you proceed to make them more vunerable at same time may i suggest doing one change at a time and seeing the impact before showing the utter lack of IQ by forgeting that its a complete ship we look at not just 2 points that they can be used for solution is disable offensive mods if panic in use or introduce a cooldown on panic of 5-15 mins from jumping
Jay Amazingness GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 63	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:20:02 - [50] - Quote ay yo fozzie, you made a lotta dudes booty blasted CEO of serious space alliance I too am gay, a member of the Memeperium

Haidere Evolution Northern Coalition. 17	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:20:59 - [51] - Quote Regarding activation of PANIC...I don't recall the indy core giving ewar immunity so does that mean that if a Rorq is jammed they have no way to activate PANIC? That change limits its combat applications but doesn't remove it's usefulness as a jump HIC. IE, can still jump into an anom with veld rocks and tackle something. So...why not simply change the requirement of PANIC to be disallowed with Entosis link and Heavy warp scramblers equipped. Allows PANIC to be used when moving operations, and removes it's effectiveness as a Jump HIC and heavy entosis.
Peacenlove S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:21:00 - [52] - Quote so if you get jammed you cant panic? that seems like a poor solution unless you make it so the industrial core makes ECM retardedly ineffective.
JackEuchre Order Collective Blades of Grass 42	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:21:19 - [53] - Quote So as excavators continue to go up and up in price, we are also going to reduce their value. As it is, a set is what, 8b? And now it has less yield. Increasing the boost, it almost seems you want people to have 15 mining alts in sniffs and really hate the occasional miner who has a rorq and no alts. And ditto on the jams making the panic module useless. Anyone who hunts rorqs, their job just got much easier.
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 373	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:21:37 - [54] - Quote Sister Bliss wrote: Surely reduced ore respawn rates or dimished resources which would force territorial conflict is a better answer? Instead we're force fed a mind numbing solution to a problem of I don't know what. We want more tools for self reliance and generating conflict, not more agonizing tedium. What actually is the design problem these changes are meant to resolve? CCP isn't interested in solutions to a problem. At this point i just think they design their game drunk. If the problem with rorquals is the amount that is mined, just time ore anomalies the same as ice belts so you can't infinite mine them. If PANIC tackling things is the problem, change it to you can't use EWAR when you are in PANIC and you can't activate PANIC when ewar modules are active.. There are so many more elegant design solutions than what CCP wants with this, it's painful to see them blundering along. Baddest poster ever
The Slayer Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation 338	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:22:03 - [55] - Quote The problem with making panic a "Can't use ECM while active" is you can still jump in, get initial tackle on something THEN hit the PANIC when you go into hull. Then second rorq gets tackle. Rinse repeat.
Side1Bu2Rnz9 Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:23:22 - [56] - Quote What kind of ass backward method of eliminating battle Rorqual is this? Just remove the eWar capabilities while in PANIC... I swear CCP's logic never ceases to amaze.
Capri Sun KraftFoods Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 70	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:23:45 - [57] - Quote Malkshurr wrote: At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ? same tbh like I can buy a thrasher and it to 250 dps for 10m But I buy Proteus for 600m and it only do 550 dps???????? cpp plz fix
Obi SToN3D House Aratus Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:24:23 - [58] - Quote here we go again.. Fozzie is unhappy.. nerf all the things. kill eve some more.. you brought nothing good to the game and I personaly have nothing but hatred for you. I'f I was your superior I'd sack your useless ass and attempt to recoup all the bad mistakes you made and get a real developer to rebuild what was once the only game to play. #RIPEVE #sackfozzie
Theon Borealis Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:25:15 - [59] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. This feels like a very ill conceived change, completely ignoring how cooperative rorqual mining takes place in nullsec. While I agree with the need to kill the invulnerable capital jump hictor, the change to the P.A.N.I.C. mechanics should be something different. Right now rorquals often cooperate, both with blue rorquals and subcap mining ships, on clearing out an ore anomaly, allowing them to work together when defending themselves against BLOPs fleets etc. As an ore anomaly is nearly mined out, with this change it will become a race to not become 'that guy', who is the one to pop the last rock. Because - statistically speaking - the last rorqual on the field will be halfway through a siege cycle when the final asteroid is exhausted. This would leave plenty of time for attackers to show up, and now the PANIC module may as well not be fitted. If no-one wants to be the last rorqual on the field, then they won't be mined out by anything but subcaps, who also no longer benefit from the mining boost and shield reps/drone damage from their rorqual allies. So no-one, not even subcaps, would want to be left mining the - now even more spread out and harder to defend - last scraps of any given anomaly, making 'rolling' the ore anomalies much more time consuming. How about not allowing PANIC when you have a weapons timer, and disallow any action causing a weapons timer when PANICed?
HerrBert V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA 546	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:25:46 - [60] - Quote What about the Rorqual in Wormhole Space: - Reports of Shattered Rorquals that abuse the Mass you **** up and changed within 2 Days in Thera but didnt give a about other Shatterds where they now have a secret mining society? - Highclass wormholes abusing the oldest trick in the book that escalations dont spawn Awakened whatevers aka DPS Sponges? - And my personal favorite when are you gonna address the fact that *** RELIC SITES HAVE A BETTER ORE DENSITY THEN *** ORE ANOMALIES in lower class wormholes.... mother plucker there is 800m in a Relic site while some c1 sites clock in at 200m.... I mean you must feel silly at this point...#47 - Also still didnt get all Thera Rorquals ... The Dream still lives on... - Did someone fix the MJD Beacon yet? - Can you fix the ***** Wetu? or was that intentional? - Why dafuck cant a Rorqual dock in a Raitaru? #TrailerParkBoys for more deep findings on my two weeks testing and theory crafting on sisi pre-Ascension where all of this "could have been" avoided send me some isk first or dont bother calling.... Thanks... this update was stupid Community-Challenge: Make Jack Miton sing a Duett with me. http://www.youtube.com/user/HerrBertism Jibbychiggawooooow - CSM 9 Corbexx

JitaGodess Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:25:54 - [61] - Quote Just wanna add my 2 cents. Am not for a further nerf to the Excavators, but if it must happen, let me point out.. Reducing the cycle time by 50%, thus increasing the amount of time the drones are traveling between roid and rorq, is a nerf in its self. Adding a reduced yield is a nerf on top of a nerf. If you must go along these lines, perhaps consider adding more speed to the Excavators to mitigate this fact. The numbers thrown around of "300 mil an hour" are completely hypothetical. In most cases, Rorqs need to come out of Icore to move closer to the roids as mining any further out that 20km atm is pointless. I appreciate you need to consider the mineral market, and that the iskper hour is prob not a factor, more so the statistics on the amount of ore mined, but the eve player base consider activities to be worth doing or not by isk per hour, and if you nerf it too much.. Id say alot of people will give up with rorqs entirely. Please Evemail me if I win.
Zedd Dezz Ascendance Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:26:04 - [62] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. ~ [list] Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. I'll have to use my line-item veto pen on this one fozzie, you'll be making something that finally became worth doing not worth doing. And I don't even own a rorq.
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:26:09 - [63] - Quote The yield nerf is liveable but if you had to do it twice now and people are snowballing multiboxing fleets then it's going to be followed by another. Maybe the nature of upgraded anoms should be looked at instead because their capacity is huge and they respawn instantly after clearing. And unless you have a dozen rorqs or more a colossal barely feels crowded. The P.A.N.I.C. nerf is just weird. Why not just have active modules cycle off when P.A.N.I.C. is activated?
Cade Windstalker 875	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:26:53 - [64] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here I mean he can panic, just not PANIC Going to second these concerns, this has serious potential to remove some of the thought and tactical application of the PANIC module for intended uses. Could you instead just make it so that the user has to be within X range of an Asteroid of some kind rather than actively have one locked?
Hendrink Collie Contra Ratio DARKNESS. 108	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:27:26 - [65] - Quote Querns wrote: Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT. I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals. If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. Smug and knowledge all in the one post. I love you Querns. But anyways, yeah, I really like the changes overall. Looks like CCP is trying to bump the mining fleet more towards fleets of exhumers with a rorqual or two providing strong boost and some defensive capabilities instead of fleets of roaming rorquals hoovering up everything. The PANIC changes are solid, too. Not bad.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:27:31 - [66] - Quote Jay Amazingness wrote: I feel like people will just wait until the ore anom is dead and then be like I HAVE YOU NOW RORQUAL SCUM and tackle them. In poorly defended areas of space, absolutely. Wormholers dropping on nullsec rorqs will still largely be limited to immediate targets of opportunity in well-defended space though, which is something.
Capqu ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1271	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:27:38 - [67] - Quote GOOD FIX THANKS FOZZLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Wibla Tactical Narcotics Team 170	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:27:50 - [68] - Quote handige harrie wrote: Sister Bliss wrote: Surely reduced ore respawn rates or dimished resources which would force territorial conflict is a better answer? Instead we're force fed a mind numbing solution to a problem of I don't know what. We want more tools for self reliance and generating conflict, not more agonizing tedium. What actually is the design problem these changes are meant to resolve? CCP isn't interested in solutions to a problem. At this point i just think they design their game drunk. If the problem with rorquals is the amount that is mined, just time ore anomalies the same as ice belts so you can't infinite mine them. If PANIC tackling things is the problem, change it to you can't use EWAR when you are in PANIC and you can't activate PANIC when ewar modules are active.. There are so many more elegant design solutions than what CCP wants with this, it's painful to see them blundering along. There is long and proud history of drunken half-assed code originating on Iceland. See: most of EVE's older codebase.
Messoroz aquila inc Verge of Collapse 517	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:27:58 - [69] - Quote Why not PANIC => Max Target Locks = 0
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 374	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:28:11 - [70] - Quote The Slayer wrote: The problem with making panic a "Can't use ECM while active" is you can still jump in, get initial tackle on something THEN hit the PANIC when you go into hull. Then second rorq gets tackle. Rinse repeat. just add something to the PANIC module; - when PANIC module is fit, can't fit tackle. Baddest poster ever

yogizh GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 30	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:28:40 - [71] - Quote This nerf is so bad that I gave likes to V0LTA
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 6687	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:28:56 - [72] - Quote 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?
Arele Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:30:06 - [73] - Quote Querns wrote: Well, I lied, I guess I will comment on the nerf: was there a technical challenge involved with giving PANIC the same malus to electronic warfare capacitor usage that Networked Sensor Arrays have, or was it a deliberate decision to not go that route? Very odd they chose to go the second path unless the first was an un-forseen challenge to implement, as you are inquiring. Seems needlessly complex..
Fifth Blade Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance 89	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:30:07 - [74] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Excavator Drones: We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. While I appreciate the attempt, I believe it may be a bit late for that: Trit: https://i.imgur.com/FfWruzm.png Pyrite: https://i.imgur.com/def1XnE.png Nox: https://i.imgur.com/l3JzYPr.png Hel build cost: https://i.imgur.com/d2aupwN.png This has created a huge increase in super production. What are your thoughts on the massively accelerated super/titan proliferation? Do you have any plans to address this problem of proliferation going forward? (now that sp is easily bought and available characters for sale are no longer a limitation). Or will we inevitably move to the situation where faction supers are standard fare, much like with subcaps?
Wibla Tactical Narcotics Team 170	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:31:03 - [75] - Quote 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? NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Trespasser S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 69	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:31:06 - [76] - Quote i think that rorqual nerf is getting close to to much. Im fine with more back and forth because good rorqual pilots are going to be sitting on top of whatever they are going to be mining anyway. but halfing the base is to much and since they are going to be doing more trips they are already going to be mining less just by that fact alone. So i would say up it to 125-130m3 and keep the 60 seconds time...that would be a nerf to the m3 and that coupled with the increased trips back and forth should be more then enough of a nerf. And you increasing the distance between roids so your also increasing the time it takes to set back up on another roid. All these changes together is bigger then a simple 20% nerf here. Your boost to the material drop rates for these drones haven't pushed the drone cost down much either, so i suggest you guys think about boosting that drop rate atleast 300% more then it currently is.. i wouldn't care as much about nerfs if these drones were 500 million each instead of 3 times that amount.
Wibla Tactical Narcotics Team 170	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:32:26 - [77] - Quote Fifth Blade wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Excavator Drones: We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. While I appreciate the attempt, I believe it may be a bit late for that: Trit: https://i.imgur.com/FfWruzm.png Pyrite: https://i.imgur.com/def1XnE.png Nox: https://i.imgur.com/l3JzYPr.png Hel build cost: https://i.imgur.com/d2aupwN.png This has created a huge increase in super production. What are your thoughts on the massively accelerated super/titan proliferation? Do you have any plans to address this, seemingly inevitable (now that sp is easily bought and available characters for sale are no longer a limitation) problem of proliferation going forward? Or will we inevitably move to the situation where faction supers are standard fare, much like with subcaps? Look at the whole mineral basket, not just Trit, Pye and Nox. You might be enlightened. Tip: Trit, Pye and Nocx are being over-mined to cover a shortfall of Mex from nullsec ore anoms.
Shalmon Aliatus Bluestar Enterprises The Craftsmen 44	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:32:48 - [78] - Quote Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote: Malkshurr wrote: At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ? same tbh like I can buy a thrasher and it to 250 dps for 10m But I buy Proteus for 600m and it only do 550 dps???????? cpp plz fix Proteus for 600m? thats kinda cheap
Obi SToN3D House Aratus Goonswarm Federation 11	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:33:35 - [79] - Quote once Fozzie has nerfed all the things maybe he will quit just like Greyscale but to what extent?
Katsuya Kobayashi 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:34:47 - [80] - Quote I think this is a mistake. You should just make PANIC worse, and you already gave an incentive to hunt drones with killmails. I think your adjustments are awful, Fozzie, and you're doing a poor job.

3TEARS Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 7	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:34:49 - [81] - Quote I feel like an easy solution would just be that the rorq cannot use offensive modules while in PANIC. Solves all the problems of super tackle while keeping it "safe" from falcons and while being somewhere there are no asteroids (for whatever reason).
Capqu ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1271	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:35:25 - [82] - Quote i mean it still has insane subcap-weapon dps insane tank local ewar immunity triage-tier reps links 10ly jump range no fatigue losing the iceblock in combat is a nerf but it's not gonna make the most overpowered ship ever conceived anywhere near balanced https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Mai Khumm 172.0.0.1 865	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:36:18 - [83] - Quote Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. PL gonna be pissed!
Sally Clay State War Academy Caldari State 13	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:38:21 - [84] - Quote Nice changes. CCP please back colour icons to NEOCOM.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18669	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:39:14 - [85] - Quote Mai Khumm wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. PL gonna be pissed! Muh Super Hic!
Shalmon Aliatus Bluestar Enterprises The Craftsmen 44	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:39:20 - [86] - Quote Also I really don't like the way of: Hey, lets make Rorquals super OP so old players can mine all the ore and now nerf the Rorqual to **** so a) new players got no reason to aim for one (because seriously, for the cost of a Rorqual you can get a second account and a hulk) b) the old players can sell all the ore they mined at a higher cost The only way to fix that would be to take away all the unnerfed ore mined by Rorquals since the patch. Please tell me if you plan to do this, because in that case I need to rent a bigger car to buy all the popcorn I need for the reddit thread
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:40:37 - [87] - Quote Mr Bignose wrote: Maybe the nature of upgraded anoms should be looked at instead because their capacity is huge and they respawn instantly after clearing. And unless you have a dozen rorqs or more a colossal barely feels crowded. delete this
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2666	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:40:43 - [88] - Quote Shalmon Aliatus wrote: The only way to fix that would be to take away all the unnerfed ore mined by Rorquals since the patch. Please tell me if you plan to do this, because in that case I need to rent a bigger car to buy all the popcorn I need for the reddit thread I mean, they could certainly do this, but most of us have turned the ore into other stuff. Eve doesn't have the accounting in place to track the ore further than that, if they even have the accounting to do just the ore. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Luna TheMoonrider Daerie Inc. Get Off My Lawn 5	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:41:45 - [89] - Quote Well, i'm a GD, but not an indy guy, so my feedback will only be on things I know CCP Fozzie wrote: Excavator Drones: Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. 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. Maybe also : Wibla wrote: 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. Like I said, not an indy, but maybe also a solution CCP Fozzie wrote: PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. It's the change I understand the least... So much other solutions : - Make it like the NSA for E-WAR and add entosis to the limitation - If Jump Fatigue, can't PANIC - If no piloted mining barge in range, can't PANIC The big issue with this change, is that yes, you are invulnerable to ECM in indy mode, but not to Damp, so with enough damp, if the rorqual is in a belt, but not literraly kissing an asteroid, you're f**k and can't PANIC. (Well, you can actually panic atm) It's really not a good idea. CCP Fozzie wrote: Other misc mining changes:** Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. The spreading is an other nerf to the Rorqual, but other thing sounds goods. Good luck team Five-0, I know balancing is hard!
Caleb Ayrania TarNec Invisible Exchequer 327	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:43:11 - [90] - Quote "We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy." .. WOW Such timing.. because its not already lost 50% of its value.. and I doubt it will be enough "fixing" to save the patient.. but +1 for well some sort of "effort".. Pro tip.. Get some RAW material sinks in there asap.. the eco system is becoming stupid.. and the busy bees in Delve will just make this a LOT worse..

Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:44:32 - [91] - Quote How many hours are there between now and the March release, and how much sleep does the human body need per week to survive? Asking for a friend.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 341	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:46:03 - [92] - Quote Please add more mexallon
Wibla Tactical Narcotics Team 170	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:46:32 - [93] - Quote Caleb Ayrania wrote: "We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy." .. WOW Such timing.. because its not already lost 50% of its value.. and I doubt it will be enough "fixing" to save the patient.. but +1 for well some sort of "effort".. Pro tip.. Get some RAW material sinks in there asap.. the eco system is becoming stupid.. and the busy bees in Delve will just make this a LOT worse.. It's not like Delve is the only region with heavy Rorqual usage, and the MER never showed drone mining amounts because CCP are bad at data gathering and presentation. Pro tip: look at the mineral output of ore anoms and you will know why some minerals are dropping hard while others are not.
Mara Morai Black Dragon Elite Rate My Ticks 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:46:39 - [94] - Quote While a nerf was inevitable I think this is a bit extreme. And your solution for the PANIC module abuse is terrible. Better solutions to the PANIC module abuse: disallow ewar fitting with panic module do not allow panic after a cyno jump has occurred do not allow panic unless NEAR asteroids do not allow targets locked during PANIC
Fifth Blade Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance 89	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:47:52 - [95] - Quote HerrBert wrote: - Did someone fix the MJD Beacon yet? Since we're now posting about this publicly.. Can we get a capital limitation on MJD beacons? As opposed to a mass limitation which does not apply to panicked Rorquals? So that they are no longer 100%, completely invulnerable, drop an MJD beacon, which they can rep massively with a miniscule cycle-time and begin activating at the end of a panic cycle - MJDing away 100km followed by jumping out to an open cyno or beacon anywhere within 10ly.
Hogeron Amelan Marquie-X. Triumvirate. 9	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:48:02 - [96] - Quote https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/ totally needs nerfing Making this ship alread die like flies, lets make it more useless
sharpscg Shiva Northern Coalition. 19	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:48:35 - [97] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. the intention is good but the means are questionable and definitely not intuitive.
Solidus Obscura Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:48:40 - [98] - Quote Another issue with the further nerfing of excavator yield is that the price of excavators are way out of proportion compared to what you're getting. There could be a bit of market manipulation going on but the prices are a FAR FAR cry from costing approximately 1-2 Hulks each. Fozzie... I believed in you. I personally shouted thank you at your presentation and shook your hand at Vegas for the prior Rorqual changes. Don't break my heart man, don't break it. Solidus for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2666	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:48:43 - [99] - Quote Wibla wrote: Caleb Ayrania wrote: "We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy." .. WOW Such timing.. because its not already lost 50% of its value.. and I doubt it will be enough "fixing" to save the patient.. but +1 for well some sort of "effort".. Pro tip.. Get some RAW material sinks in there asap.. the eco system is becoming stupid.. and the busy bees in Delve will just make this a LOT worse.. It's not like Delve is the only region with heavy Rorqual usage, and the MER never showed drone mining amounts because CCP are bad at data gathering and presentation. Pro tip: look at the mineral output of ore anoms and you will know why some minerals are dropping hard while others are not. There's also the fact that Delve is a net importer. Very much so. We aren't causing minerals to crash, we're helping prop them up. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Trajan Unknown SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 120	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:50:15 - [100] - Quote Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. I am no rorq pilot at all but this simple change makes so much sense. Anyone has some logical reasoning against that?

Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:55:29 - [101] - Quote PANIC module can only be activated by having a lock on an asteroid ? What if i just finished an asteroid and still have a cycle on my inustrial core and get dropped ? What if i get dropped while travelling from one asteroid to another ? And the gang dropping on me has a falcon that ECM's me ? This is an absolutely idiotic solution. Can't you just make it so that the panic button breaks all target locks, and you can only activate panic when you have the industrial core running. And futhermore make fitting or running the industrial core disable the use of any ewar modules on the rorqual. As for the nerf of excavator drones - ARE YOU KIDDING ME ? A set of excavators costs 7 Billion + 2.7 for the rorq + fittings, that makes the rorqual a 12 billion ship, that barely makes nearly the same income than a carrier (ratting ticks+ ESS lp + loot) at SIX TIMES THE COST OF A CARRIER !!! I just spent a LOT of money to fit my rorq, and now you want me to go back to carrier ratting ?? I understand that the mineral market is not healthy right now, but there must be better solutions. Such as finding a sinkhole for the excess minerals like tritanium and pyrite. Just increase the ammounts of those minerals needed to build ships and structures, and the market will get healthy pretty quickly again. If you want to close the gap between the rorq and an a exhumer just buff the exhumers, but leave the rorq alone. CCP FOZZIE don't mess this game again.
Timmy Richards Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:55:45 - [102] - Quote Your stupid for thinking this Rorqual nerf is going to slow down mining and production it only encourages people to get more characters and get more Rorquals its not hard to plex an account and as for the Nexus module I don't know WTF you were thinking, have you been consulting with PL again?
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:55:50 - [103] - Quote Trajan Unknown wrote: Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. I am no rorq pilot at all but this simple change makes so much sense. Anyone has some logical reasoning against that? I assume on a basic design level, they want PANIC to not just be about calling in a response fleet, but also defending yourself from the moment you are attacked. Hence the drone damage bonus, etc.
Cpt Mangrum Lords 0f Justice Goonswarm Federation 15	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:56:13 - [104] - Quote CCP=Dumb
Opner Dresden Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance 55	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:56:20 - [105] - Quote Trajan Unknown wrote: Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. I am no rorq pilot at all but this simple change makes so much sense. Anyone has some logical reasoning against that? Rorqs can still rep in PANIC.
Innominatus Invisus Hogyoku Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:56:40 - [106] - Quote I'd like to change the name of this thread to "All posts here are a call for Fozzie to retire, or be fired" ...then move it to Community. Serious... clueless people in charge of 'fixes'. We have an economy that was originally touted for being designed by a Nobel winning economist, now it's being subverted and (again) 'fixed' by someone who barely understands basic math. Sad days, these.
Taunter Dramatic Exit Thank you And Goodnight 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:57:43 - [107] - Quote 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.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1172	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:58:27 - [108] - Quote Amazing fix for PANIC. Amazing incentive for killing the drones - this makes using rorquals a bit riskier even if the ship itself is not directly threatened. I mean I guess if CCP released some numbers on how much was being mined with them, we'd be able to partake more of this part of the discussion, but I'm going to guess those numbers are under some sort of hilarious information embargo care of the CSM. The real big picture question is, in response to some numbers you are tightening the mineral faucet, but as time progresses more and more people will probably still be working towards Rorqs as they accrue more SP, so while individual rorquals are producing less, soon there will be more rorquals overall. Basically, are you going to keep tightening the mineral faucet with yield reductions as time goes on? Is there some sort of platonic, fixed mineral prices you are shooting for? Null industry and null space is now actually worth it for something other than moons; are you trying to keep mineral prices high enough for other places to be viable for mining? Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2017.02.23 18:59:21 - [109] - Quote And also the mining drones on the rorqual are a huge risk, they can be booshed, they can die to rats, they can get lost to DC, they can die in a merc cloud, or die with the rorqual while being dropped. It's a huge risk flying that ship, so why would you want to nerf it ?
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2666	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:00:04 - [110] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Amazing fix for PANIC. Amazing incentive for killing the drones - this makes using rorquals a bit riskier even if the ship itself is not directly threatened. I mean I guess if CCP released some numbers on how much was being mined with them, we'd be able to partake more of this part of the discussion, but I'm going to guess those numbers are under some sort of hilarious information embargo care of the CSM. The real big picture question is, in response to some numbers you are tightening the mineral faucet, but as time progresses more and more people will probably still be working towards Rorqs as they accrue more SP, so while individual rorquals are producing less, soon there will be more rorquals overall. Basically, are you going to keep tightening the mineral faucet with yield reductions as time goes on? Is there some sort of platonic, fixed mineral prices you are shooting for? Null industry and null space is now actually worth it for something other than moons; are you trying to keep mineral prices high enough for other places to be viable for mining? You didn't have the numbers, regardless. The MER stats have never included drone mining. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 6687	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:00:56 - [111] - Quote Trajan Unknown wrote: Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. I am no rorq pilot at all but this simple change makes so much sense. Anyone has some logical reasoning against that? Can't defend with drones, or continue mining, i.e. little to no game-play at all during PANIC (several minutes). I like the idea of EWAR penalty while PANIC is active: -100% optimal -100% fall-off
HerrBert V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA 547	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:01:33 - [112] - Quote Fifth Blade wrote: HerrBert wrote: - Did someone fix the MJD Beacon yet? Since we're now posting about this publicly.. Can we get a capital limitation on MJD beacons? As opposed to a mass limitation which does not apply to panicked Rorquals? So that they are no longer 100%, completely invulnerable, drop an MJD beacon, which they can rep massively with a miniscule cycle-time and begin activating at the end of a panic cycle - MJDing away 100km followed by jumping out to an open cyno or beacon anywhere within 10ly. Community-Challenge: Make Jack Miton sing a Duett with me. http://www.youtube.com/user/HerrBertism Jibbychiggawooooow - CSM 9 Corbexx
Rahna Slayblood Trigger Warning. The Initiative. 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:02:31 - [113] - Quote So first the good things Thanks for thinking about poor Miners being able to pay their respect to asteroids as well. Also i hope that you manage to increase visual rock size. Since a colossal well on a visual scale is underwhelming. The panic change well its an interesting way to diffuse it but definetly not optimal. But well others have and will say more^^ Concerning the next yield nerf for the rorqual which is about 25% if my math isnt off. It feels like you are desperately grabbing for time to fix the underlying problem which is that not enough gets blown up to keep the ore market healthy. Which partially is a problem made by yourself and the design philosophy with the sov system and not enough incentive for players to get the big guns out (battleships caps supers). battleship fleets are mostly obsolete except for Machs and maybe rattles. T1 counterparts arent used in bug numbers. Simply because their are other shipstypes that can do better and are well less aids to use (travel time etc). And of course the players are partially at fault as well for not fielding the big honing spaceguns as well. But in most cases their is just no need or the spark of conflict gets snuffed through other reasons. But before i ramble on the next thing i see happening is that we sit here in 3 months again discussing another yield nerf because most will just add another rorqual to their fleet to compensate and be done with it. Have you thought about increasing minerals needed instead ? Placing a bigger figure of minerals needed for citadel production/ships in general? Just a though.
Odelll Project Valhalla. The Initiative. 28	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:02:50 - [114] - Quote Basic question to CCP, do you even have a QA department anymore? Because consistantly it apears like you just wing it, throw out these changes and disrupt the entire game without any process of testing or feedback. Nullsec does not care about the mineral markets of empire, most of the ore being mined in null never reaches empire markets. The combination of industrial complexes and rorqual mining has amped up capital production across the board shifting the meta towards capitals/supercapitals. Essentially what your doing every time you implement these nerfs is preventing smaller alliances/newer entities from compeating with the people that have already benefited and stockpiled assets. The reduction in production time in null, combined with the un-nerfed rorqual fleets from their launch until now will have an untenable inpact on the game for the next couple of years, an unfair advantage that cannot be regained. The problem that needs to be tackled is not how much a pilot can earn mining but the isk sinks of corps and alliances. Currently there is little to drain the war chests of old alliances so large stockpiles of isk and assets are massed through periods when isk is easier to obtain or assets cheaper. No amount of changes to the individual pilot is going to effect a long standing entity like Pandemic Legion from being able to replace its entire Supercapital fleet 3 times over, regardless of the mineral market price. Once you have given, you cannot take away or you end up with the senario of having players maintaining an advantage that can never be rivaled.
Huydo Tr0pa de elite. Northern Coalition. 67	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:03:07 - [115] - Quote I spendet 25b for my rorq + fitting + drones + some skill injectors to get in the mining business. And now, you want to nerf it .... again? wtf, just wtf
Hlory Gole Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:06:39 - [116] - Quote So in essence about 25% decrease in yield. Nice move, fracking up those who bought excavators at nearly 2B. 25% nerf is too ********, while the real problem is combat rorquals.
apollo429 Colonial Industries Badfellas Inc. 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:08:55 - [117] - Quote We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. DONT EVEN BOTHER WASTING YOUR TIME. This new Nerf to rorqual mining is being seen for what it really is. Rorquals are to op a mining ship in your eyes. It takes the place of 5 hulk toons. So now you Nerf it even more so people have to go back to mining in hulks again. This then boosts the amount of people subbed to the game thus increasing plex sales and increasing the number of people paying for eve. You guys need to rethink the Nerf to yeld amount. You decrease the cycle time by 30% yet Nerf the yields by 50%... This is on top of the last 40-50% held next a month or 2 ago. You attempted to help with the cost of mining drone but in the end you messed that up as well but failed. So unless you are planning on releasing mining dreadnaught of sorts this is a bullshit nerf. And I say this as the mineral market falls. So if this is going to be the case then lower the requirements of the excavator drone. I can't believe the CSM thought this was a good idea.
Captain jdd SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:09:13 - [118] - Quote Good change. Don't hear all those whiners.
Katsuya Kobayashi 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:10:34 - [119] - Quote I'm looking forward to your next post, Fozzie. If it's your resignation, at least. You're absolutely awful at your job. This game is about risk and reward. First of all, the ship already gets destroyed every single day. https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/ And that does not include the drones, that people are already hunting - even without the incentive of kill mails. The introduction of kill mails for them is a good additional incentive. A very small gang of extremely cheap ships can already pose a serious threat to rorqual pilots' assets when they siege themselves in an asteroid field. You should have made electronic warfare unsuable while the PANIC module is active, and you should have made the PANIC module weaker to increase the risk and leave the reward be. The game is supposed to reward players to put assets on the field. That's literally what the design behind a rorqual should be. You siege 10b+ of assets into an asteroid cluster, 70% of that value flying slowly around it, easily exposed to small gangs that come by. And a larger scale attack from through a wormhole or cyno, you'll need a capital fleet on standby to have any chance at all to live through it. It takes coordination between players to protect them, and it takes coordination between players to attack them. And it takes one guy to ruin them, you. For the betterment of the game, I sincerely hope you resign. I have no trust in you as a game designer at CCP. Thank you in advance.
Jin alPatar Entertainment 7wenty 74	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:10:50 - [120] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Can you make the targeted asteroids blow up when PANIC is activated? Otherwise it feels too much like an arbitrary limitation with no basis in lore.

exiik Shardani Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics 98	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:11:12 - [121] - Quote when you nerf yield for excavator drones why do not you a little boost yield from rorq boosts to other mining ships? sry for my English :-(
Hlory Gole Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:11:50 - [122] - Quote apollo429 wrote: We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. DONT EVEN BOTHER WASTING YOUR TIME. This new Nerf to rorqual mining is being seen for what it really is. Rorquals are to op a mining ship in your eyes. It takes the place of 5 hulk toons. So now you Nerf it even more so people have to go back to mining in hulks again. This then boosts the amount of people subbed to the game thus increasing plex sales and increasing the number of people paying for eve. You guys need to rethink the Nerf to yeld amount. You decrease the cycle time by 30% yet Nerf the yields by 50%... This is on top of the last 40-50% held next a month or 2 ago. You attempted to help with the cost of mining drone but in the end you messed that up as well but failed. So unless you are planning on releasing mining dreadnaught of sorts this is a bullshit nerf. And I say this as the mineral market falls. So if this is going to be the case then lower the requirements of the excavator drone. I can't believe the CSM thought this was a good idea. Well, apparently people who care about mining are rare on CSM, if they ever exist. Players who do only PvP think ships just appear out of thin air and are dropped in Jita 4-4.
Orakkus Imperium Technologies DARKNESS. 324	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:13:09 - [123] - Quote The Whine.. it is a good whine. A vintage whine that we will remember for years. The salty taste, the flowery aroma of dashed entitlement, the deep dark color of clearly missing the fact that the Rorqual and Excavator drones were OBVIOUSLY going to get nerfed. Yes, tis a good vintage.. one I will savor for a long time. He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Loken Grimsward Easy Co. Get Off My Lawn 8	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:13:19 - [124] - Quote Nerfing the rorqual mining yield again?!? Do you have a brain cell in your skull at all, or are you just fucken lazy. The escavator drones are going up in price, something you guys only half heartedly tried to address in the last patch along with the previous mining yield nerf. Now your justification is mineral prices? How about opening more avenues for content rather then lazily nerfing something yet again. Something that I might add I and many other think might be fine where it is since the fucken drones are more expensive per unit then a ***** carrier. Maybe at least make the we need to build the drones spawn all over new eden so that one region and 1 group doesn't have a strangle hold on the pricing. Or maybe just leave as is and let us sort the market out. I mean you guys have done nothing about plex prices and inflation in general. This is such a ham fisted retardedly lazy attempt at balancing something that I can't even articulate myself properly. sake look at my post this is reddit quality **. Eat a bag of dicks
The Economist Logically Consistent 47	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:13:33 - [125] - Quote Just horrible. Desire to tweak panic; understandable. Solution; mentally challenged. 2nd excavator nerf, and at that scale....hilarious if you weren't serious.
Or'es'ka Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:18:19 - [126] - Quote 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. You had one job, no jump hictor that can be invul. instead, **** indy. now if you get jammed you just die faster. We are seeing rorqs fie at least a few a day. All you had to do was nerf its offensive capabilities, but instead you make it worthless. I'm disappointed Fozzie, you frequently talk about risk vs reward. With groups like inner hell who hunt rorqs, non stop and considering the rorqs role IS TO BE IN THE BELT, not like a super that sits docked until actual combat, the rorq must sit stationary and helpless, you somehow think this is a fair trade? Now all they have to do is bring a couple fast lock griffins and the rorq has no hope of activating PANIC to give a fleet time to form. Because I guarantee everyone will do this from now on. SERIOUSLY CCP, WHY DO YOU HATE INDUSTRIALISTS? Just nerf PL and be done with it! Nerd rage over!
Lucian James THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two 151	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:21:39 - [127] - Quote I am completely neutral on this change. My own guys mine materials awfully fast in Rorquals.. and reducing amount by 33% is not horrific. Per some comments though, a reduced cycle time means more drone travel time means less amount mined per time. Perhaps this could be adjusted to be less painful. 33% is already a big step. PANIC changes make sense. I was looking forward to using an FC tackling Rorqual... oh well... I'll just have to mine in it. Cheers.
Tribal Trogdor Better Off Red Unspoken Alliance. 23	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:22:42 - [128] - Quote I have a good solution. Decrease the amount of minerals in all ores by 75%. Then you don't have to nerf the rorq anymore! But really, the whole infinite amounts of high end ores in a single sov system, regardless of its true sec is the problem. We need a more dynamic resource system to be in the right spot. Make people move around, spread out a little more, fight over systems that have more resources...something :D
Or'es'ka Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:29:46 - [129] - Quote Trajan Unknown wrote: Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. I am no rorq pilot at all but this simple change makes so much sense. Anyone has some logical reasoning against that? when has ccp EVER been logical?
Or'es'ka Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:30:45 - [130] - Quote Lucian James wrote: I am completely neutral on this change. My own guys mine materials awfully fast in Rorquals.. and reducing amount by 33% is not horrific. Per some comments though, a reduced cycle time means more drone travel time means less amount mined per time. Perhaps this could be adjusted to be less painful. 33% is already a big step. PANIC changes make sense. I was looking forward to using an FC tackling Rorqual... oh well... I'll just have to mine in it. Cheers. not 33%, max skills base is 215. its an almost 50% reduction

RicksterTech Amphal Balkan Mafia Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:33:16 - [131] - Quote I'm Sorry but this is a joke the market is not crashing due to rorqs as enough of them get killed and i have seen no change in market prices so WHY CCP DO YOU KEEP PENALISING THE INDY PEOPLE. I may as well not bother anymore you've take roughly 85% of the mining yield away from the drones why there was no need just take away thier jump-hictor ability and thats all that needs doing also from looking at the Indy Core it does not say it makes rors immune to ecm so now they won't be able to PANIC.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 415	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:34:50 - [132] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid This is very counter-intuitive. Please make sure you explicitly document this peculiarity. IN BOLD PRINT. And I dont understand why you can not just automatically check if there are roids nearby upon module activation. Lazy programming?
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 415	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:41:54 - [133] - Quote Or'es'ka wrote: its an almost 50% reduction On paper, it's 25% reduction. The real question is how they spread out the roids and what will be in-field real yield.
Dirk MacGirk Specter Syndicate 172	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:47:22 - [134] - Quote Mining yield aside, which will be debatable but since its a nerf, we know the reaction But was there no more elegant way of limiting capabilities while in PANIC than requiring asteroid lock? No concerns about when in travel or when a belt is cleared?
Easthir Ravin Easy Co. Get Off My Lawn 126	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:47:50 - [135] - Quote Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. I could Second this! IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES: -á" I drank WHAT?!"
Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 109	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:48:20 - [136] - Quote The Slayer wrote: Tappits wrote: So you are removing the panic from rorquals then? Because you just wait till the anomaly is poped and then warp in tackle all the rorquals and kill them all super quick with no chance to panic. Leave merc to last. Warp rorquals out. Mine merc with barges. Duh. I hate to agree with a Gon, but this. I still don't think that linking PANIC to an actively locked asteroid makes ANY sense whatsoever (cause mah Rorq Team Six hotdrops) but okay... and nerfing the yield AND changing the anomolies? COME ON FOZZY. You're killing me. It already takes most of forever for me to clear spud even with two rorqs in an anom, but moving rocks farther apart? Baby steps, man, baby steps. You want me to stop mining? Increase the Security Class of some of our systems. Kill the broken True Sec of Delve, and move it to Vale :) I would rather hunt Officer capitals then mine anyday, but Vale is ****. And speaking of that, why are Dread Gurista Dreadnaughts dropping junk? Like Male Prostitutes and other random pieces of garbage. Fix that. My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 415	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:48:27 - [137] - Quote Tribal Trogdor wrote: But really, the whole infinite amounts of high end ores in a single sov system, regardless of its true sec is the problem. We need a more dynamic resource system to be in the right spot. Make people move around, spread out a little more, fight over systems that have more resources...something :D I totally agree. Infinite ice was nerfed, but infinite ore is alright? Consistency, please.
kcarr2 THORN Syndicate Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:51:35 - [138] - Quote Drone costs keep rising yet yield from initial purchase of the drone fall 75%? Come on, whats going to be done about this? No one would put up with buying a super or a titan and then having 75% of the DPS nerfed from it, so why should miners be singled out? There is nothing wrong with the mineral market. Now alliances have the ability, without massive botting rental empires to compete on the same scale as CCP's beloved PL, and here comes the CCP nerf bat (again). Total bunch of BS CCP. You're biased and you know it, there is no other explanation to this.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:53:27 - [139] - Quote Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote: Malkshurr wrote: At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ? same tbh like I can buy a thrasher and it to 250 dps for 10m But I buy Proteus for 600m and it only do 550 dps???????? cpp plz fix IF CCP makes this changes i would suggest everyone to file a petition to get your isk back since ccp did commit fraud when they published that rorquals WERE TO BE X5 times hulks. Everyone one of us that bought one on the through that the publish information would not changed is a bate and switch. Just because ccp cannot control the flow of minerals to the market, dose not mean you CCP should. THIS IS a player run market and YOU ccp keep your hands out of it. The next question i would have for the dev fossel it would seem like you have a vested interest in mineral prices is that why you are making the changes? Is this another t20 thing?
Jura McBain Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:54:08 - [140] - Quote Thanks for ruining my skill queu and waste my time to sit in a rorqual. YOu make more change more time we waste in learning the skill to use a rorq. I want refund of my sub because i wasted months (money) training something you are nerfing every day. Ans liek some apointed before. 2 hulks 600M 1 Rorq 12B. Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs? Answer: waste time for learning useless skills.

Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 109	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:54:52 - [141] - Quote Also CCP, if you REALLY wanted to make people mine in Exhumers, you shouldn't have made them such a headache in the first place! My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 109	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:57:10 - [142] - Quote Jura McBain wrote: Thanks for ruining my skill queu and waste my time to sit in a rorqual. YOu make more change more time we waste in learning the skill to use a rorq. I want refund of my sub because i wasted months (money) training something you are nerfing every day. Ans liek some apointed before. 2 hulks 600M 1 Rorq 12B. Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs? Answer: waste time for learning useless skills. I would like a refund on the skill queues and books, especially the ice mining drones that are what 5b each???? Fozzy, return your Canadian Citizenship now. My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Otin Bison Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Circle-Of-Two 14	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:57:32 - [143] - Quote I am a massive care-bear, Rorq pilot and industrialist. I support this change. It's fricken insane the amount of mining done by Rorqs and how the majority of serious miners have been putting their Exhumers into mothballs.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 415	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:58:23 - [144] - Quote Dirk MacGirk wrote: Mining yield aside, which will be debatable but since its a nerf, we know the reaction But was there no more elegant way of limiting capabilities while in PANIC than requiring asteroid lock? No concerns about when in travel or when a belt is cleared? PANIC is a thing to compensate for static position when core is active. Which is not active when you travel. And let's be honest, Rorq is much more capable of defending itself than a FAX or even a Dread. As for the cleared belt - leave mercoxit and clear it up with barges. It can be managed right. As for the yields, I dont think this is the final nerf. There will be more, many more of them until CCP realizes that the problem is in the belts themselves. Granted, they already going to spread them out "a little". But this is not enough. Ore should not be infinite.
OtroWillis Chancel The Soul Society Army of New Eden 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 19:59:39 - [145] - Quote handige harrie wrote: What about excavator drone costs? This just reads as the biggest fuckup in introducing an overpowerd feature that can't be properly balanced since introducing Super capitals Well the obvious solution here is just to change the blueprint of the excavators to require a whole bunch of non Mexallon Ore. Solves all the problems.
Gaara's sniper MLG1337420BlazeIt360TitanNoScopeCorporationSWAG Goonswarm Federation 38	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:00:21 - [146] - Quote So basically with the change to panic module. All you have to do to kill rorquals, is wait for all the belts to die and then tackle rorqs that are left behind and quickly kill them. Yeah maybe better just use penalty to using EW during panic?
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2668	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:02:00 - [147] - Quote Panther X wrote: You want me to stop mining? Increase the Security Class of some of our systems. Kill the broken True Sec of Delve, and move it to Vale :) Broken truesec doesn't affect ore anomalies. We only get 10% yield anoms in -0.85 or better, same as you. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Taishoku Mayaki Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two 7932	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:05:34 - [148] - Quote Should of got a super instead of a Rorq :/ still not paid off my drones, let alone the ship + modules. "Right-O, lets get undocked and see what falls off the ship"
Cade Windstalker 878	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:07:26 - [149] - Quote Panther X wrote: Jura McBain wrote: Thanks for ruining my skill queu and waste my time to sit in a rorqual. YOu make more change more time we waste in learning the skill to use a rorq. I want refund of my sub because i wasted months (money) training something you are nerfing every day. Ans liek some apointed before. 2 hulks 600M 1 Rorq 12B. Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs? Answer: waste time for learning useless skills. I would like a refund on the skill queues and books, especially the ice mining drones that are what 5b each???? Anything in the game is subject to change and rebalancing. If you're rushing towards something that seems too good to be true then you may want to stop and consider that it just might actually be too good to be true and is about to get whacked with the nerf bat. Signs that something may be about to get nerfed: Everyone rushing towards it like blind lemmings. Tons of threads about how it's either massively OP or is fine and shouldn't be touched. Your personal analysis can't come up with a compelling reason not to use it. It's rendering obsolete, worthless, or of questionable value one or more play styles, ships, modules, or features. The Rorqual hits 1 and 2 cleanly, clearly hit 3 for anyone who immediately rushed to train into a Rorqual, and hits 4 pretty solidly as well in that the actual boosting functionality on the Rorqual has been largely ignored by players, it's replacing boosted mining fleets with either single or groups of Rorquals, and the PANIC abuse specifically was invalidating a lot of tactics around Entosis.
Zanthar Eos Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:07:29 - [150] - Quote First you ruin hics now my battle rorq! CCP just doesn't like pvp

Adolf Mekansm Tardigrade 24	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:08:25 - [151] - Quote Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. I find this change ridiculous. Why not simply make people unable to use the PANIC mode if they have jump fatigue ?
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 155	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:09:36 - [152] - 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.
Niraia Nocturnal Romance The Initiative. 518	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:11:50 - [153] - Quote This seems ridiculously contrived. Why not disallow PANIC activation for a little while after jumping/warping? It would all but kill rorqs being used as hics, since anyone sane would primary them as soon as they arrive on field. It would also allow you to blame the inability to use PANIC on some science fiction thing like interference from warp/jump, instead of not having a rock locked Disappointing, again. GÖÑ
Grymwulf GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:12:31 - [154] - Quote Ok, the amount of salt being generated in this thread is amazing. Let's not go overboard though... Agreed, the nerf to Rorqual yields does seem to be a bit overboard, combined with the other changes it's hard to predict the actual change in yield. I believe the amount of nerfing suggested shows yet again how CCP has very little idea of how to adjust things in a smart and intelligent way. First off, make one change, see how it goes, don't do 3 different changes where the combination of them all can be hard to predict. Honestly, make the changes to one thing at a time, less chance of unintended consequences. Has no one at CCP learned the lesson from the history of overly complicated POS code? This goes again to my earlier comment, don't make big sweeping changes when small steps are capable of addressing the issue. Question #1 - Is there currently a coded mechanic to address overpowered ECM capabilities when a particular module is activated? Question #2 - Is it easier to adapt already existing code that has been through several passes of QA, or to code a truly unique and untested method that has glaringly obvious exploitable issues? Coding an entirely new solution to a problem that already has an easily adapted solution already in the code-base seems more about pride and hubris than anything else. Is this a certain developers attempt to demonstrate that their solution is better than one coded by someone else? Is this ego getting in the way of effective coding? I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2668	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:18:33 - [155] - Quote The spreading out of ore anomalies seems sort of unusual and arbitrary, to me. Where I'm from, folks siege right on top of a rock. When the rock is exhausted, they warp to a perch, then to another rock. Does CCP have metrics stating that a significant number of folks have mining patterns contrary to this? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Ugly Eric Fistful of Finns WE FORM V0LTA 128	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:20:39 - [156] - Quote Just drop max locked targets to zero, when in panic, or if you have fitted entosis/disruptors/scrams/neuts not possible to fit panic. And yet one of the biggest problems a rorqual has is that it can tank too much with cargo that big and newly introduced navy cap booster 3200's. A ship you cannot neut dry enough to not boost that can tank way over 100k dps.
Rengas aquila inc Verge of Collapse 475	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:25:38 - [157] - Quote Sophia Baccarin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Max locked targets = 0 when in PANIC. A much easier solution to all of the problems with this module. yeah their workaround is bizarre
Wibla Tactical Narcotics Team 171	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:26:05 - [158] - Quote Querns wrote: The spreading out of ore anomalies seems sort of unusual and arbitrary, to me. Where I'm from, folks siege right on top of a rock. When the rock is exhausted, they warp to a perch, then to another rock. Does CCP have metrics stating that a significant number of folks have mining patterns contrary to this? You think they base their decisions on actual actionable data? Not sure if trolling or na+»ve. If they actually looked at the data, they would see stuff like the mineral basket causing a surplus of some minerals and the lack of large-scale conflict because the current meta does not promote it.
Side1Bu2Rnz9 Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:30:51 - [159] - Quote Fun fact... With this change regular T2 mining drones will mine at about 1/3rd the m3/minute as the escavators while remaining at about 1500 times less expensive. Way to nerf rorquals and escavator drones into the dirt...
Mia Sedgwick Lazerhawks L A Z E R H A W K S 5	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:32:16 - [160] - Quote Why don't you simply make it that tackle mods can't be activated with PANIC in a similar way to the Network Sensor Array? Yet again a fairly simple solution is available and CCP picks an alternative that can completely nerfs a ship.

Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 67	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:32:34 - [161] - Quote So, in addition to being locked to a grid for 5 minutes (more than enough time for nullified interceptor gangs to cross 3 or 4 systems to wherever the rorqual is mining). But if they bring EWAR I can't even use the PANIC module? On TOP of it getting more nerfs to how much ore it can bring in?
caldari MJ Inner Hell 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:38:12 - [162] - Quote fozzie nerfed anything in WH's and deprived us tasty targets in w-space. We started rolling 0-sec and fozzie nerfed our targets in 0-sec's....facepalm.jpg. Fozzie, i hate you, you realy bad man, how you can sleep every night while so many people hate u?))))
Sgt Warlock 30plus Fidelas Constans 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:38:50 - [163] - Quote For me as average joe it is very simple. The time I have with a 60 hour work week is so few I can do with a nice mining yield. removal of that means it is not worth sititng in a belt anymore with so much in assets. If you want to tweak anything, apply the same things to ratting carriers and see how much salt you get: -get them stuck in place -make all t2 einheirj and such 1.5 bill each and only launch them when in siege -reduce max amount isk gained per tick with 50% More value, more income for CCP and more content!!! So Fozzie, implement this and make the life of all ratters miserable! I wasted 15 billion on drones, my initial rorqual fit was 12 bill which I stripped and sold after the first changes. In training time I wasted a lot of skillpoints and time. In a ratting carrier you make 120-180 mill an hour... are free to move and no worries. In november at Evesterdam there was said no imminent changes untill the spring at least. This is not true again. a simple griffin 1,5m isk can make sure a very big 2000x as expensive ship gets blown up. It is the same thing as having a flea killing an elephant.... In all the time I dedicated myself to mining to help build stuff I always earned less as a ratter. Now finally there was a equalizer to make ratting and mining more equal. In building/mining we make content possible by providing ships for all the battles. So instead of simply removing the ability to use webs/scrams on rorqs, or ban the guys getting caught on that.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2668	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:40:04 - [164] - Quote Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote: Fun fact... With this change regular T2 mining drones will mine at about 1/3rd the m3/minute as the escavators while remaining at about 1500 times less expensive. Way to nerf rorquals and escavator drones into the dirt... i mean, rorquals are mining ships so dirt should be something they're well acquainted with This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
clipper shore Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 7	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:41:19 - [165] - Quote wtf so if you get jammed you cannot use the panic module this is ******** and seems like the dev is looking for the easy option to fix a problem
Rusty Boon xX-Crusader-Xx Tactical Narcotics Team 22	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:41:51 - [166] - Quote I want a complete refund on my Rorq/excavator drones/Skill points/time spent on training. You have now made the rorq completely worthless. You need to completely rethink the mining changes. You cant go off and make this massive change to them in the first place, then kick them in the balls with the 32% nerf, then again with a 50% nerf... You guys are ridiculous. The Rorq is a CAPITAL class ship. It should have Capital Class MINING. I trained into this ship because of my inability to play and earn money ingame. Now you are punishing myself and all the other casuals out there that are trying to keep up with all the people without lives/jobs/girlfriends. Next thing you know you are going to create the equivalent of a jump fatigue timer for using the Industrial core... get rekt fozzie... get rekt right in the pooper.
Suitonia KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 766	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:43:29 - [167] - Quote clipper shore wrote: wtf so if you get jammed you cannot use the panic module this is ******** and seems like the dev is looking for the easy option to fix a problem You can't get jammed in siege, cupcake. Just leave 1 Mercoxit roid alive in belt, Rorqual has 200km lock range base without the lock range skill even trained, with ECM immunity and 80% damp defence. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 16	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:43:39 - [168] - Quote urgh... soooo.... you're making rorquals more of a target, while simultaneusly nerfing it's reward? also, that whole locked asteroid business... is literally the dumbest thing i've heard. why not just disallow activation fo offensive modules/ewar, like the NSAs. I think rorqual yield is fine. the rorqs don't really impact the main minerals market.... just that minerals provided by roids need to be rebalanced. FIX THE DAMNED MEX HOLE. FIX THE HEAVY WATER HOLE.
Suitonia KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 766	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:45:53 - [169] - Quote Rusty Boon wrote: I want a complete refund on my Rorq/excavator drones/Skill points/time spent on training. You have now made the rorq completely worthless. You need to completely rethink the mining changes. You cant go off and make this massive change to them in the first place, then kick them in the balls with the 32% nerf, then again with a 50% nerf... You guys are ridiculous. The Rorq is a CAPITAL class ship. It should have Capital Class MINING. I trained into this ship because of my inability to play and earn money ingame. Now you are punishing myself and all the other casuals out there that are trying to keep up with all the people without lives/jobs/girlfriends. Next thing you know you are going to create the equivalent of a jump fatigue timer for using the Industrial core... get rekt fozzie... get rekt right in the pooper. Its a 25% nerf not a 50% nerf friend. The yield is being halfed, but the rate of fire is increasing by 33% by dropping cycle time from 90s to 60s. This is a 50% buff to yield. As an example Current Excavators will get 2 loads of ore in 3 minutes, or 2 loads current. New Excavators will get 3 loads of ore in 3 minutes, but each load is half, so you'll get 1.5 loads of current. 2 to 1.5 is a 25% nerf. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Sgt Warlock 30plus Fidelas Constans 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:49:13 - [170] - Quote Rusty Boon wrote: I want a complete refund on my Rorq/excavator drones/Skill points/time spent on training. You have now made the rorq completely worthless. You need to completely rethink the mining changes. You cant go off and make this massive change to them in the first place, then kick them in the balls with the 32% nerf, then again with a 50% nerf... You guys are ridiculous. The Rorq is a CAPITAL class ship. It should have Capital Class MINING. I trained into this ship because of my inability to play and earn money ingame. Now you are punishing myself and all the other casuals out there that are trying to keep up with all the people without lives/jobs/girlfriends. I agree on that! I want a refund too, for skills, time and isk Also... Miners unite! cancel all sell orders and make all the prizes better! 1 million isk per mineral... all at once!

darthmoll Amatin Angry Rock Killers Inc. Serrice Council. 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:51:17 - [171] - Quote Malkshurr wrote: At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ? totally aggree. investing billions for the drones. now the market will drop. we loose isk on the drones. then on the mining yield. also not even worth having a rorq on field with indy core active against the loss cost if it gets killed. (yes i know about the depot) can we get offgrid and ongrid boost options and let people decide if they want to go ongrid with rorq??? why ccp why. do we get compensation for the excavator drones market loss? NO.we dont. thx for nothing. i am so demotivated by this.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 6687	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:53:04 - [172] - Quote Heralding a new era of a return to Hulk multi-boxing.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 17	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:55:42 - [173] - Quote darthmoll Amatin wrote: Malkshurr wrote: At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ? totally aggree. investing billions for the drones. now the market will drop. we loose isk on the drones. then on the mining yield. also not even worth having a rorq on field with indy core active against the loss cost if it gets killed. (yes i know about the depot) can we get offgrid and ongrid boost options and let people decide if they want to go ongrid with rorq??? why ccp why. do we get compensation for the excavator drones market loss? NO.we dont. thx for nothing. i am so demotivated by this. also, remember, drones are killmails now...
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 26	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:55:57 - [174] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here I mean he can panic, just not PANIC They needed a nerf, well done.
Jura McBain Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:57:01 - [175] - Quote 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
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 17	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:57:41 - [176] - Quote caldari MJ wrote: fozzie nerfed anything in WH's and deprived us tasty targets in w-space. We started rolling 0-sec and fozzie nerfed our targets in 0-sec's....facepalm.jpg. Fozzie, i hate you, you realy bad man, how you can sleep every night while so many people hate u?)))) you know u dun fukd up ur rorqual changes, when even the rorqual hunters are salty
Redblazer696 Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:58:21 - [177] - Quote Why cant we just do something simple like what you have done to the "Network Sensor Arrays" on carriers make an utterly ridiculous capacitor cost for activating EWAR while in Panic mode = To over its total cap pool
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 68	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:58:51 - [178] - Quote I just want to call out for emphasis - you can EWAR the rorqual now so it can't use it's panic module.
Jean-Luc II United Federation of Planets - Star Fleet Division 6	Posted - 2017.02.23 20:59:55 - [179] - Quote CCP, You need to drastically decrease the price of the Excavators to around 300 mill sharpish for the players who fly Rorquals to be OK with this. Even then there are going to be a lot of people really not happy about this who have invested SP training and ISK already into huge fleets of your mighty Rorquals, to be left with the equivalent of 2 Hulks per Roqual which costs 20 bill a pop. Honestly, this defines all logic.
Sgt Warlock 30plus Fidelas Constans 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:03:06 - [180] - Quote Jean-Luc II wrote: CCP, You need to drastically decrease the price of the Excavators to around 300 mill sharpish for the players who fly Rorquals to be OK with this. Even then there are going to be a lot of people really not happy about this who have invested SP training and ISK already into huge fleets of your mighty Rorquals, to be left with the equivalent of 2 Hulks per Roqual which costs 20 bill a pop. Honestly, this defines all logic. that requires everyone who has excavator drones to be refunded 1,2 bill per drone too

Mattersn2 Out-of-Space Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:04:24 - [181] - Quote So ... reducing the yield to another 25% but can we decrease the time of a industrial core of 25% too ?? seriously ... if i go with 2 other hulks that can warp nearly instantly out and a rorqual keeps there for 5 mins and does only double of that income ... that is WAY more RISK than income in my eyes ... and to keep the mineral prices up bring something like max. 15 industrial cores in range of 600 km ....
Horus Cherenkov Zap Blap Mining Co. The Methodical Alliance 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:07:12 - [182] - Quote Just tossing my opinion on the pile: I can understand the nerf to yield, and I hate it, but I can understand it. Thats fine. The PANIC change is so contrived its a little absurd. Just disable Ewar with PANIC. Very simple change.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 706	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:07:27 - [183] - Quote So the CSM got a freebie to Iceland.. Then decided to shaft the miners again? Way to go guys :/ 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.
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 69	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:08:43 - [184] - Quote Excavator drone materials to build need to be cut to match the cut in yield.
Redblazer696 Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:11:33 - [185] - Quote [/quote] I mean he can panic, just not PANIC [/quote] Your a ********** mate if you think this is even remotely funny you have no idea what your doing as a Dev
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3059	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:13:38 - [186] - Quote While I understand the desire to limit the PANIC module to defensive instead of offensive uses, the mechanic you chose to achieve that end seems rather broken. Attackers bring EWAR to the belt? No PANIC. Rorq pilot happens to not be actively mining yet still supporting the mining op? No PANIC. Not to mention...is there any other module in the game that requires a target lock on a particular class of object in order to activate an effect that does nothing to the targeted object? One-off mechanics like this are just bad design. CCP...scrap this and go back to the drawing board. Surely there is another way to limit PANIC modules to non-combat situations. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Whisperen Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:13:46 - [187] - Quote **** changes disallow tackle during panic just like carriers and NSA's that is it you had one job to do.
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 69	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:14:19 - [188] - Quote What did the CSM think of this?
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2670	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:14:36 - [189] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Attackers bring EWAR to the belt? No PANIC. Wrong. The Industrial Core provides full EWAR immunity. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Redblazer696 Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:14:49 - [190] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here I mean he can panic, just not PANIC Your a ********** mate, To even think this is funny means you dont have what it takes to be a Dev.

Tempkin Angry Rock Killers Inc. Serrice Council. 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:17:34 - [191] - Quote Need bigger looking roids.
Anya Aivora Sister Margaret's School for Wayward Clones 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:22:00 - [192] - Quote Okay so you want rorqs to only use panic when mining. What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. You simple could have made them "be within 200km of an asteroid BELT/anom to use panic", and made the anom stick around for 5 minutes at the least to allow rorqs to get out. You could have made ewar not usable while paniced. You could have made it so so aggressive actions can be used while paniced. But no, you go with the one approach that is the most backwards and stupid idea you've ever come up with, and you've had a lot of stupid ideas. (remember when you thought mining dronesrorqual350mil/hr was a good idea?) A rorqual can now be killed by a small group with ecm. Or can be killed when still sieged in the belt once you finish mining it out. Well done ccp. The mining amount for a none sieged rorq was perfect before the first nerf. You should be nerfing the indy core and not the drones. 12+Bil sieged is not an amount worth using for 2.5 hulks worth of ore. 130mil/hr for a 12bil rorq, this is a little over what a perfect hulk got mining before the the expansion If I didn't say it yet, WELL DONE CCP. Hell 2 vni's are a better way of making isk than 2.5 hulks, or 1 rorqual.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2670	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:22:46 - [193] - Quote Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Hlory Gole Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:27:01 - [194] - Quote Jura McBain wrote: Thanks for ruining my skill queu and waste my time to sit in a rorqual. YOu make more change more time we waste in learning the skill to use a rorq. I want refund of my sub because i wasted months (money) training something you are nerfing every day. Ans liek some apointed before. 2 hulks 600M 1 Rorq 12B. Now ,what is the point of mining whit rorqs? Answer: waste time for learning useless skills. I don't even want to calculate the investment in skills alone. And if CCP continue employing retards, I will have to extract all those skills back.
Jura McBain Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 6	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:27:35 - [195] - Quote 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 http://imgur.com/a/FH7XS ROFL
clipper shore Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 9	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:29:20 - [196] - Quote BURN JITTA TILL ALL THE NERFS ARE REVERSED
Grymwulf GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:30:30 - [197] - Quote Querns wrote: Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) I've seen this stated, but don't notice anything in the attributes of the Industrial Core that indicate that this ability is granted. I see -80% resistance bonuses to Sensor Dampener, Remote Assistance Impedance, but nothing regarding ECM. I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
Vagizzle Schrimshank Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 30	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:30:45 - [198] - Quote Querns wrote: Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) Wrong Anya statement is entirely correct. If a rorqual is ECM'd it will not be able to PANIC. No where in their statement did they mention the core was on. You are assuming the core is always on.
Matou83 Core Industry. Blades of Grass 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:32:11 - [199] - Quote go trash rorqual? serisouly CCP for the trash continue the direction opinion and **** you for my money
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 75	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:32:34 - [200] - Quote CCP - Rorquals are OP best put them back where they were before we buffed them.

Grymwulf GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:35:12 - [201] - Quote Grymwulf wrote: Querns wrote: Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) I've seen this stated, but don't notice anything in the attributes of the Industrial Core that indicate that this ability is granted. I see -80% resistance bonuses to Sensor Dampener, Remote Assistance Impedance, but nothing regarding ECM. I just tested it, and you are quite correct - "xxx cannot be influenced by xxx ECM due to its resistances." Limitation: Industrial Core must be active. I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
socos Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 5	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:36:37 - [202] - Quote The worst thing of all this is that CCP needs (again) to balance something that was just redesigned (the rorqual concept). Next time when they do a major change they need to investigate better what the consequence will be and avoid a situation like this when they have to do 2 nerfs in less then 3 months. People is investing isk / time / injectors / skills to a patch or a change and the got :scammed: by ccp
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2672	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:37:46 - [203] - Quote Grymwulf wrote: Querns wrote: Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) I've seen this stated, but don't notice anything in the attributes of the Industrial Core that indicate that this ability is granted. I see -80% resistance bonuses to Sensor Dampener, Remote Assistance Impedance, but nothing regarding ECM. https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=42890 Hit the attributes tab, scroll all the way to the bottom. ECMResistance 0%. (This value is inverted; 0% means "immune.") Edit: Saw your post above after I hit submit; more verification is always good! This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2672	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:38:50 - [204] - Quote Vagizzle Schrimshank wrote: Querns wrote: Anya Aivora wrote: What you have now done has made it so panic is completely useless. They can't use panic when ecm'd. Wrong. Industrial cores provide full ECM immunity when running. (Times I have repeated this: 3) Wrong Anya statement is entirely correct. If a rorqual is ECM'd it will not be able to PANIC. No where in their statement did they mention the core was on. You are assuming the core is always on. If the rorqual is in the belt, it's probably sieged. The purpose of PANIC is to allow you time to exit siege, so you can catch remote reps from escalating Force Auxiliaries. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Brescal Therapy. Circle-Of-Two 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:41:06 - [205] - Quote Thank god! this rework couldnt have come fast enough. Having 6-7 accounts in rorquals like some people have is EVIDENCE of a serious imbalance. The mineral market is tanking and afk drone mining with stupid rorquals is busted. Thank you Fozzie for fixing it :D and heres a video showing how players are capitalizing on the stupid mining drones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIgpGazqVkI&feature=youtu.be
Grymwulf GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:46:01 - [206] - Quote Querns wrote: [quote=Grymwulf][quote=Querns] https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=42890 Hit the attributes tab, scroll all the way to the bottom. ECMResistance 0%. (This value is inverted; 0% means "immune.") Edit: Saw your post above after I hit submit; more verification is always good! But this just demonstrates the ease of solving it by adding 1 database entry for this item - https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=41411 "EW Capacitor Need Bonus9999900 %" So, the choice is allocation of developer time and resources. Write 1 line of SQL code to add an attribute to an itemID OR spend many developer man-hours custom programming a solution, additional QA man-hours testing the solution, and additional complexity to an already complex code base. I wonder which is easier? I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
Jura McBain Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 7	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:46:32 - [207] - Quote socos wrote: The worst thing of all this is that CCP needs (again) to balance something that was just redesigned (the rorqual concept). Next time when they do a major change they need to investigate better what the consequence will be and avoid a situation like this when they have to do 2 nerfs in less then 3 months. People is investing isk / time / injectors / skills to a patch or a change and the got :scammed: by ccp http://imgur.com/a/FH7XS
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 30	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:46:40 - [208] - Quote Querns wrote: Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT. I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals. If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. What a load of bollocks. The Mexallon has been intended as a feature of the game several times by the devs. If you want more go wormhole diving. The mineral prices drop because null-sec has reduced dependence on exporting from high-sec. Less demand, same supply, lower price - economics 101. If you are so set on independence then we bring the 90% jump protection to the table of negotiation. There has been plenty of carrots given to null industry, it's now time for sticks. Perhaps high-sec can have direct access to small amounts Zyd and Mega - why not, you're holding out a hand.
TheRighteousOne Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:48:26 - [209] - Quote Two things: Make the drones a LOT cheaper to warrant these nerfs because the risk/reward ratio is getting out of control Just take away all offensive ecm stuff from the rorq and be done with it. No more complaing about battle rorqs and ppl can still panic as intended The suggested solution with the locked asteroid is the worst thing i have seen since i started playing this game
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3862	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:49:33 - [210] - Quote Querns wrote: If the rorqual is in the belt, it's probably sieged. The purpose of PANIC is to allow you time to exit siege, so you can catch remote reps from escalating Force Auxiliaries. Unless it is moving between rocks due to the super slow drone flight speed. If this change to Panic was coming with a massive buff to Excavator speed to enable them to mine asteroids further away, it would be a lot more reasonable, but there are a lot of times where they will not be in siege for whatever reason at which point ECM will stop them using Panic. Simply put, it's a bad mechanic and should be addressed in some other way.

Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:49:35 - [211] - Quote Suitonia wrote: You can't get jammed in siege, cupcake. Just leave 1 Mercoxit roid alive in belt, Rorqual has 200km lock range base without the lock range skill even trained, with ECM immunity and 80% damp defence. So, I mean, we're already sitting in our anoms with 12 rorqs not boosting because mining foreman bursts inexplicably give combat timers that prevent refits and give rorq pilots no incentive to boost unless they need to address the mercoxit menace. wait, we need to roll, well let me go high cap full tank and boost the subcaps for the last few 'roids. oh look, a new cosmic signature! www HALP i did actually respect your suggested svipul nerfs because you were an avid field researcher in fade but i'm not sure if anyone involved with this ship redesign has actually used it.
Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 110	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:49:54 - [212] - Quote Querns wrote: Panther X wrote: You want me to stop mining? Increase the Security Class of some of our systems. Kill the broken True Sec of Delve, and move it to Vale :) Broken truesec doesn't affect ore anomalies. We only get 10% yield anoms in -0.85 or better, same as you. You're right, but that's not what I was saying. I was referring to CCP's economic interest in getting us to stop mining. I will stop mining when ratting stops being ***. In Delve it's an Officer spawn every over exaggerated cough* 35 seconds (yes I'm being overdramatic, but you know what I'm saying) My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 30	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:53:01 - [213] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks! CCP Fozzie, can you please increase the range of the "ORE Miner" - that would keep it in line the other Outer Ring offerings.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2673	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:54:07 - [214] - Quote Grymwulf wrote: Querns wrote: [quote=Grymwulf][quote=Querns] https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=42890 Hit the attributes tab, scroll all the way to the bottom. ECMResistance 0%. (This value is inverted; 0% means "immune.") Edit: Saw your post above after I hit submit; more verification is always good! But this just demonstrates the ease of solving it by adding 1 database entry for this item - https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=41411 "EW Capacitor Need Bonus9999900 %" So, the choice is allocation of developer time and resources. Write 1 line of SQL code to add an attribute to an itemID OR spend many developer man-hours custom programming a solution, additional QA man-hours testing the solution, and additional complexity to an already complex code base. I wonder which is easier? Doesn't solve the problem. I even posted about this earlier in the thread, but a fellow on GSF Jabber turned me around to the problem. (Thanks, The Slayer!) Making the rorqual PANIC mode turn off ewar doesn't actually solve the Jump Hictor Problem, or any of the combat rorqual problems. The moderate hack presented here, while unwieldy, provides the best compromise between the reality of the game and the design intention for you to only be able to PANIC while mining or supporting other miners. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Cade Windstalker 882	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:54:08 - [215] - Quote Grymwulf wrote: Ok, the amount of salt being generated in this thread is amazing. Let's not go overboard though... Agreed, the nerf to Rorqual yields does seem to be a bit overboard, combined with the other changes it's hard to predict the actual change in yield. I believe the amount of nerfing suggested shows yet again how CCP has very little idea of how to adjust things in a smart and intelligent way. First off, make one change, see how it goes, don't do 3 different changes where the combination of them all can be hard to predict. Honestly, make the changes to one thing at a time, less chance of unintended consequences. Has no one at CCP learned the lesson from the history of overly complicated POS code? This goes again to my earlier comment, don't make big sweeping changes when small steps are capable of addressing the issue. Question #1 - Is there currently a coded mechanic to address overpowered ECM capabilities when a particular module is activated? Question #2 - Is it easier to adapt already existing code that has been through several passes of QA, or to code a truly unique and untested method that has glaringly obvious exploitable issues? Coding an entirely new solution to a problem that has an easily adapted solution already in the code-base seems more about pride and hubris than anything else. Is this a certain developers attempt to demonstrate that their solution is better than one coded by someone else? Is this ego getting in the way of effective coding? Couple of points against this interpretation of events: First off, CCP's already nerfed the Rorqual once, and it apparently didn't fix the issues they were seeing with Rorqual use and the mineral market, so they have been taking things incrementally. Considering the first round of changes didn't do much I think it's a bit silly to be claiming that this second set of changes is too far... Second, CCP can't perfectly predict how players are going to react to a change or the full impact of that change. What CCP are trying to do here is modulate player behavior in aggregate (aka, people are mining too much ore too quickly). If you can predict the impact of any change perfectly then I think CCP might want to offer you a job, at least if they can beat out the half dozen global spy agencies trying to 'recruit' you... As for the code change, I'm assuming you're referring to the "is an asteroid locked" thing. First off, that bears almost no resemblance in any way to the POS code. The problem with the POS code was that it was written in the very very early days of CCP, was fundamentally tied into a lot of different systems, and the entire core concept of the POS shield was creating issues, exploits, and bad edge cases. Unless you've found a way to spontaneously generate asteroids on-grid with you then none of this applies to this change. What this change does do is mean that CCP don't have to go running around chasing abuse cases because they've essentially gone with a white-list approach rather than a black-list one. It's not even like it requires much if any new code, modules check what you have locked all the time when activating.
Anya Aivora Sister Margaret's School for Wayward Clones 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 21:59:10 - [216] - Quote At this point ccp, you really need a rerebalance for the rorq. Scrap the panic, scrap the siege and scrap these disgusting drones. A copy and pasta capital strip miner was a better idea than this garbage.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2673	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:00:47 - [217] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: Querns wrote: Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT. I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals. If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. What a load of bollocks. The Mexallon has been intended as a feature of the game several times by the devs. If you want more go wormhole diving. The mineral prices drop because null-sec has reduced dependence on exporting from high-sec. Less demand, same supply, lower price - economics 101. If you are so set on independence then we bring the 90% jump protection to the table of negotiation. There has been plenty of carrots given to null industry, it's now time for sticks. Perhaps high-sec can have direct access to small amounts Zyd and Mega - why not, you're holding out a hand. Wormhole ore sites have bupkis for minerals. The fact that you even suggested that as a supplement to our mexallon intake shows you have no clue what you're talking about. The problem isn't having ENOUGH minerals, it's the ratio. We can get all the minerals we need, even mexallon, with enough mining. The issue is that we end up oversupplied on pyerite and isogen. (Exporting pyerite is hideously cost inefficient, but isogen isn't, which is why it's nearly half the price of mexallon despite being in a higher "rarity tier.") Adjusting the ratio isn't about getting us more mexallon, it's about making our growing stores of pyerite and isogen actually worth something. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2673	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:01:42 - [218] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Querns wrote: If the rorqual is in the belt, it's probably sieged. The purpose of PANIC is to allow you time to exit siege, so you can catch remote reps from escalating Force Auxiliaries. Unless it is moving between rocks due to the super slow drone flight speed. If this change to Panic was coming with a massive buff to Excavator speed to enable them to mine asteroids further away, it would be a lot more reasonable, but there are a lot of times where they will not be in siege for whatever reason at which point ECM will stop them using Panic. Simply put, it's a bad mechanic and should be addressed in some other way. If you're moving between rocks, and you get dropped, siege immediately and wait up to 20 seconds? Are you saying you can't survive for 20 seconds? If you're worried, fit a Capital Emergency Hull Energizer in addition to your PANIC, which will GUARANTEE that you live long enough to survive. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Abdullah 3li Angry Rock Killers Inc. Serrice Council. 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:06:09 - [219] - Quote Dear CCP, First of all I hope your doing well. I am amused by your brilliant ideas on the topic of Nerfing Capital Industrial ship's. Since the beginning when you started changing all the bonuses on these ships without having the Vision on future repercussions on the game economy e.t.c. Ore and mineral prices. As one of the Industrial players my self, I fnd these changes very annoying and tbh dumb. 1) Excavator Drone, when they where introduced into the game they where very effect at mining, then you realized that they are more powerful then you intended them to be. from the start they where over priced and their effectiveness went something like this (Release 5 drones can mine as 7 Hulks) then a balanced Nerf ( Now 5 Drones can mine as 5 Hulks) and finally ( inc changes 5 Drones = 2 Halks) don't you think such a huge Nerf would effect the price of those drones? Are you going to Compensate every player that payed a huge sum of ISK back. Maybe I should pickle them in hanger till you fix them. 2) PANIC Module, this module was ** since it was introduced , it gives the bonuses to the PVPer we did not benefit from it. People who want to use the Excavator Drones should be on the Grid. people who safe boosting should be able to boost from POS. This plays more into Risk and Reward then the current stuff your doing. Maybe in the future start serving players about such dramatic changes in the game play and Ruining our experience and making the game less fun. We are paying real money for subscriptions and alot of time that now feels likes its been wasted. it feels like these changes was meant for some selected players and cooperation /alliances i think many player know what do i mean. I would like to say more but I know none at CCP will give a ** about my post. Best Regards Abdul o7 CCP
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 1581	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:10:06 - [220] - Quote Porthos Jacobs wrote: So if I bring Ewar to get a rorqual it cannot panic now. bonus Good luck with jamming out a rorqual there, boyo

Yonneh Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:21:44 - [221] - Quote Considering that you are effectively removing the ship, with the significant yield nerf; will you be refunding all SP spent on rorquals? There are no other ships that use the Capital Industrial Ships, Invulnerability Core Operations, or Mining Drone Specialization skills. Larger Asteroids will result in a 5-10% yield reduction Direct 50% Yield Nerf Increased ore anomaly sizes mean significantly more drone travel time. 33% decrease in cycle time is effectively an 11% decrease; as only 1/3 of the drones time is spent mining. V/r, Yonneh
Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 9	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:25:52 - [222] - Quote You have to understand that nerfing the rorqual won't affect the prices that much. People who have fleets of 5-10 rorqual alts will still make huge ammounts of money from them, the only people who will get the sharp end of the stick will be the small guys with one rorqual and casual players who like to mine. You have to find another way to fix the market and keep away the nerf bat from rorqual yields.
Shkiki MastersCraft 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:26:24 - [223] - Quote This is all about bringing back the 12 account macro miners. I was very happy mining solo without the need to sport $120 a month on various miner accounts. Stop being Petty CCP.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3063	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:27:36 - [224] - Quote Querns wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Attackers bring EWAR to the belt? No PANIC. Wrong. The Industrial Core provides full EWAR immunity. Fair point, although as discussed above not all mining/support Rorqs have a core running. There's got to be a cleaner way to flag a Rorq as "engaged in mining operations" or, at least, "not acting as uber-tackle" than simply whether or not they have an asteroid locked. Weapons timer is out due to the timer generated by command bursts. Adding a separate flag just for this is just as clumsy as the current solution. Maybe simply disallow modules requiring Propulsion Jamming from being used on the Rorqual at all? This seems like a cleaner solution that's more in-line with the Rorqual's role, would still let it PANIC in non-combat and non-mining situations, but would limit its use as an offensive unit. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Exia Lennelluc Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:30:49 - [225] - Quote I'm trying to find where the reward will be after this patch sense the risk is still a 12b ship. Probably going to go back to mutliboxing exhumers sense thats much easier and i dont have to worry about my mining drones being destroyed by npc
Harrigan Raen 19	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:35:27 - [226] - Quote A second nerf to the excavator drone, can you at least bring down the construction cost too?
ultimatefox02 Core Industry. Blades of Grass 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:36:25 - [227] - Quote Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. Ce changement est complètement stupide, j'investis 12 ou 13B sur un Rorqual , qui en passant étais supposé être une bête de minage (= a 5 barge environ) et peut après il ce fait nerf et vaut maintenant 3/4 barges , et la il va être environ 2/3 barges, la vous me casser mon game play, ont investis beaucoup de ISK sur c'est rorqual et la vous casser notre rendement , pour une fois que les mineur avait un boost, vous l'avez augmenter pour mieux la nerf après , et que vous la nerfé une fois ok,mais 2 fois et de cette façon la , je vous prédit la fermeture de plusieurs de mes comptes sinon tous , si vous continuer a casser mon EVE.
Falcon Starwalker Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:36:30 - [228] - Quote I am sure that having reduced the "excavator" drones by nearly half now, this also comes with a reduction in build cost by nearly half as well. Currently we are paying nearly 1.1B in build cost for a drone that has crap for HP, slow as the year is long, and now has the mining yield of a poorly skilled mining barge with no upgrades or links. While I realize price doesn't equal reward, it damn well should pay for itself in a decent amount of time, and with this nerf you are reducing its value while offering nothing in return. The cost was already hitting a point where risk vs reward was next to equal, now the balance is heavily sided on more risk than reward. In exchange for these massively painful nerfs, there should be a healthy HP buff, PANIC can effect them or the cost dropped in half. The build cost was based on these being "powerful" boosts to mining, but if that is not going to be the case, then balance needs to be on both sides of the equation.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 18	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:37:24 - [229] - Quote Penance Toralen wrote: Querns wrote: Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT. I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals. If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. What a load of bollocks. The Mexallon has been intended as a feature of the game several times by the devs. If you want more go wormhole diving. The mineral prices drop because null-sec has reduced dependence on exporting from high-sec. Less demand, same supply, lower price - economics 101. If you are so set on independence then we bring the 90% jump protection to the table of negotiation. There has been plenty of carrots given to null industry, it's now time for sticks. Perhaps high-sec can have direct access to small amounts Zyd and Mega - why not, you're holding out a hand. no. wormholes don't give enough ore. minerals need to be balanced. it's driving down the price of all the other minerals. that is what is screwing the mineral market. fine, you want to throw sticks at us Indy players? how do you like not having any morphite?
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3471	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:43:08 - [230] - Quote Interesting proposal, looks a bit artificial to me ... but the only question I have is, will it lead to more Rorquals used and die or not? I'm my own NPC alt.

Paul Ares Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 5	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:49:13 - [231] - Quote "Foozie makes a bunch of stupid pointless changes (don't ever remove this from the OP, because it is always true)" Anyone who thinks being a "good loser" is a virtue is probably a f***ing loser.
Minerva Arbosa Astrocomical Warped Intentions 26	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:54:32 - [232] - Quote CCP Fozzie [u wrote: PANIC Module:[/u] We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Why not have just make e-war have the same penalty as carriers? Like hey you are in PANIC mode, you can't use that freaking that e-war module as you don't have a large enough capacitor pool. Problem solved without all of the other nerfs that you are proposing.
Hamasaki Cross Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 24	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:54:56 - [233] - Quote I'm against the Rorqual changes and basically I'd love to see Fozzie resign because he has wrecked this game enough over the years. Lets hire some people who do this weird thing like listen to people who aren't PL. Oh and even cooler awesomer idea would be don't implement features which cost 37.5 Billion isk to train, then turn around after you've spent the money on potentially multiple accounts and completely bork it. I'm lucky because I assumed CCP are totally incompetent from the beginning and limited my exposure to only 4/10 of my mining accounts. So only 150 billion isk pissed away because CCP decided to change their mind after using the live server to test market effects of overly poweful rorquals. Now it's a million times more feasible to use hulks x 10 than rorqual x 5. and hulks x 10 = 2b + 80b in injected skills = 82b vs rorquals x 5 = 62.5b + 175b in injected skills = 237.5b. Oh and your killboard doesn't get raped. CCP borked it completely. Business as normal in Iceland it seems. You want to change a tristan, knock yourself out. It takes 5 mins to train something else. You want to change cap mechanics (and rorquals are caps last I checked), you are talking 6 months of retraining, But that's CCP's business model isn't it? You can't get new subscribers obviously, since you were desperate enough to go free to play, so instead, the new business model is completely bork characters so they are forced to RIP skills and REINJECT those skills elsewhere at a loss, both financially, and in lost SP. Next, lets nerf super carriers and make dreads the new go to ratting isk faucet. And once everyone switches, or injects to dreads, lets change it to Titans, then once that's working well for people, lets change it back to rorqual. Then implement a new T2 bullshit ship that requires all new skills. Adapt and overcome my ass. Just assume incompetence and go play something else. That's my game plan.
Hamasaki Cross Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 26	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:56:42 - [234] - Quote Finally, lets be honest and stop bullshitting with the rhetoric "proposed changes" These aren't proposed changes. that's a crock of ****. These are final. After 13 years, can we just call it as it is? "Here's the changes we are going to do whether it's totally borked or not" Edit: CCP making changes in Eve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjkkjH0GnfY
Malthuras The Scope Gallente Federation 22	Posted - 2017.02.23 22:59:30 - [235] - Quote You want to make the rorqual mine less? Fine Then do something about the price of excavators so that the initial cost of the rorqual isn't so dumb. Then I can get behind these changes. Also, panic without asteroid? So all someone has to do is wait until a belt is cleared and boom, dead rorq.
Jo Kiyoko Perkone Caldari State 8	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:08:35 - [236] - Quote I know you're trying to bring vulnerability to rorqs to cyno ganks; any plans to make the cyno module a destroyer and size up only module?
eeyan spork The Foundation for Law and Government. Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:13:26 - [237] - Quote And with one f $%#ings post you just devalued the SP I extracted to inject 3 rorq pilots. I want my f#%$ing SP back in my hulk miners. This is stupid. My 60 billion is now worth 30 billion. Thanks a lot a!@#%!.
Hamasaki Cross Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 27	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:17:45 - [238] - Quote eeyan spork wrote: And with one f $%#ings post you just devalued the SP I extracted to inject 3 rorq pilots. I want my f#%$ing SP back in my hulk miners. This is stupid. My 60 billion is now worth 30 billion. Thanks a lot a!@#%!. Don't you realize that's the new CCP business model? It's the only viable way to make meaningful income these days by screwing over the customer base.
arkarsk Tritanium Industries and Technology Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:28:03 - [239] - Quote I don't usually post on such matters as game changes are game changes; you adapt. Whether you agree with the changes or not; BTW I don't. The way in which CCP have gone about the rorqual changes is irresponsible (from business perspective) and hap hazard. Apart from the fact they will alienate a HUGE player base now. In the first instance the initial changes were sweeping and profound. As a consequence the rorqual drones were nerfed, we accepted that and moved on. Now at this late stage in the changes we have a huge number of pilots that have respecceded and invested huge sums of isk into a new gameplay. This has involved mass skill injecting, liquidation of stocks , plex etc. We all know people that have p[oughed their years of assets into rorqual mining. Lets not forget the huge cost of fielding a rorqual, in part due to the rediculous cost of excavator drones. Now CCP nerfs the ship to the ground (read: in relation to cost) negating all the sweeping changes people have made to their pilots skills and isk investment. Honestly, CCP can do what they want but it will see people leaving the game after such heavy investment in both time, risk and skill points. All i can say is the initial rorqual changes have been great, and i don't mean from isk perspective, i mean from a gameplay perspective. Its introduced more organised home defence systems which bring content for all. Its brought kill mails throughout. Its introduced an entirely new gameplay of drone stealing. Overall i believe it was great for the game. Change this and people won't field them anymore. SIMPLE. You want to change ore and mineral prices, then change the mexallon bottleneck ffs! Then perhaps you won't have so much tritanium or isogen on the market. Concurrently change the anom spawning rate. You want to stop Jump HICS then stop the ability to tackle with panic mode. Not this half baked 'rock' targeting method. Im disappointed in CCPs lack of understanding and/or care of the player bases investment in time /isk and sp. tldr: poorly conceived changes that don't address the real problems. Welcome to reduced subscriptions. Well at least from me.
AOSA Atreidun Order 7	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:28:17 - [240] - Quote I don't understand the reason you chose that "solution" for the PANIC module... Rest sounds legit.

Redblazer696 Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion 4	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:28:18 - [241] - Quote Cant everyone see this is CCP F(_)CKStick Fozzie's great attempt at killing the excavator market because all you guys are gonna cry your tears and firesale your AFK Autism drones affectivly crashing the market so their no longer worth anything just to have in a few months CCP F(_)CKStick think its about time they buff the Rorqs again.
MajkStone 30plus Fidelas Constans 17	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:34:58 - [242] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Excavator Drones: 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. [list] Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. If you are going to nerf the yield you need to reduce the cycle time on the Industry core to compensate.
Brescal Therapy. Circle-Of-Two 3	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:36:34 - [243] - Quote bye bye AFK drone mining :D i love these tears
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 437	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:42:24 - [244] - Quote An interesting solution to PANIC mode being used as an invulnerable Cyno, entosis, and tackle platform... consistent with your policy regarding POS garrage doors and invulnerability on Cyno and tackle generation. But like others have said: it means outside of being in an asteroid field, a Rorqual willl be extra vulnerable when moving between locations. This is mainly an issue if you are dealing with gate to gate movement. so outside of cynoing to another system or warping to a bookmark, the pilot will need to be extra careful. I suppose the other option was to simply prevent a Rorqual from being able to activate a Cyno or warp scram/disrupt while PANIC mode is active.... given either option: requiring a target lock on a asteroid seems the most reasonable way to deal with the issue without complicating the code to something obscene or making Rorquals in PANIC mode incapable of calling in support. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space. Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Captain Pierce State War Academy Caldari State 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:48:07 - [245] - Quote Why Not Bring back the Old Triage Carrier Solution Just increase The Cap Use of Ewar Module while in Panic about a Few Thousend Percent then the Tackle will breack after 2-3 Cycles
Lord Nighthawk Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture 2	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:50:33 - [246] - Quote agree with the Panic change sort of. it shouldn't be an invulnerable capital tackler.. but requiring it to have roid locked is pathetic. Excavator drones.. smaller reduction.. something like 130/m3-60s.. that's 11.4% Then keep an eye on things. Unless you want to post data to support your OVER nerfing once again.. 2 Orca boosted maxed hulks(with implants) is approx. 1/7 the risk and 85%+ish the yield.. better risk vs reward ratio and they aren't stuck there
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 19	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:54:45 - [247] - Quote Lord Nighthawk wrote: agree with the Panic change sort of. it shouldn't be an invulnerable capital tackler.. but requiring it to have roid locked is pathetic. Excavator drones.. smaller reduction.. something like 130/m3-60s.. that's 11.4% Then keep an eye on things. Unless you want to post data to support your OVER nerfing once again.. 2 Orca boosted maxed hulks(with implants) is approx. 1/7 the risk and 85%+ish the yield.. better risk vs reward ratio and they aren't stuck there I have no problems with this. you can always nerf it more, later, but the mineral market is gonna keep deteriorating until the minerals get rebalanced.
Raindeth FACTION Inc. 20	Posted - 2017.02.23 23:59:59 - [248] - Quote Trying to fix the mineral market is a good idea. Nerfing rorquals (again) is probably not the smartest way of doing so. Why? 1. By nerfing the yield, you accomplish one of two things. Either rorqual miners will decide it is no longer worth the time and risk, and therefore do significantly less mining, or they will simply spend more time mining what they need. If the former happens, you have a bunch of pissed off players who have spent significant ISK and SP to now watch their rorqual rot in a station. If the latter happens, you have not fixed the market. 2. By the time you nerf rorquals enough to fix the market, rorqual pilots will be left with something that if you had announced what it settles on being in the initial roll-out of turning the rorqual into a mining ship, everyone looking at it would tell you to go get "fooled with." 3. To fix the mineral market, you need to do a couple things. First, there is still an unlimited supply of ore. Why? Increase spawned belts and eliminate or greatly reduce ore in static belts. And more importantly, INCREASE DEMAND. You have not only increased rorqual mining yields, but with the citadel changes to reprocessing, a lot more minerals can be squeezed out of ore these days (up to 87.5% refine). Of course, mineral prices are gonna crash. You can start by removing basic ammo from all NPC loot tables. That has the added benefit of giving new industrialists a chance to make something that can be profitable. I'm sure there are other ways to increase demand for minerals. I hope you think carefully in this direction before nerfing rorquals again. Oh! and as for requiring PANIC to require having an asteroid targeted: this is the kind of idea I'd expect from our new president. It opens up a mess in so many ways. "OK, what do I need to target to activate THIS module?" Just don't even start down that road.
MajkStone 30plus Fidelas Constans 18	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:00:07 - [249] - Quote Archeos wrote: PANIC module can only be activated by having a lock on an asteroid ? What if i just finished an asteroid and still have a cycle on my inustrial core and get dropped ? What if i get dropped while travelling from one asteroid to another ? And the gang dropping on me has a falcon that ECM's me ? This is an absolutely idiotic solution. Can't you just make it so that the panic button breaks all target locks, and you can only activate panic when you have the industrial core running. And futhermore make fitting or running the industrial core disable the use of any ewar modules on the rorqual. As for the nerf of excavator drones - ARE YOU KIDDING ME ? A set of excavators costs 7 Billion + 2.7 for the rorq + fittings, that makes the rorqual a 12 billion ship, that barely makes nearly the same income than a carrier (ratting ticks+ ESS lp + loot) at SIX TIMES THE COST OF A CARRIER !!! I just spent a LOT of money to fit my rorq, and now you want me to go back to carrier ratting ?? I understand that the mineral market is not healthy right now, but there must be better solutions. Such as finding a sinkhole for the excess minerals like tritanium and pyrite. Just increase the ammounts of those minerals needed to build ships and structures, and the market will get healthy pretty quickly again. If you want to close the gap between the rorq and an a exhumer just buff the exhumers, but leave the rorq alone. CCP FOZZIE don't mess this game again. Exactly.
nm Kain Cuddly Seals DRONE WALKERS 19	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:05:18 - [250] - Quote The Rorqual changes are awful. I might not have the numbers correct, but without skills of any kind, the mining yield is 400m3 per drone and with the changes it will be 110m3 which is like a 70% nerf on top of the 30% to mining yield a month or 2 ago. It's rediculous. I won't go into it too much but I am seriously looking at different games to play, as I have had my fill of CCP bad choices.

feelthelove Nocturnal Tumescence Fidelas Constans 3	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:06:34 - [251] - Quote Congrats fozzie it has only taken me 5 years to become even a little interested in mining, you have now killed that interest so thoroughly I will probably never consider mining again.
Hopeless Slave 503rd East Cost Mining Brigade 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:07:16 - [252] - Quote just have to say...glad this post came out today... was going to resub another account and skill inject to a rorq... guess not.. Panic has needs to be allowed without indi core running or target locked.... its original purpose has saved my rorq and barges when I finished a belt and was trying to warp squad to another belt and got bubbled and attacked by a 30 man gang that came from a wormhole, I lit cyno and help arrived. fleet saved me.. your current theory of its fix would have been the loss of the whole mining fleet. for a fleet form and jump 9 jumps would take to long with out panic and a cyno. changes to the running of warp scrams & webs should be removed when in panic. problem solved. as for the drone changes. November dev post. ""By themselves a set of GÇÿExcavatorGÇÖ Superdrones make the Rorqual the most powerful mining ship in the game, and when boosted by an active Industrial Core module they each individually gain the yield of an Exhumer"". forum response, the 15th post down: "...[i]The optimal setup isn't going to be rorq + fleet, it's going to be a gigantic fleet of rorqs ... so with this being the 2nd major nerf in 4 months, you went from look how great this is- capital mining to .. mining look at my 12 billion isk venture it was completely know what was going to happen. mining amounts should stay the same at this time. need to look at this from a different angle the only reason for drop in price is demand. to solve this i believe you should: (1) fix the mineral comp of null anomalies to eliminate the bottle neck as state before. mex is a major bottleneck. (2) to increase demand for mins you could remove the other bottle neck of limited manufacturing jobs. change skills to allow for 30 jobs and the mins would be used faster to meet supply
MajkStone 30plus Fidelas Constans 18	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:08:36 - [253] - Quote Why don't you consider reducing the amount of yield that the Ore asteroid itself drops (refining), instead of nerfing the extremely expensive and risky to fly capital ship. If you nerf the roids across the board it will accomplish the goal of lowering the mineral supply while not pissing off every single rorqual pilot, while maintaining balance among the mining ships.
Side1Bu2Rnz9 Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:09:49 - [254] - Quote nm Kain wrote: The Rorqual changes are awful. I might not have the numbers correct, but without skills of any kind, the mining yield is 400m3 per drone and with the changes it will be 110m3 which is like a 70% nerf on top of the 30% to mining yield a month or 2 ago. It's rediculous. I won't go into it too much but I am seriously looking at different games to play, as I have had my fill of CCP bad choices. You're numbers a completely off... check in game or check anything at all... Current escavator drones collect 220 m3 every 90 seconds. After March patch the escavator drones collect 110m3 every 60 seconds. Without calculating travel time into the equation that's only about a 25% nerf. Counting travel time and knowing that drones will travel more due to the reduced cycle times... nerf is slightly more and more dependent on distance from roid.
Falcon Starwalker Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:14:32 - [255] - Quote CCP yet again has no idea what balance is. They buff T2 mining drones to be 1/3 as good as excavators and cost 1100x's less. They don't realize that the market is crashing not due to the influx of minerals, but rather from an imbalance in the ores. If this doesn't make sense to you, than think of it like this... Let us assume that the overall avg of all T1 ships in the game take the following minerals - (using small numbers to make this easier to understand) Trit: 1100 Pyrite: 900 Mex: 500 Iso: 200 Nox: 50 Zyd: 10 Mega: 1 Now lets assume the basic avg of all ore sites to be - (using absurdly small numbers to make this easier to understand) Trit: 15000 Pyrite: 10000 Mex: 5000 Iso: 1000 Nox: 500 Zyd: 50 Mega: 3 Yes I know those are not the right numbers, but it shows the basic idea here. Which is that with high ends like Zydrine and Megacyte being seriously low in avg availability and minerals like Trit and Pyerite being vastly over produced, no matter what they do you will see the market fall on those minerals that are found in abundance. The only reason this is being seen so drastically right now is the rate at which the market is being supplied has increased, with production only just starting to increase to match it. With null ore anoms requiring you to mine the entire site for a respawn (even after DT) then there will be a continued influx of unwanted minerals, so that the wanted minerals (Mega/Zydrine/Nocx) can then be mined to fill the needs of the market. There are only 2 ways to fix this. Either having ore anoms hold huge quantities (IE: like old ICE belts) or a complete rebalance of the ores contained in the current anoms to more accurately fill the needs of industry while not over producing the low ends to such a degree that they become a waste product of mining. The issue should not be how much in total is mined, as that balances itself out over time, but that there is a more even distribution of minerals based on avg build costs. You can still make low ends have slightly more and bottleneck the high ends a bit, but in doing so, you have to still maintain a certain level of balance or the need for high ends will eventually make low ends worthless.
nm Kain Cuddly Seals DRONE WALKERS 19	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:16:54 - [256] - Quote Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote: nm Kain wrote: The Rorqual changes are awful. I might not have the numbers correct, but without skills of any kind, the mining yield is 400m3 per drone and with the changes it will be 110m3 which is like a 70% nerf on top of the 30% to mining yield a month or 2 ago. It's rediculous. I won't go into it too much but I am seriously looking at different games to play, as I have had my fill of CCP bad choices. You're numbers a completely off... check in game or check anything at all... Current escavator drones collect 220 m3 every 90 seconds. After March patch the escavator drones collect 110m3 every 60 seconds. Without calculating travel time into the equation that's only about a 25% nerf. Counting travel time and knowing that drones will travel more due to the reduced cycle times... nerf is slightly more and more dependent on distance from roid. Thanks for clearing that up. It's still overall a 55% nerf in the last 2 months which is obsurd. 30% from the first nerf and now a 25% on this nerf. If you are static on a large roid like Spud, you can churn around 300m an hour. Now.. Take 25% off and you get only 225m3, 75,000,000 m3 less. It's totally rediculous. I'm off to sell my drones and Rorqual.
paintballlawss Padecain Grass Fed Cannibals Cohortes Triarii 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:18:57 - [257] - Quote You want to know my feedback you say? Well here it is you are basically killing indy again and again you give them buffs and six months down the road you nerf the ** out of the buffs and nerf 20 other things on top of that to make it even worse for people. No one who does mining will use a rorq as the amount you are mining is much cheaper to obtain buy having 3 alts in hulks that cost 20 times less than the rorq. Why instead of nerfing indy ** again you nerf mega coalitions and fix sov again or just fix the other 10,000 problems in the game but nerfing the rorq again will just make it not used these changes are completely outrageous and you guys seriously need to look at who your making these changes for are you making them for MEGA COALITIONS or are you nerfing them for small alliances because as it stands NO small alliance will use a rorq because its not worth it anymore. You have effectively taken away all defenses for the ship(ie. bubbles, PANIC, and its damage is not strong enough to defend its). So if you really want to change things instead of talking to alliances that run half of eve you should talk to smaller alliances and corporations because all your doing is making MEGA coalitions even stronger by forcing them to join 1 out of 3 Coalitions in the game just to protect themselves. Please talk to the the other half of eve and not just the people that can afford 500 rorqs in there region because they own half of eve. [END OF RANT] #whymineanymore #priceofrorqsgoingdownthedrain
Julia Shipping Julia Shipping Ltd. 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:28:19 - [258] - Quote I won't touch the PANIC change, that module was just toxic. Maybe not the best changes, but something was needed. Rorqual changes? Well, I'm mining on a single toon, I don't have 20 chars stripping a belt in 2 hours flat. I love the rorqual, allows me to mine quick enough that I can compete for capital / freighter builds. I get about 135M per hour with positioning and flight time and all. I'm sure you can do more, but most of the numbers thrown around are e-peen measuring. Sure there can be spikes, much like ratting and incursions. It comes down to the ROI. 9 bils to fit a Rorqual for a 90 hour ROI? WTF? I'm making better money subbing 3 hulks and a purpoise. Fix the cost of the damn thing and maybe you won't get as much push back when you slash the promised income by the obvious nerf (m3) and the implied nerfs (more flight time with the shorter duration). To be honest, if you don't get the price of the excavators under control, I'll mine with T2, it'll be more economical to have throwaway rorquals then having excavators. Give the drones some trashloot, not just the faction drones. There's not enough volume to prevent market f#$@^#!@## on the market. Any marketer with deep enough pocket can just buy off one of the part and raise the prices to silly amounts. Last thing, screw the precious mineral prices. This is a free market and you've convinced all the bored multi-boxers to actually do something. There's probably more dead Rorquals in a week then super and titans in a year. You said you were going to make it worth for us to put them in belt. Congrats, you did it. Now it's crashing the market? Well, let the offer regulate itself. Or make changes to absorb the surplus, you've got structures that require massive amounts of parts, yet the holdup is always PI, never the minerals. Stop trying to save your market, let the mineral drag the prices down and sort out your ISK input.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3862	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:47:29 - [259] - Quote nm Kain wrote: Thanks for clearing that up. It's still overall a 55% nerf in the last 2 months which is obsurd. 30% from the first nerf and now a 25% on this nerf. If you are static on a large roid like Spud, you can churn around 300m an hour. Now.. Take 25% off and you get only 225m3, 75,000,000 m3 less. It's totally rediculous. I'm off to sell my drones and Rorqual. The first 'nerf' was because of a maths error somewhere in the Dev department, which resulted in Rorquals mining far more than they had announced & intended. So should be treated as a bug fix, not a nerf, since there was an unannounced buff to the initial stats of Rorquals which was then exactly cancelled.
Trevize Demerzel 71	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:48:31 - [260] - Quote Grats CCP.. You just killed the ROI on the Rorq. The anger I feel towards politics in the US.... I now feel for CCP. Is that the position you want to be in CCP? That level of hatred? Well grats. CCP you own it. -

Nove Nuke Pwn 'N Play Rate My Ticks 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 00:59:49 - [261] - Quote RIP thanks for Killing my Rorqual this is wrong to steal 14 Billion ISK of my hard earned ISK. and 10 years in the game. one word says it all.... NUTS
Namii Chikyuu Totally Into Spaceships Circle-Of-Two 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 01:02:07 - [262] - Quote I know my opinion won't matter much and although it's already been beat to death this was the worst way to fix panic module warfare possible. But on another note how about all the harping about risk versus reward that constantly beat to death when talking about carrier ratting etc, now you've effectively cut the excavator drones output in half over the last nerf and this nerf. how about you cut the industrial core duration in half to balance out the whole risk/reward calculation. I mean it seems you are turning the rorq from an independent miner to a pure boosting/utilitarian platform. Or make the excavators dirt cheap right now a single drone can cost as much as building a rorquel. I could accept a cost of around 2 exhumers per drone as a norm myself. Right now the rorqual is a great content generator for defensive fleets but how many of them are going to be left on the field when it's inefficient to fly them versus the multi-box fleets we all use to run?
xenoace rock shot industries DRONE WALKERS 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 01:04:20 - [263] - Quote leave the rorquals alone for gods sake
Mason Odell Blackjack and Exotic Dancers Top Tier 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:01:15 - [264] - Quote So many other ways to approach this change then straight out nerfing stuff into the ground. Make Battleships Viable Again Encourage more huge fights and objective taking Change other aspects of mining rather then making it pointless again Introduce new structures that require lots of minerals that provide good bonuses to those who can make them, rather then another station to dock and ship spin in Just stop making people want to quit your game
Ltcartial State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:02:35 - [265] - Quote 1. Rorq's right now can mine about 150m/200m isk worth of ore per hour. About the same as a Hel ratting balls out. Those numbers are high considering the rorq has to move alot, drone travel time, time spent out of core, nuet activity and so on. 2. Double nerfing the drones both yield and more trip time back and fourth, So you have 12b worth of a rorq in core mode ready to be jumped on and ganked. 12B would take 60hrs worth of 200m ore isk/hr with having the high risk of losing it. Not good ,,not good at all. 3. The amount mined is also not liquid isk like ratting..you have to turn that ore into things that you usually sell at a lose of total isk worth you mined. PS: It seems like you are making these changes based on non indy toons, or someone how reads non indy toons thoughts of the rorq and not the actual ppl that use them. Final thought, Making the main materials for the excavator drones drop mostly in drone region space is complete insanity, drone region space already has higher bounty due to npcs not droping loot, now you give them extra isk for the elite drone AI and drone augments that drop more in drone region space then other space. All I can say is I will differently be playing other games coming out when these changes take affect as it will not be beatifically for the Risk to award equation. First Nerf already had me not wanting to play, now this will make me shut down all 10 of my accounts until something else in eve is exciting and brings me back but I doubt it.
Oberon Altair Lucid Dreamers Rate My Ticks 4	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:05:53 - [266] - Quote What's the point of a 10 billion + investment for a ship and even more for a character if you can make the same amount now in a carrier which can be nearly fully insured and 1/5th of the cost or AGAIN NEARLY RUNNING INCURSIONS THE SAFEST THING IN THE ENTIRE GAME. Stop making changes to things that require people to actually have some risk as a side to their isk making.
Cade Windstalker 888	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:08:12 - [267] - Quote Mason Odell wrote: So many other ways to approach this change then straight out nerfing stuff into the ground. Make Battleships Viable Again Encourage more huge fights and objective taking Change other aspects of mining rather then making it pointless again Introduce new structures that require lots of minerals that provide good bonuses to those who can make them, rather then another station to dock and ship spin in Just stop making people want to quit your game Translation, please either work on something else or find another change to make to fix my super amazing minerals faucet other than nerfing it...

ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1639	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:10:13 - [268] - Quote Removed post discussing forum moderation. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Cade Windstalker 888	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:10:36 - [269] - Quote zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz wrote: Trevize Demerzel wrote: The very fact you had do to this so soon... shows this nerf is wrong. very wrong. It's almost, almost as if a giant blanket nerf to literally every single aspect of a ship is not appreciated by literally anyone except those who don't use it. Almost. but don't worry ccp will delete the "rants" so they can push the change through and not give a damn as per usual. Nerfs are very rarely popular with people who use a ship, that doesn't make them bad or unnecessary though. The fact that the ISDs had to go through and remove at least a full page of posts says that people can't react to things and make their views clear in a calm, rational, and respectful manner. Let alone present a rational and well supported argument in support of their views.
zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:10:51 - [270] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mason Odell wrote: So many other ways to approach this change then straight out nerfing stuff into the ground. Make Battleships Viable Again Encourage more huge fights and objective taking Change other aspects of mining rather then making it pointless again Introduce new structures that require lots of minerals that provide good bonuses to those who can make them, rather then another station to dock and ship spin in Just stop making people want to quit your game Translation, please either work on something else or find another change to make to fix my super amazing minerals faucet other than nerfing it... 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 ********.

Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 21	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:14:08 - [271] - Quote Ltcartial wrote: 1 Final thought, Making the main materials for the excavator drones drop mostly in drone region space is complete insanity, drone region space already has higher bounty due to npcs not droping loot, now you give them extra isk for the elite drone AI and drone augments that drop more in drone region space then other space. . well, we also get no loot most of the time... and **** salvage...
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 163	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:15:44 - [272] - Quote zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Mason Odell wrote: So many other ways to approach this change then straight out nerfing stuff into the ground. Make Battleships Viable Again Encourage more huge fights and objective taking Change other aspects of mining rather then making it pointless again Introduce new structures that require lots of minerals that provide good bonuses to those who can make them, rather then another station to dock and ship spin in Just stop making people want to quit your game Translation, please either work on something else or find another change to make to fix my super amazing minerals faucet other than nerfing it... 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 ********. Dude look up cade's post history. He only posts on forums to flame people for wanting risk vs reward in ANYTHING but pvp ships. Seriously don't bother talking with him on anything regarding balance, he will just sarcastically tell you how you're just greedy/carebear to justify ccp making his life easier. Which is hilarious. In regards to these changes: Lol CCP. Lol
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 21	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:20:00 - [273] - Quote 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
Amarrchecko Hedion University Amarr Empire 116	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:22:53 - [274] - Quote Are there any immediate plans concerning excavator drone prices? I know the "rorqs shouldn't be used without 1/3 of new Eden's super fleet next door to defend you, you pathetic pubbie" argument that a lot of people like to throw around... but 11 billion isk for the hull, a cheap fit, and just 1 flight of drones... with a ton of super specialized skills required... to make what? 150m/hr in ore that still needs to be refined and used to build something? How is that an acceptable risk reward balance? Carriers rat for direct isk, so no monkeying around with refining or hauling or building in order to realize personal gain, for more isk/hr than that (40-50m ticks plus escalations and whatnot) all over null and only risk 1-2 bil after insurance... and the risk is pretty small because of not being immobile and the carrier skills translate directly into PVP use to boot! Or do you think the risk reward balance is OK already, or that prices will drop from less demand due to this yield need potentially reducing the number of active rorq pilots?
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 163	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:23:27 - [275] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: 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 The only equivalent shitstorm would need to affect the "el1t3 peeveep33 which would be a 50% reduction to t3 cruiser dps (initial rorq + this nerf) oh. AND drop all t3 optimal/missile travel time by a solid 40% or so. Can you imagine? like that one guy said, this is brilliant, the same people making every excuse in the book about how "lol rorqs deserve this free win ships shud die" would IMMEDIATELY begin a thread-rage storm that'd probably clog the forum servers. It's like....there's a double standard....or something.
Oberon Altair Lucid Dreamers Rate My Ticks 4	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:30:33 - [276] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mason Odell wrote: So many other ways to approach this change then straight out nerfing stuff into the ground. Make Battleships Viable Again Encourage more huge fights and objective taking Change other aspects of mining rather then making it pointless again Introduce new structures that require lots of minerals that provide good bonuses to those who can make them, rather then another station to dock and ship spin in Just stop making people want to quit your game Translation, please either work on something else or find another change to make to fix my super amazing minerals faucet other than nerfing it... translation, i have no idea what the **** im talking about but i have 888 likes kek
Somatic Neuron Masterwork Productions Inc 87	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:47:53 - [277] - Quote Are you going to make T1 and T2 versions of the Capital Mining Drone??? With the cost of Excavator's, with the reduced capacity, it's going to lower the risk vs reward factor of having a multi-billion ISK ship out there. Not saying that we won't still have them out there, just that the rvr is skewed more now. And before everyone complains, I am talking meta 0 and meta 5, with lower outputs than the faction ones
Thead Enco Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation 285	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:48:16 - [278] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: [list] Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Why not just change values on tackle mods so you can't fit them on the Rorq in the first place. This change is a half ass attempt. A Lannister always pays his debts Tyrion Lannister
Larodil House Aratus Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:51:27 - [279] - Quote Here we go again..... Making massive changes without even CONSIDERING some of the repercussions.... And then mocking people when the point it out.. I guess if taking peoples ISK with tricks and then pulling out the rug from underneath them and trying to thin out the game is CCP's goal, they're doing a good job of it...........
Krynn Delph Preatorium Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 02:57:55 - [280] - Quote So you expect people to risk a 10-13b isk ship, that sieges its self, for little to no reward? Do you even play this ***** game? If you want to fix mineral prices, how about make battleships useful again, the only time they are used now are in mass pvp battles that don't actually happen as often as they should. As well as balance ore anoms so people don't have to over-mine for ship production, noc and zyd are practically just by-products now. The fix to PANIC is absolute garbage, I get it, even making the rorq unable to ewar during panic, doesn't keep people from dropping multiple rorq's and panic'ing once they hit structure.. However you CAN make it to where a rorq cannot use a panic for several minutes after using EWAR... Or simply make ewar modules unfittable to a rorq... FFS if you dont want it to be a combat ship, then Dont allow it to be one in the first place.... This whole " you must have an asteroid targeted" crap is just opening rorqs up to even further risk/trolling by allowing hotdroppers to simply wait until the anom is about to be popped to hotdrop and kill everything... What the hell is it with CCP and hating its industry player base? I guess it makes sense tho, first you ruined sov mechanics, forcing people to literally conduct sov warfare with small **, now its time to ruin industry as well... Congrats fozzie, you are slowly completing your end-game goal of making people uninstall the game.

ckinoutdahoe Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 31	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:00:07 - [281] - Quote Personally I dont think there is enough salt here being spread to get into the minds of CCP. I also agree that burning Jita for a month or longer till all of high sec feels the burn that is being placed on null space. This alone will make the price of minerals go north if that is what CCP wants. Maybe all of null should join in and pick a place or a region in high sec to burn. This way the only real value will be left in the hands of the null sec players...............join or die. evil laugh :) Corps and alliances have sunk massive amounts of isk into structures to make their home better to keep up with the JONES or die trying. Members that are all part of eve have paid tons of isk into buying skill injectors and the most of it has gone to fly the massive capital ship called the rorqual, in addition to the ship itself and the expensive mods and rigs, now lets add the massively over priced drones that I am sure tons of plex was bought to pay for it. Members who bought plex, renewed their accounts and or in one form or another put our real money to enjoy this game called EVE are feeling quite burnt by CCP. It is the old members who are your base players who fund your great game, it is the returning players who want back in to enjoy what they have been missing, and you now have a new members coming in who want to see this awesome game has to offer. Grayscale left us high and dry after he had his fun with us and we were hoping we would see a more moderate person STEP UP; and this is not the case as we have seen. I have been playing with 2 characters for 10 years and have watched trit prices go from .8 isk to 6 plus to what it is now. Another example is megacyte at 5k plus to less than 1k to its current price. there is nothing wrong with the mineral pricing as it is all player driven. The proposed changes on the Rorqual for now the second time are beyond belief. When was the last time any of you have seen CCP engage with its player base in game???? for me it is never. When Band of Brothers was around in days of ol' many of CCP members were players also and could see first hand the changes they made both good and bad effected the mood of its players and in many cases the loss of its player base. IF the rorqual is to be a capital mining ship then stop f'in it up. Many are lost daily in EVE and are replaced based on its value. What value do you CCP propose it is worth now after impliment the new and up and coming changes???? about the same prior to making the RORQUAL a viable in game ship.....and it was about damn time too only to have it tossed to the scrap heap. Now then, as an old player and from my own point of view. I have not mined nor ratted in this game in about 6 to 7 years as it was a complete waste of my time to do anything but do PVP. I have found a new found love of indy by making capitals and its mods, I have mined a bit in the big toy and love it and have even found my way to a super that i would have not be sitting in if it was not for Capital mining ship. I was probably with in months of leaving this game with both accounts due to utter boredom. Time will tell in your wallet if this is a good decision.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 21	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:01:36 - [282] - Quote also, please note, at least the PANIC changes are live on SIS, as I discovered today
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1639	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:06:43 - [283] - Quote Removed post discussing Forum moderation. Its really easy to keep your post here. CCP tells you what you cant do. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Ruby Gnollo 17	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:08:00 - [284] - Quote Sister Bliss wrote: Surely reduced ore respawn rates or dimished resources which would force territorial conflict is a better answer? Instead we're force fed a mind numbing solution to a problem of I don't know what. We want more tools for self reliance and generating conflict, not more agonizing tedium. Territorial conflict happens for Ice, in some regions of HS. Scarcity & profit for those controlling the belts is what drives it. Having to haul it away makes it even more dangerous. To have this happen for ore, remove one belt per system every month until expected result is achieved
Wut Maschine Apple Inc. People Who Annoy You 8	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:18:36 - [285] - Quote Fozzie, I know you don't mind being the most hated face of CCP. I know it's your job to present us the good and bad news. We talk about eve economy and the impact of these Rorquals. So question, now that I have a huge capital investment in these (100b +) how many man years will it take for me to break even now. And since these are now nerffed to the point of almost useless, please comp by seeding these drones. Or at least their build components. CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance. Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment: Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks!
Dawn Harbinger Straylight Systems 26	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:20:42 - [286] - Quote As a lowly (often solo) miner piloting his exhumer in low sec, I want to thank you for keeping an eye on the ore market! I mine because I find it fun and relaxing, but at some point I have to ask myself why even bother when people are sucking up belts at an ungodly rate using their own personal rorqual fleet. As much as I love piloting my Skiff I'm not going to do it when my full ore hold is worth < 1 million isk.
Patrice Macmahon No Vacancies No Vacancies. 44	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:23:12 - [287] - Quote ""Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid."" You should also extend this to locking an Ice Block, just in case you guys ever decide it's a good idea for a Roqual to boost ice mining fleets (Or use Excavator Ice Harvesting drones)... Future proof your fixes. ^.^ -á"Much of this is crystallised in our philosophy, or as others call it "the Intaki Faith". We simply call it Ida - the literal translation is "to consider", and is a good description of the Intaki."-á
MightyGuy Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 11	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:56:32 - [288] - Quote CCP Fozzie and another one of his brilliant ideas... get people interested in mining .. making stuff ..then nerf it hard... then came back and nerf it again while screwing the panic button so hard my rorqual will fly funny for a week. Fozzie PLEASE go somewhere else and screw up someone elses game. And leave the Rorquals alone.. in your feedback thread the consensus was to leave it the way it is ... will you do that... will you actually READ the feedback and go with what we tell ya ... Or will you do what you always do and do what you want.
Zeto Prime Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 03:57:42 - [289] - Quote ANOTHER MINING NERF what the hell are you doing ... Are you trying to make this ship as useless as it used to be. Is that your end goal. Make a multi Billion ISK ship SIEGED in the open for hours less useful the n a barge. Is that your plan? WELL IT SUCKS do not do this NERF we rorqual pilots implore you NOT TO DO THIS. I can not see were having more ore available can be a bad thing anywhere
Suleman Dredger Mine 'N' Refine Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:04:58 - [290] - Quote It took me awhile to get into a Rorqual - finally get to mine , now another nerf ? I really have one other question - what happened to the estimated price of "Excavator " mining drones - 300 mil by ccp - i saw a post that the 2 drone components were being increased , all i saw was prices skyrocketing .....and one more item , why not let orca's use one or more of the drones ?

Rafau Maco Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:08:46 - [291] - Quote MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
willhelm Azizora Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:12:05 - [292] - Quote this seems like a silly idea because as for the panic button you could just have the same debuf as a network senor array has in order to stop the combat rork and as for the mining nerf it is going to **** off all of the people who have been training in to rorks. Not to mention you are complacently ignoring the gator issue of the skyrocketing price of the drones and salvage. you are effectively making a rork much less competitive with a Hulk group. this is a bad idea and you should not implement these changes.
Layla Zin Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:13:05 - [293] - Quote Rafau Maco wrote: MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
Willson Azizora Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:18:22 - [294] - Quote Rafau Maco wrote: MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
Cade Windstalker 891	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:19:02 - [295] - Quote zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz wrote: 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 *******. They are treating them like every other ship, which means if something is over-performing it gets nerfed in a way that CCP thinks will lead to a better game state. They've already nerfed it once, that didn't work, so they're nerfing it again to see where it lands. None of this has anything* to do with percentage change in any stat on any ship. I'd also like to point out that your hyperbole here pretty badly missed the mark. Most of CCP's changes to combat ships aren't "blanket nerfs" and they haven't touched anything on the Rorqual except for its mining yield, which is out of control, and its ability to be used as absurdly heavy tackle, logi, and entosis, which has also been threatening to get out of control. Oh, and amusingly if you went ahead with those T3C nerfs you so angrily threw out there you might actually get a halfway balanced ship. Thirty percent less DPS is probably a bit much, but 30% less EHP would still leave them with more than a well tanked T2 Cruiser. Though I don't think they can insta-warp, so there's that.
Zeto Prime Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:22:36 - [296] - Quote MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN! MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN! MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 22	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:23:46 - [297] - Quote Dawn Harbinger wrote: As a lowly (often solo) miner piloting his exhumer in low sec, I want to thank you for keeping an eye on the ore market! I mine because I find it fun and relaxing, but at some point I have to ask myself why even bother when people are sucking up belts at an ungodly rate using their own personal rorqual fleet. As much as I love piloting my Skiff I'm not going to do it when my full ore hold is worth < 1 million isk. if they would reblanace the belts, we could use all our ore for local production, instead of shipping it out. besides, mining is not really supposed to be a solo game
Ghillie Troll Askold KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:24:05 - [298] - Quote I don't like to be that guy, but seriously, nullsec finally had a way to make money where the risk vs. reward made sense, and now it's practically being removed. If you're this content to screw us over, then just revert the Rorqual changes. This is not the first nerf, and the way you lot seem to be looking at it, it won't be long before another. I already had plans to put two other characters into Rorquals, but I'm just not sure it's worth my time any more. It made sense to go to nullsec and have big ships now, and for some of us perhaps things like supercapitals won't go back to being nigh unobtainable, but the Rorqual represented the first big step one could take towards things like owning a supercarrier, or running large scale production without having a ridiculous number of characters, but even if the Rorqual continues to scale well, they will become the same as carriers once were; big ships for ISK grinding that you still needed a lot of to have any hope of owning big or expensive ships that you could undock in and be confident that if lost, they could be replaced. I have never been one to say that Eve is dying, but I fear changes like this could be the beginning of the downward spiral that so many games take to their graves- changes that are unanimously disapproved of by the majority of the community, but take place nonetheless. It happened to Star Conflict, Robocraft, Rust, and so many other amazing games. Please don't put this one on that list.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 22	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:25:59 - [299] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: zzzbowlcutmcgee zzz wrote: 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 *******. They are treating them like every other ship, which means if something is over-performing it gets nerfed in a way that CCP thinks will lead to a better game state. They've already nerfed it once, that didn't work, so they're nerfing it again to see where it lands. None of this has anything* to do with percentage change in any stat on any ship. I'd also like to point out that your hyperbole here pretty badly missed the mark. Most of CCP's changes to combat ships aren't "blanket nerfs" and they haven't touched anything on the Rorqual except for its mining yield, which is out of control, and its ability to be used as absurdly heavy tackle, logi, and entosis, which has also been threatening to get out of control. Oh, and amusingly if you went ahead with those T3C nerfs you so angrily threw out there you might actually get a halfway balanced ship. Thirty percent less DPS is probably a bit much, but 30% less EHP would still leave them with more than a well tanked T2 Cruiser. Though I don't think they can insta-warp, so there's that. out of control? how so? i'd posit that relatively cheap capitals are good for the game. the only reason the market is crashing, is because the belts are not balanced with the consumption
Sexy Raf Maco Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:34:07 - [300] - Quote Rafau Maco wrote: MAKE RORUALS GREAT AGAIN!

Cade Windstalker 891	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:34:58 - [301] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: Dude look up cade's post history. He only posts on forums to flame people for wanting risk vs reward in ANYTHING but pvp ships. Seriously don't bother talking with him on anything regarding balance, he will just sarcastically tell you how you're just greedy/carebear to justify ccp making his life easier. Which is hilarious. In regards to these changes: Lol CCP. Lol You clearly didn't look back far enough. I was actually quite in favor of the original Rorqual changes and even defended the high yields for a while after, but at this point the mineral market is dropping like, well, a rock, and it's pretty easy to see why. The Rorqual isn't even getting used as a boosting ship, people are going "Excavator drones or bust!" and just using fleets of these things to mine. I'm all in favor of Risk vs Reward in every area of the game, PvE, PvP, Mining, or whatever else, but it should be balanced risk vs reward, and the Rorqual is pretty clearly out of balance. Grognard Commissar wrote: 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 You mean like that thing they did to Carriers two months after Citadel dropped that did pretty much exactly what you're saying here? Nerfed Carriers by about 25% and made it so they couldn't alpha sub-caps off the field anymore? Oh and don't forget the last time they nerfed the Rorqual, all of a month and a half ago. Which has completely failed to halt the slide in mineral prices that started around November when the revamped Rorqual came out...
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 22	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:37:21 - [302] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Iminent Penance wrote: Dude look up cade's post history. He only posts on forums to flame people for wanting risk vs reward in ANYTHING but pvp ships. Seriously don't bother talking with him on anything regarding balance, he will just sarcastically tell you how you're just greedy/carebear to justify ccp making his life easier. Which is hilarious. In regards to these changes: Lol CCP. Lol You clearly didn't look back far enough. I was actually quite in favor of the original Rorqual changes and even defended the high yields for a while after, but at this point the mineral market is dropping like, well, a rock, and it's pretty easy to see why. The Rorqual isn't even getting used as a boosting ship, people are going "Excavator drones or bust!" and just using fleets of these things to mine. I'm all in favor of Risk vs Reward in every area of the game, PvE, PvP, Mining, or whatever else, but it should be balanced risk vs reward, and the Rorqual is pretty clearly out of balance. Grognard Commissar wrote: 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 You mean like that thing they did to Carriers two months after Citadel dropped that did pretty much exactly what you're saying here? Nerfed Carriers by about 25% and made it so they couldn't alpha sub-caps off the field anymore? Oh and don't forget the last time they nerfed the Rorqual, all of a month and a half ago. Which has completely failed to halt the slide in mineral prices that started around November when the revamped Rorqual came out... they'll never stop the slide, until they fix it so that all the minerals get used. they can nerf mining into the ground, not going to fix it at all. also, keep ion mind that the (fitted) rorqual costs as much as 4 (fitted) ratting carriers... and is locked in place for 5 minutes
Gamble Aces Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:39:02 - [303] - Quote Here's my tinfoil hat theory. CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again.
Cade Windstalker 891	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:48:27 - [304] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: out of control? how so? i'd posit that relatively cheap capitals are good for the game. the only reason the market is crashing, is because the belts are not balanced with the consumption Grognard Commissar wrote: they'll never stop the slide, until they fix it so that all the minerals get used. they can nerf mining into the ground, not going to fix it at all. also, keep ion mind that the (fitted) rorqual costs as much as 4 (fitted) ratting carriers... and is locked in place for 5 minutes See above link for the graph on Pyrite prices. The same thing is happening to Tritanium, Isogen, Nocxium, and Morphite. The only reason that Megacyte, Zydrine, and Mexallon spiked after the initial jump was because the impact on all the other more readily available minerals was more immediate. Now that supply is truly starting to out strip demand on even those we're starting to see all of them slide as well, with Mexallon being the last because the primary ores for getting it didn't used to be as valuable as the ABCs but right now it's become a bottle neck. The reason the market is crashing is because of Rorqual mining. Rorquals and their absurd m3 per minute have created a massive influx of minerals into the market that's massive out stripped demand. CCP can't magically make players consume more minerals, so they have to arrest the supply by nerfing the Rorqual. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't really matter how much a Rorqual costs if they aren't dying, and right now they really aren't, at least not with nearly enough frequency to come close to offsetting the volume of minerals they mine. Gamble Aces wrote: Here's my tinfoil hat theory. CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again. Lol, no. Just look at this thread or go talk to some miners. All the miners with 10 subs started training them for Rorquals as fast as they could. If anyone was going to un-sub over the present state of the Rorqual it's the smaller High Sec miners that are watching their chances of making a PLEX each month disappear with the falling price of Trit.
Gamble Aces Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 04:53:06 - [305] - Quote I agree with so many other people that null sec was just starting to feel right, fielding a 12b isk ship make 250m an hour, field a 22b super, make 300m an hour. Suddenly buy three hulks for 1b and make just as much? Utter bullshit, just trying to get more subs up. If you field multiple billions to make money, you should make money regardless of how many accounts you're doing it across. CCP is only interested in people paying 10 subs a month making good income People paid the real money equivalent of 12 months game time for these rorquals and you're going to devalue them with the stroke of a pen because of your own lack of foresight and judgment, you're a lead game designer for crying out loud, in any industry but gaming your actions would be seen as fraudulent.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 22	Posted - 2017.02.24 05:03:20 - [306] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Grognard Commissar wrote: out of control? how so? i'd posit that relatively cheap capitals are good for the game. the only reason the market is crashing, is because the belts are not balanced with the consumption Grognard Commissar wrote: they'll never stop the slide, until they fix it so that all the minerals get used. they can nerf mining into the ground, not going to fix it at all. also, keep ion mind that the (fitted) rorqual costs as much as 4 (fitted) ratting carriers... and is locked in place for 5 minutes See above link for the graph on Pyrite prices. The same thing is happening to Tritanium, Isogen, Nocxium, and Morphite. The only reason that Megacyte, Zydrine, and Mexallon spiked after the initial jump was because the impact on all the other more readily available minerals was more immediate. Now that supply is truly starting to out strip demand on even those we're starting to see all of them slide as well, with Mexallon being the last because the primary ores for getting it didn't used to be as valuable as the ABCs but right now it's become a bottle neck. The reason the market is crashing is because of Rorqual mining. Rorquals and their absurd m3 per minute have created a massive influx of minerals into the market that's massive out stripped demand. CCP can't magically make players consume more minerals, so they have to arrest the supply by nerfing the Rorqual. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't really matter how much a Rorqual costs if they aren't dying, and right now they really aren't, at least not with nearly enough frequency to come close to offsetting the volume of minerals they mine. Gamble Aces wrote: Here's my tinfoil hat theory. CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again. Lol, no. Just look at this thread or go talk to some miners. All the miners with 10 subs started training them for Rorquals as fast as they could. If anyone was going to un-sub over the present state of the Rorqual it's the smaller High Sec miners that are watching their chances of making a PLEX each month disappear with the falling price of Trit. I'm getting the feeling that you're a station trader, with zero experience in nullsec inductry, or general sovnull operations. we don't care about the jita price, the only minerals we export here, is morphite, because we get wayyy more than we can use. the rest of everythign we mine goes straight via contract to the builders that make caps. a bit gets used for other stuff, because, in nullsec, it's usually easier to just build everything. also, look at your numbers, trit is falling, but mex is actually going up. that's because of the mineral imbalance
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 5747	Posted - 2017.02.24 05:09:11 - [307] - Quote When's the riot scheduled for? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 22	Posted - 2017.02.24 05:11:36 - [308] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: When's the riot scheduled for? nah, miners don't riot, we simply stop mining
Aleverette Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 06:10:26 - [309] - Quote "It is also gaining massive bonuses to drones that turn it into a combat powerhouse and a mining operation all ON ITS OWN when used alongside Excavator Drones." quote from your old mining foreman revolution dev blog. You see the problem? It is not players who only own one or two Rorquals, but the multi boxing Rorqual mining fleet (seriously, there is a 30+ multi boxing Rorqual guy live with me in the same system). You did not turn Rorqual into a mining carrier, instead, you turned it into a super large Exhumer. I feel the way to make Rorqual right is making it function differently in different players' hands. ADD THE MINING FIGHTER SYSTEM ASAP, let it be a powerful single mining ship to normal players and a fleet boost/PANIC protector to ultra multi-boxing "industrial imperialists" . The old mining fighter idea is really awsome, why you abandoned it? If you think what you did to carriers in Citadel release is correct, then do the same thing to Rorqual. BTW Just ask players for dollars is better than these kinds of GIVE YOU A CAKE AND TAKE IT AWAY BULLSHIT
Millerz Magnum Caldari Provisions Caldari State 3	Posted - 2017.02.24 06:17:59 - [310] - Quote No no nononono no no no no no no Every FIN time CCP, every time you nerf hammer. How did you not expect them to be used as tackle when you didn't disable their ability to engage hostile actions while in PANIC is beyond me. This either means you are simple minded or you don't do nearly enough testing, and probably should Sell CCP like your looking to do. However angry I may be, I can reasonable agree that they should not be able to engage hostiles in any manner (but should be able to rr friendlies.). This can be solved two ways, one is disallowing aggressive action with the panic module. Another is to hit the nail on the head, and make the rorq the first ship in eve that cannot fit any type of point entirely. Both ways eliminate the combat problem. I also do agree with entosis bs, however that is easily solved by not letting them fit an entosis module. Even disallow all the possible PANIC saved hulls to fit it as well, solved. Your then left with the god cyno, and I think after the above two suggestions are preformed, it wont matter, atleast not nearly as much. If they cannot tackle, and cannot entosis, the main use of the cyno will be to save their own skin, and you cant take that away from them. I do not agree with making them have to lock a rock to panic. Its just plain stupid. They are only 80% immune to ewar in "siege", like all caps, and a falcon or a few griffs will be the Achilles heal of the rorq. Not only will they not be able to PANIC once engaged, but will become the easiest killed capital with the strongest useless tanking ability. So take away their combat abilities, but do not nerf where panic can be activated. Also disagree with more min nerfs. F off with the nerfs, but FIX your stupidly planned out module.

Advenat Bedala Facehoof Out of Sight. 191	Posted - 2017.02.24 06:30:59 - [311] - Quote Quick idea: Make PANIC consume locked asteroid(s). Not for mining nerf but for lore reasons... Having almost self-focused module need to lock something without affecting this something is counter-intuitive. Maybe it should affect PANIC's duration. Like 20 seconds or so for 0 asteroids (Like emergency damage control) 1-2 minutes extra for each locked asteroid PS anyway I cannot hope this post will be seen by devs =)
Barry Ryan Caldari Provisions Caldari State 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 06:42:14 - [312] - Quote I love Eve online. But what a ******* joke CCP is atm
MissSixty Enterprise Estonia Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 06:44:02 - [313] - Quote CCP, if you enforce these changes alive you should cover everyone investments what players have done to get into rorquals. You just cant turn something "great" with small period time back where they was before. Sounds like you have given to your players false expectations.
Umino Iruka 17	Posted - 2017.02.24 07:00:47 - [314] - Quote This has nothing to do with rorquals mining too much. THIS, is CCP's laziness and stupid game design coming back to bite us all in the ass! The first obvious thing here is the mexallon bottleneck and nothing being done about it. The gneiss roids deplete over 3 times faster than ABC's and spodumain - fix the damn thing already and keep an eye on arkonor and bistot so we don't face the same bottleneck in megacyte. The second, and perhaps more important problem here are mineral sinks. You remember those idiotic 20bil dreads, 75bil supers and 265bil titans (production costs) that no one really wants? Well guess what? Those could have been an amazing mineral sink if they were affordable enough to go mainstream. If they all cost double what their t1 counterparts cost, everyone would want one (having all types of pirate capitals available would help immensely as well - pirate carriers anyone?) and the gears of industry would turn once again. None of that will matter of course, if their blueprints aren't readily available in the game as well. Structures could have had their mineral requirements increased as well to help with spending minerals - destruction of those could have helped a lot as well, but as it stands, citadels only managed to screw the small groups with their extra reinforcement timers and not being vulnerable to dread bombs like POS's and if the trend continues and drilling platforms get the same dps cap mechanic and another reinforcement timer, the only thing that's gonna increase is the rate of burnt out players in the game (maybe we could all turn to alpha clones and forget this end-game foolishness instead?). So what could be done about all this? It would take CCP getting off their lazy asses and actually producing something for a change. The current rate of releasing pirate caps means all the pirate factions will get covered by the end of this decade (not if they want to do mordu's boyz, sisters and rogue drones as well - in that case, add another 2 years to the road map for pirate caps). Let's not forget that all the models for these pirate caps (it's probably more correct to say skins rather than models but whatever) are already done, all it takes is giving them some traits and releasing them - even though the laziness goes so far that we aren't even getting all of the capital types on each pirate faction... And what is the intended fix for this laziness? Forget for a moment that the rorqual never did anything for lowsec people because mining is a complete waste of time in low. So now the 11bil mining capital is being dumbed down to the level of a sanctum running carrier in null - I mean, CCP obviously wants people out of hisec and in low and null/wh, but it would be a real travesty if a capital miner in null is making more money than a hisec incursion F1 monkey.
Octavian Madullier Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 13	Posted - 2017.02.24 07:13:42 - [315] - Quote Yes good change CCP ... correct me if i am wrong but the Rorq was supposed to be a MINING thingi ... not a combat vessel per see ...and yes PL ... F U ... In a world where data is coin of the realm,-á and transmissions are guarded by no better sentinels than man-made codes and corruptible devices, there is no such thing as a secret. Dr Kio Masada
Hayley Oberstein Lemet-Oberstein Venture Enterprises 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 07:47:57 - [316] - Quote I enjoy these changes, a Rorq shouldn't be something you can just fly around solo and only hit the panic button once you're caught. I'm surprised at the amount of people upset that they can no longer afford to 'safely' fly around solo in a ship that expensive, let alone an industrial ship, and not have to worry about losing it.
Jakara Dakara Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition 3	Posted - 2017.02.24 08:16:21 - [317] - Quote Well i agree with the need of wanting to adjust the mineral economy some, but instead of hitting the faucet directly you might consider increasing some of the mineral sinks as well? Still hit the excavators with a bit of a nerf, keep a 60 second cycle time but make the base ore mined 150-175 m3. Still boost Mining laser field enhancement (barges and exhumers need some love). Nerf null sec EC complexes bonuses a bit, in particular the component building aspect. Increase the Mineral cost of building excavators. Increase fuel requirement for the Industrial Core. Still spread out the Ore in the anomalies some. and most importantly, nerf low ends in null some (Spoud and Gneiss in particular) Mexallon is your current null bottle neck, this will make nullsec entities require to come out of null to trade some, I know people have said they want to reduce the dependence on needed to go to jita, but with citadel market hubs being set up that is taking care of itself slowly. I suspect that by going around and adjust things separately it will make it easier to adjust the market in the future, say if another huge mineral sink comes along in a few years (player build stargates?) as well as make it easier to adjust if mining falls out of favor again and mineral prices spike to hard. I also strongly suspect you can hit the rorq a lot harder and still not even dent the mineral economy. Miners will just buy and extra rorq alt and will reduce the effect of the nerf, where as increasing mineral usage will and more importantly forcing null sec to come to empire to get a steady supply of low ends will actually encourage some of the rorqs to come out of the belt and participate in trading, logistics and hopefully securing the route.
Harry Forever Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 1325	Posted - 2017.02.24 08:31:07 - [318] - Quote why would anybody still bring out a +10b ship if you nerv again the mining yield, I already stopped training into one of them because of your last nerv.. the risk is just too high you also brought back capital fights and lots of content because of those ships in the belts, one day we even had a super drop on a rorq in 7rm.. more bigger ships will get lost and more stuff will be used, I don't see more mineral supply as a big problem, it will even out over time Harry Forever vs. Goonswarm
Leila Pegasus Sneaked In Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 08:59:18 - [319] - Quote It was multiple times said that this lock asteroid thing would solve the problem. Well not realy what u gone do if the fight happend to happen in a asteroid belt. Then the Tackle rorqual just returns. By disallowing points of any sort to be fittet to a Rorqual hull it would leave the mining rorqual so he can at least panic also if he happens to mine the last roid on the other hand the tackle rorqual would be gone for good. about the changes to the drones make them pls at least faster specialy if u gone increase the rock sizes and the time they are flying useless through space. The incentive to take rorquals out (for mining) should be not reduced by letting them have a mod that does not help them if they happen to mine the last rock. It makes no sense nore is that rorqual thats mining there and clearing blets the the route of the problem so leave him alone.
Wrevock BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Sev3rance 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:02:19 - [320] - Quote I'll just straight up say it instead of abbreviating or walking around it... CCP WHAT IN THE ACTUAL **? You already nerfed the Rorq. Now we're getting another nerf that fucks us even harder 6 ways from Sunday. EWAR negating a PANIC? Really? I hope that isn't the case because I'd have to go back to carrier ratting. Oh wait, that's getting a *** nerf too. If you want to make a useful nerf, which I believe is what the orignial idea of the panic was intended to do, make it so we can't use scrams, webs, points or anything along those lines of combat modules. PANIC module was a great idea for Rorquals since we were gifted the Excavators. You guys are already nerfing those. Don't nerf the damn PANIC as well. Make it so PvP related mods cannot be used in PANIC mode. Indy Core Prevents EWAR, sure, but it doesn't stop incoming damage. As much as I don't want to admit it, nerfing the Excavator's will surely save the mineral market, and that's gonna be another hit to anyone who does industry and uses those drones. Those drones dented the ** out of our wallets, but they're worth it. Don't make the EVE Community of Rorqual pilots regret the training.

TigerXtrm KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1880	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:14:25 - [321] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Please don't. This would make the PANIC module essentially useless. Figure out some other way, this is just a duct tape style solution that limits ways to use the PANIC. With this change you're essentially forcing Rorqual pilots to activate it as soon as hostiles land on grid, and that is rarely ever preferable. If you need to tie it to mining so badly, only allow activation if the Rorqual is within 100KM of an asteroid. The PANIC module is what allows Rorquals to be in belts in the first place. If any douche muffin frigate with ECM can prevent you from using it, the entire purpose of that module is gone. Period. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Vokan Tain Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:30:14 - [322] - Quote This nerf as many have said is a complete over reach. However it will have the desired effect, people who live to mine will go back to hulk fleets, and those who have moved from carrier ratting to rorqs, will sell the rorqs and go back to risking less for the same isk per hour. Fozzie is your most creative solution for Panic module really that I must have an asteroid locked. ... and i was in such a good friday mood.
Nofearion Tr0pa de elite. Northern Coalition. 119	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:32:16 - [323] - Quote In all I like the Changes. However , some concerns. While exhumers have longer range, Anoms are still pretty spread out and I do not see this as changing much. Second on the panic module. Major issue. after the last roid is down you can often have close to a full cycle of Indy core before you can Warp out. This will be a very vulnerable time as there are no Roids to lock onto. Surely there is a better way to fix this. Keep up the good work Fozzie
Dmitrii Satohin EVE-RO Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:48:39 - [324] - Quote Dont nerth rorqual yet . Let the ore price fall and everything should get very cheap
Amphal Deka Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 09:59:49 - [325] - Quote I'm still not happy with the costs of the Excavator Drones. They cost more then the rorqual it's self! I be better off with t3 battle ship doing sites with no risk really. Excavator Drones need to be place in the LP store and nerf the t2 drone parts off it. Let's get the cost down to around of a hulk fitted up. Not letting the darn Excavator Drones be worth 1.7 which is very unhealthy for the market. Anyone at this point can drive cost up or control them.
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 294	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:03:11 - [326] - Quote Oh boy. A thread full of Goon and PL members crying about mining nerfs. What a time to be alive. A few years ago this would have been unthinkable.
Aleverette Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:04:08 - [327] - Quote Amphal Deka wrote: I'm still not happy with the costs of the Excavator Drones. They cost more then the rorqual it's self! I be better off with t3 battle ship doing sites with no risk really. Excavator Drones need to be place in the LP store and nerf the t2 drone parts off it. Let's get the cost down to around of a hulk fitted up. Not letting the darn Excavator Drones be worth 1.7 which is very unhealthy for the market. Anyone at this point can drive cost up or control them. You should know half of the manufacture price comes from Drone Coronary Units, which come from Rogue Drone loot.
Virke Arjar Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:09:54 - [328] - Quote Meanwhile Excavator Drones cost sits strong at 1.4 bil each. LMAO
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2874	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:13:11 - [329] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance. Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment: Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks! Why, who exactly thinks this is a problem? Its not the players so who is it? You've achieved the ability to largely force localized production while at the same time putting ships in space that people are actually fighting over and you want to change that why exactly? Your stated reason is trash tier, stop talking like we're dumb. The mineral basket was bound to collapse as long as jump freighters remained un nerfed so now that you've proven that you can support localized production why are you going all chickenshit on us? What on earth makes you think its ok to make a ship cost so much and do so little in return and why do you think its ok to do that after you baited so much of your player base into buying into it? It will literally mine like 2 hulks. Are you serious? Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1219	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:15:19 - [330] - Quote These are some appallingly badly thought out changes. The combination of quicker cycles and spread out belts will nerf Rorq mining yield into the ground as drones will need to cover more distance thanks to needing to make more trips. If you're determined to do this, can you also reduce the cycle time of the Industrial Core? Say, drop it to 3 minutes for T1 and 90s for T2? The T2 Core is a VERY long train. I understand wanting to kill off the indestructible Jump HIC aspect (which, to be fair, is somewhat ridiculous as things stand), so why not simply remove the Rorqs ability to activate tackle modules while in PANIC? If you're determined to make Rorquals no better than an Exhumer, can you give us something in return for the ~ISK1b worth of Skillbooks and non-trivial training time required to fly one? Allowing the Ship Maintenance Bay to carry any kind of ship would be useful (perhaps any kind of ship except a HIC or Interdictor?). Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 125	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:34:44 - [331] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance. Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment: Excavator Drones: 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. [list] Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Why, who exactly thinks this is a problem? Its not the players so who is it? You've achieved the ability to largely force localized production while at the same time putting ships in space that people are actually fighting over and you want to change that why exactly? Your stated reason is trash tier, stop talking like we're dumb. The mineral basket was bound to collapse as long as jump freighters remained un nerfed so now that you've proven that you can support localized production why are you going all chickenshit on us? What on earth makes you think its ok to make a ship cost so much and do so little in return and why do you think its ok to do that after you baited so much of your player base into buying into it? It will literally mine like 2 hulks. Are you serious? EDIT: You're screwing up parts of the game that are functionally working while ignoring things like citadels granting a tether with no fuel so it that space is now grotesquely littered with these perma safe dumpster fires. Thanks for wasting everybodies time. I have to agree with Grath here , i mean the mineral crash was long overdue (maybe i dont have access to your data?_) and the rourqual mining brougth more content in the terms of isk destroyed in the time it got live, so my question fozie is why should my alliance bring 3 rourquals to mine and risk a 11B ship when i can bring 2 Hulks?
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 711	Posted - 2017.02.24 10:51:21 - [332] - Quote Silly question, but why not just reduce the drone bandwidth on the Rorq for awhile? Put it down to 4 or even 3 fielded and watch the mineral market. As for the roid idea, I give in...but at least it will probably lead to some vigorous discussions at Fanfest 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.
svobouch bouchovci ScumLord Excavation and Evisceration ChaosTheory. 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 11:18:36 - [333] - Quote fousie....a good news bringer....
Hurri Nakrar Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 11:30:47 - [334] - Quote Fousie could be an nice Game Director @ EA Games. They work too against the community and never listen to them.
Dip PotatoChip Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 11:36:30 - [335] - Quote Give it like a God Take it away like a Boss Great job balance team.
Trevize Demerzel 74	Posted - 2017.02.24 11:58:43 - [336] - Quote Oddly... The times I've seen a Rorq used as an attack ship have been in a mining belt with the purpose of locking down other rorqs. So now that attacking Rorq can target a rock and still do the same thing.... Nothing fixed by this nerf... so please try again.. I'll echo the fine folks above. With the changes to the Exav drones it is no longer worth the risk for the reward. It simply costs too much. It becomes more effective to go back to hulk/can mining. I also don't believe the issue is cost of ore in the market. I think the real issue is about the number of supers, titans, and caps in general that are being built at a highly accelerated rate. Nullsec cap manufacturing doesn't need to import ore from jita nearly as much as it used to (if at all) and therefore the price has dropped. I don't think much ore is being shipped from null to jita. -
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2806	Posted - 2017.02.24 12:26:52 - [337] - Quote Oberon Altair wrote: What's the point of a 10 billion + investment for a ship and even more for a character if you can make the same amount now in a carrier which can be nearly fully insured and 1/5th of the cost or AGAIN NEARLY RUNNING INCURSIONS THE SAFEST THING IN THE ENTIRE GAME. Stop making changes to things that require people to actually have some risk as a side to their isk making. You missed the part where they also nerfed Carrier ratting. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Destriouth Hollow Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk. 82	Posted - 2017.02.24 13:03:27 - [338] - Quote I am pretty certain here, the mining yield of the rorqual is not the problem here. And you will need some more nerfs if you want to balance it by that ^^ The problem isnt that a 10bil ship nets you 200mil an hour. Supercarriers can do something similar already. Incursions also can give you similar income. The problem is, that compared to the other high-end isk/hour incomes in eve, rorqual mining can be done semi afk and multiboxed. Nullsec roids are big enough so they dont need to switch asteroids a lot. And aside from that, nothing prevents anyone from using 20 rorqs at the same time., in secured nullsec space with defense fleet ready. That and ppl can do rorqual mining while they do other stuff, like pvping, pveing etc I am 99% sure the afk and multiboxable nature of rorqual ratting is the problem here. A working fix would be, having to unload the mining drones each time they come back or something similar. That would be the much smarter way to do it, in my opinion.
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 92	Posted - 2017.02.24 13:13:19 - [339] - Quote All Rorqual Miners are forgetting that some ~80% of all mining accounts are in HS..... The PANIC change seems cack-handed - a much simpler and more elegant way would be better (PANIC = No Targets, for example). The drone mining reduction is probably about right. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
TeflonMag Usoko Aerodyne Collective. Brothers of Tangra 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 13:16:30 - [340] - Quote WHY DON'T YOU JUST DELETE CAPITALS??? You make fighters sitting ducks and rorqs a couple of very expensive mining barges. This is a lack of respect towards players engaged in end-game content. Also, its making the good paying players and the content creators flee. Sorry CCP but you just made capital investment alot less attractive. Simple minded people will always find simple solutions that will only solve their problems not group's problems. CCP you are supposed to be there to solve OUR problems, not yours.

Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Sherwood Hisec Industrial Technologies 322	Posted - 2017.02.24 13:20:09 - [341] - Quote Dear CCP, I just want to say this: IMO the mineral market needs to continue to tank. You need to roll back the previous changes to some extent on the Rorqual and look at other ways of balancing out the mineral market with the influx of minerals. Trit has a base value of 2 ISK. Inflation is what has risen the price from 2 ISK to 3.5-5.5 ISK p/u. I am probably going to echo others - the Rorqual isn't the issue. We currently have to many good ISK faucets and not any decent sinks. This also applies to the number of belts. --- I am looking at and reading Destriouth Hollows post before mine, and got me thinking. You might need to make changes to the mining index systems to make it harder to get the bigger belts. Personally I wish that CCP would remove the TCU mining anoms and instead have it somehow upgrade the belts in system, and then move to a weekly renewing system. With different areas of space having different days of the week in which they renew their belts. Instead of the current system where they re spawn after 3 days or next DT if depleted. Idea for weekly respawn would be Monday - Amarr Tuesday - Gallente Wednesday - Null/WH Thus - Minnie Friday - Caldari "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 #NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Destriouth Hollow Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk. 83	Posted - 2017.02.24 13:43:27 - [342] - Quote @Amarisen Gream Sadly multiboxed rorquals will always be able to keep mining level at 5. If not, no other fleet could do it anymore (:
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 14	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:23:36 - [343] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here I mean he can panic, just not PANIC Well this is bullshit honestly this isnt a fix but a big F YOU to miners, if yall are so worried about entosis use and tackle why not just make it so where the rorqual cant use those? Really stupid to make it so where you have to have an asteroid locked in order to use it. So does this mean when I clear an asteroid belt and someone comes in and and tackles my rorqual and I end up losing it do to this bullshit change youre going to replace it due to stupid mechanics that you made?
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:24:02 - [344] - Quote Destriouth Hollow wrote: @Amarisen Gream Sadly multiboxed rorquals will always be able to keep mining level at 5. If not, no other fleet could do it anymore (: It's pretty easy to keep at least one system at level 5 with subcaps. the bigger issue is perpetually rolling colossal anoms and the excess of trit, pyrerite etc that this produces. We want local ore production going into cap production in our shiny new azbels, not jump-freighters destined for jita 4-4. This nerf doesn't address that as it simultaneously removes the mineral sink with the excess. ie. line members going out and losing caps weekly because they could afford to by mining. it won't stop the multiboxers though, they will continue to grow their fleets and flood high sec.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3067	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:27:57 - [345] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. I hope that this includes ice. Well, I actually hope you abandon this broken, kluged-together mechanic in favor of something more reasonable like simply disallowing any tacklt/EWar on Rorqs, but given the likelihood of that happening I'd settle for your broken mechanic at least being complete. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Ares Splinter Bank Of Zion Circle-Of-Two 9	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:37:40 - [346] - Quote CCP ** us over er have ships way to exspensiv in space an they wonna you over so they can ern even more from 14 to 18bil kills WTF CCP Eter set the cost of the Drone down to somesing we can understand lige max 1 bil an not 10 bil for drones an the Indutri core down to 2-+ min circle then is ok if you set the other down so we have a chance to get away alittle faster otherwise dont ** us i know people going away from the game if CCP do this We spend to many real money to pay for a Ship an your Guys Play Rolette whit our money some pay real money make ir fair seem Like CCP talk aboudt Big risk Big Reward No they ment Big Risk our Reward... they new Way to scam the gamer ???? Broken words when they say big Risk an no reward..
Destriouth Hollow Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk. 84	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:38:24 - [347] - Quote deleted
Destriouth Hollow Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk. 84	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:39:11 - [348] - Quote Pesadel0 wrote: Destriouth Hollow wrote: I am pretty certain, the mining yield of the rorqual is not the problem here. And you will need some more nerfs if you want to balance it by that ^^ The problem isnt that a 10bil ship nets you 200mil an hour. Supercarriers can do something similar already. Incursions also can give you similar income. The problem is, that compared to the other high-end isk/hour incomes in eve, rorqual mining can be done semi afk and multiboxed. Nullsec roids are big enough so they dont need to switch asteroids a lot. And aside from that, nothing prevents anyone from using 20 rorqs at the same time., in secured nullsec space with defense fleet ready. That and ppl can do rorqual mining while they do other stuff, like pvping, pveing etc I am 99% sure the afk and multiboxable nature of rorqual mining is the problem here. A working fix would be, having to unload the mining drones each time they come back or something similar. That would be the much smarter way to do it, in my opinion. Or maybe only allow a single sieged rorqual on grid. Currently rorqual mining has the following 3 characteristics: 1. multiboxable 2. safe in huge pvp-alliances 3. income greater than any other activity, that has 1. and 2. fullfilled One of these 3 needs to change. safety will be hard to touch. Income would have to be nerfed into the ground for all regular users aswell. So 1. is the way to go! nerf multiboxing rorquals. So you want to nerf rourqual multiboxavle? You know what miners will do? 1- Sell the rourquals 2-Buy a super 3-Rat in the umbrella of the multilateral protection of a big alliance Everything in PVE eve is done semi-afaik you know why? Because it sucks , just look the last time CCP did a pass on PVE in EVE was when?If you dont have a healthy population of PVers you wont have as much PVP content and that is a fact.I dont see this change doing anything good to the game and i think there is bigger problems eve need's to tackle first and foremost like Null sov ,moonmining,citadels,PVE in general . And buy the way everyone said when the new bonus of the rourqual were proposed that the panic module would create battle rourquals just go and check the discussions from that time , everyone liked to see rourquals in belts you know mining not hugging a pos field and taking the bonus to mining and dont giving nothing back will just put rourquals again mining at the belt with hulks , who in there rigth mids (besides goons) will put more than 1 rourqual at a belt? Super ratting is not multiboxable.... You have to target and attack a new rat every 2 seconds.... Please learn about the game mechanics before posting....
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 14	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:41:52 - [349] - Quote apollo429 wrote: We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. DONT EVEN BOTHER WASTING YOUR TIME. This new Nerf to rorqual mining is being seen for what it really is. Rorquals are to op a mining ship in your eyes. It takes the place of 5 hulk toons. So now you Nerf it even more so people have to go back to mining in hulks again. This then boosts the amount of people subbed to the game thus increasing plex sales and increasing the number of people paying for eve. You guys need to rethink the Nerf to yeld amount. You decrease the cycle time by 30% yet Nerf the yields by 50%... This is on top of the last 40-50% held next a month or 2 ago. You attempted to help with the cost of mining drone but in the end you messed that up as well but failed. So unless you are planning on releasing mining dreadnaught of sorts this is a bullshit nerf. And I say this as the mineral market falls. So if this is going to be the case then lower the requirements of the excavator drone. I can't believe the CSM thought this was a good idea. Hell they were probably the ones who suggested it
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 14	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:43:42 - [350] - Quote Katsuya Kobayashi wrote: I'm looking forward to your next post, Fozzie. If it's your resignation, at least. You're absolutely awful at your job. This game is about risk and reward. First of all, the ship already gets destroyed every single day. snip No Kill boards. snip ISD Max Trix And that does not include the drones, that people are already hunting - even without the incentive of kill mails. The introduction of kill mails for them is a good additional incentive. A very small gang of extremely cheap ships can already pose a serious threat to rorqual pilots' assets when they siege themselves in an asteroid field. You should have made electronic warfare unsuable while the PANIC module is active, and you should have made the PANIC module weaker to increase the risk and leave the reward be. The game is supposed to reward players to put assets on the field. That's literally what the design behind a rorqual should be. You siege 10b+ of assets into an asteroid cluster, 70% of that value flying slowly around it, easily exposed to small gangs that come by. And a larger scale attack from through a wormhole or cyno, you'll need a capital fleet on standby to have any chance at all to live through it. It takes coordination between players to protect them, and it takes coordination between players to attack them. And it takes one guy to ruin them, you. For the betterment of the game, I sincerely hope you resign. I have no trust in you as a game designer at CCP. Thank you in advance. I totally agree all my friends and myself pretty much have the same sentiment towards Fozzie he pretty much messes up everything he touches starting when changed sov mechanics it has just been a downward spiral since then

Kahrnar Querious Industries Co Integritas Constans 11	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:43:52 - [351] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance. Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment: Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks! This will no longer be viable to field a rorq. Thank you for killing the rorqual mining option.
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 14	Posted - 2017.02.24 14:48:46 - [352] - Quote oresome eyes wrote: Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote: Malkshurr wrote: At the beginning of Roqual dug as much as 4 hulks It was then nerf by 32% and now is the nerf by another 25%? So one rorqual is 2 hulks now 2 hulks - 600 - 700 million 1 rorqual - 12 B And you do not see the problem ? same tbh like I can buy a thrasher and it to 250 dps for 10m But I buy Proteus for 600m and it only do 550 dps???????? cpp plz fix IF CCP makes this changes i would suggest everyone to file a petition to get your isk back since ccp did commit fraud when they published that rorquals WERE TO BE X5 times hulks. Everyone one of us that bought one on the through that the publish information would not changed is a bate and switch. Just because ccp cannot control the flow of minerals to the market, dose not mean you CCP should. THIS IS a player run market and YOU ccp keep your hands out of it. The next question i would have for the dev fossel it would seem like you have a vested interest in mineral prices is that why you are making the changes? Is this another t20 thing? I also forgot can i have have a refund as well on my skill training time that you just wasted. ^^This
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 14	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:00:25 - [353] - Quote TheRighteousOne wrote: Two things: Make the drones a LOT cheaper to warrant these nerfs because the risk/reward ratio is getting out of control Just take away all offensive ecm stuff from the rorq and be done with it. No more complaing about battle rorqs and ppl can still panic as intended The suggested solution with the locked asteroid is the worst thing i have seen since i started playing this game ^^^^^THIS
Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 126	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:05:02 - [354] - Quote Destriouth Hollow wrote: Pesadel0 wrote: Destriouth Hollow wrote: I am pretty certain, the mining yield of the rorqual is not the problem here. And you will need some more nerfs if you want to balance it by that ^^ The problem isnt that a 10bil ship nets you 200mil an hour. Supercarriers can do something similar already. Incursions also can give you similar income. The problem is, that compared to the other high-end isk/hour incomes in eve, rorqual mining can be done semi afk and multiboxed. Nullsec roids are big enough so they dont need to switch asteroids a lot. And aside from that, nothing prevents anyone from using 20 rorqs at the same time., in secured nullsec space with defense fleet ready. That and ppl can do rorqual mining while they do other stuff, like pvping, pveing etc I am 99% sure the afk and multiboxable nature of rorqual mining is the problem here. A working fix would be, having to unload the mining drones each time they come back or something similar. That would be the much smarter way to do it, in my opinion. Or maybe only allow a single sieged rorqual on grid. Currently rorqual mining has the following 3 characteristics: 1. multiboxable 2. safe in huge pvp-alliances 3. income greater than any other activity, that has 1. and 2. fullfilled One of these 3 needs to change. safety will be hard to touch. Income would have to be nerfed into the ground for all regular users aswell. So 1. is the way to go! nerf multiboxing rorquals. So you want to nerf rourqual multiboxavle? You know what miners will do? 1- Sell the rourquals 2-Buy a super 3-Rat in the umbrella of the multilateral protection of a big alliance Everything in PVE eve is done semi-afaik you know why? Because it sucks , just look the last time CCP did a pass on PVE in EVE was when?If you dont have a healthy population of PVers you wont have as much PVP content and that is a fact.I dont see this change doing anything good to the game and i think there is bigger problems eve need's to tackle first and foremost like Null sov ,moonmining,citadels,PVE in general . And buy the way everyone said when the new bonus of the rourqual were proposed that the panic module would create battle rourquals just go and check the discussions from that time , everyone liked to see rourquals in belts you know mining not hugging a pos field and taking the bonus to mining and dont giving nothing back will just put rourquals again mining at the belt with hulks , who in there rigth mids (besides goons) will put more than 1 rourqual at a belt? Super ratting is not multiboxable.... You have to target and attack a new rat every 2 seconds.... Please learn about the game mechanics before posting.... well i explained what will happen if the rourqquals rati of profit is tipped to the wrong side, but i agree it was a bad example of multiboxing , but it wont disapear they willj ust shift to barges fleets again and guess what they are hard has frak to kill.
Sgt Warlock 30plus Fidelas Constans 8	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:22:21 - [355] - Quote 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
Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 126	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:25:24 - [356] - Quote 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?
ISD Chanisa Nemes ISD Community Communications Liaisons 84	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:33:34 - [357] - Quote Removed some off-topic posting. ISD Chanisa Nemes Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Cade Windstalker 896	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:47:09 - [358] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: I'm getting the feeling that you're a station trader, with zero experience in nullsec inductry, or general sovnull operations. we don't care about the jita price, the only minerals we export here, is morphite, because we get wayyy more than we can use. the rest of everythign we mine goes straight via contract to the builders that make caps. a bit gets used for other stuff, because, in nullsec, it's usually easier to just build everything. also, look at your numbers, trit is falling, but mex is actually going up. that's because of the mineral imbalance And you would be wrong, both about what I do in Eve and about the effect of Rorqual mining on Mineral prices. The Jita buy price is dropping, the price in places closer to or in Sov Null has basically fallen off a cliff. While people don't generally export minerals from Null it's not a universal rule, and the volume being mined out there is so great at this point that it's impacting prices elsewhere, both because of the lack of imports from HS creating demand there and because the compressed ore that people are hauling in is still enough to have a significant impact. Also, if you'll note, Mexallon only went up for a month or so and is now falling, along with all the other minerals that were generally bottlenecks on production. Mex was just the last one because its rock was generally low value so people were hesitant to mine it specifically. Now that they've started the price is dropping along with all the other minerals, because what's causing this overall issue is a massive imbalance in minerals produced vs minerals consumed and destroyed, not an imbalance between various mineral types. Millerz Magnum wrote: Every FIN time CCP, every time you nerf hammer. How did you not expect them to be used as tackle when you didn't disable their ability to engage hostile actions while in PANIC is beyond me. This either means you are simple minded or you don't do nearly enough testing, and probably should Sell CCP like your looking to do. However angry I may be, I can reasonable agree that they should not be able to engage hostiles in any manner (but should be able to rr friendlies.). This can be solved two ways, one is disallowing aggressive action with the panic module. Another is to hit the nail on the head, and make the rorq the first ship in eve that cannot fit any type of point entirely. Both ways eliminate the combat problem. .... So take away their combat abilities, but do not nerf where panic can be activated. Also disagree with more min nerfs. F off with the nerfs, but FIX your stupidly planned out module. It's not that CCP didn't see this use coming, it's that it's turned out to be more disruptive and more of a problem than anticipated, so it's getting nerfed. Restricting the Rorqual from fitting a point wouldn't solve the problem, then you just spit out a mining ship with a point, have it point the target, and then PANIC the rorqual which extends to the mining ship. They're restricting when you can PANIC because that is the problem here. It's not just points, or just Entosis, or just using the Rorqual as invincible Cap Logi, it's all of these things and probably some more things that CCP hasn't thought of yet. They can either play whack-a-mole for the next six months and give the Rorqual a list of restrictions as long as my arm, or they can restrict the PANIC module once and actually solve the problem. TigerXtrm wrote: Please don't. This would make the PANIC module essentially useless. Figure out some other way, this is just a duct tape style solution that limits ways to use the PANIC. With this change you're essentially forcing Rorqual pilots to activate it as soon as hostiles land on grid, and that is rarely ever preferable. If you need to tie it to mining so badly, only allow activation if the Rorqual is within 100KM of an asteroid. The PANIC module is what allows Rorquals to be in belts in the first place. If any douche muffin frigate with ECM can prevent you from using it, the entire purpose of that module is gone. Period. The Siege makes you immune to ECM, so it won't make it anything like useless.
Rusty Boon xX-Crusader-Xx Tactical Narcotics Team 31	Posted - 2017.02.24 15:59:36 - [359] - Quote So I slept on it over night. I have come to the conclusion after reading everything that came after my initial post that.... ITS STILL A REALLY BAD ******* IDEA. 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. The mineral prices are fine. Almost all the Ore mined in null is being used in null and never touching the major trade hubs. Null is as it always is Independent of the rest of the game. In fact. I have noticed myself on a daily basis that a lot of the ores that I mine and compress end up being completely sold out on the market at times. Thus making it worth more. You cannot make promises (Original Rorq buff) then give it a reasonable nerf to keep it in line with where it should be at. (32% nerf) and then completely bend us all over the table. I personally manual trained into the Rorq even after the original nerf came towards it. I remapped myself as well to help speed things along. I have a lot of friends in game that that Brought YOU CCP extra money because of these changes. PLEX, Skill injectors, and Skill extractors. All purchased many times over putting Cold hard cash into your wallet. On top of this there is now a Huge demand for PLEX (more money for you) because Rorq miners all PLEX their accounts. I'm fairly certain that Selling PLEX makes you as a company more money than having monthly Subs. Subs 1 Month $14.95/mo $14.95 total PLEX 1 PLEX $19.95 So from this info taken off your site. You are saying that CCP is no longer in the business of making money. Just in the business of Pissing off everyone who is Willfully Throwing Money At them.
Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 112	Posted - 2017.02.24 16:02:37 - [360] - Quote 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 lemmings off the proverbial cliff. My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

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.

milandinia The Executioners Shadow Cartel 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 19:49:59 - [391] - Quote If Panic is such a problem, an easy solution would simply be that if you use any offensive modules or any aggression, there is a cool down timer before you can use PANIC. Forcing a lock on a rock is just stupid.
Hurrikhan Phact Aideron Corp 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 19:52:11 - [392] - Quote The alliance who is hosting the current anti-carebear gankfest in Jita is complaining that the #1 carebear activity gets nerfed? How do you call that again?
Cade Windstalker 902	Posted - 2017.02.24 19:58:21 - [393] - Quote milandinia wrote: If Panic is such a problem, an easy solution would simply be that if you use any offensive modules or any aggression, there is a cool down timer before you can use PANIC. Forcing a lock on a rock is just stupid. Fozzie literally just addressed this in a post
Jabbawockee Uta Stronghelm Corporation Solyaris Chtonium 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:06:59 - [394] - Quote The risk to reward ratio is very unbalanced with the proposed changes. CCP please consider carefully the changes you are making. People tend to agree that the Panic Module should not be tied to locking on an asteroid, but rather a similar mechanic to the NSA that prohibits ECM/Scram when activated. As previously stated, the cost of excavator drones far outweighs their potential value with these changes. I find these proposed changes very disappointing.
paintballlawss Padecain Grass Fed Cannibals Cohortes Triarii 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:08:26 - [395] - Quote If anything i would think CCP Fozzie would understand the risk vs reward and with these rorq changes for the drones there is no longer a reward like how do you not see that??
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 165	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:24:18 - [396] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: milandinia wrote: If Panic is such a problem, an easy solution would simply be that if you use any offensive modules or any aggression, there is a cool down timer before you can use PANIC. Forcing a lock on a rock is just stupid. Fozzie literally just addressed this in a post "addressing" versus quoting jargon that goes against EVERYTHING they are actually doing in any other scenario are very different. Maybe not to you with your biases in how you only flame people who want balance, but I mean fundamentally this is askiew for literally all other viewpoints. Refer to my posts, if they did this blanket nerf to t3s and fozzie came and said "if its an issue we may change t3 requirements dont worry" You wouldn't say "SEE LOOK FOZZIE SAID SOMETHING" you'd flip your **** and would be 100% opposite the mindset you're at now. Unless you're not really this ignorant and are instead an amazing troll, which would be funny, but fruitless to the insanity that these changes are
Thead Enco Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation 285	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:29:31 - [397] - 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. 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. TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place. A Lannister always pays his debts Tyrion Lannister
MadMuppet A Better Corp Name 1229	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:38:19 - [398] - Quote munches popcorn First time the nerf bat didn't hit me in the head. I get the rage about it, but something needed to be done. The asteroid requirement is a riot. SPACE IS LAVA, you need to touch an asteroid to be in a safe space. This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.
Cade Windstalker 902	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:51:42 - [399] - Quote Thead Enco wrote: TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place. How is this even remotely an Eve thing to do to a ship? I guarantee you if you removed the Battle Rorqual from existence you would have ten times the complaints this little joy of a thread is getting... Iminent Penance wrote: "addressing" versus quoting jargon that goes against EVERYTHING they are actually doing in any other scenario are very different. Maybe not to you with your biases in how you only flame people who want balance, but I mean fundamentally this is askiew for literally all other viewpoints. Refer to my posts, if they did this blanket nerf to t3s and fozzie came and said "if its an issue we may change t3 requirements dont worry" You wouldn't say "SEE LOOK FOZZIE SAID SOMETHING" you'd flip your **** and would be 100% opposite the mindset you're at now. Unless you're not really this ignorant and are instead an amazing troll, which would be funny, but fruitless to the insanity that these changes are Lol, first off I'm not flaming anyone. I'm being a little sarcastic, but that's a far cry from flaming. Second, I'm not against balance, I'm against uninformed people who want something to stay broken because they don't recognize the problem, and people who would rather gain a tiny amount of safety over implementing the actually better and more comprehensive solution to the existing problem. Also, if you'd read my posts, like this one I made 5 pages ago you'd know that I'm actually in favor of T3s getting nerfed because I think they push out too many other ship classes and are generally way too powerful. paintballlawss Padecain wrote: If anything i would think CCP Fozzie would understand the risk vs reward and with these rorq changes for the drones there is no longer a reward like how do you not see that?? I'd say he probably does, considering he has far more comprehensive numbers about the volume they've been mining vs the number lost, as well as how many people are mining with them vs how many people are boosting. Judging by the number of kills vs the rough volume of Excavator Drones sold I'd way the game is still running very Rorqual positive at the moment, and everyone I've talked to in Null either knows someone with one, wants to buy one, or has bought one (or several) in the last few months. For comparison here, the raw build price of a Super Carrier is down to around 12b right now (yay mineral market crashes) and the public sale price is still well above 20b, just to be conservative. The Rorqual currently makes about as much ISK per hour as that Super Carrier while risking less than half the value of the Super and for most users it's not even in that much more danger, because in most larger alliances you're about 1 ping away from rescue. And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2879	Posted - 2017.02.24 20:57:59 - [400] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship. All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Cade Windstalker 902	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:07:25 - [401] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship. All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all. Well, I guess that answers the question about whether anyone in PL bought PLEX to buy Rorquals... Seriously, how has someone who's played as long as the average PL player not figured out that if something looks too good it probably is and is going to get nerfed...
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2879	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:13:39 - [402] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship. All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all. Well, I guess that answers the question about whether anyone in PL bought PLEX to buy Rorquals... Seriously, how has someone who's played as long as the average PL player not figured out that if something looks too good it probably is and is going to get nerfed... I haven't mined since the day they were released, while you're over here leaping to conclusions. To think I'm some rare fringe case where people bought plex proves you have a tiny zika ravaged mind. LOTS of people injected rorquals, you can look at the injector market to see that as it calmed down after the rorqual release. And do you think any of those people would have purchased them if the end result would have been anything near a 10 billion isk version of 2 hulks? No, so its a simple case of bait and switch, a **** play by CCP and if you think they didn't set out to gouge you like that you're nuts, this is classic CCP digging for pennies in the couch. Its a trash way to treat your player base after all these years. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Thead Enco Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation 285	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:14:48 - [403] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation. Indeed, there's practically no risk at all........ A Lannister always pays his debts Tyrion Lannister
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 2	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:32:34 - [404] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. What if P.A.N.I.C. simply cycled off active modules, much like a cloak? You could light the cyno before you P.A.N.I.C and it'd still be running after coming out. All offensive mods would cease working almost immediately and a P.A.N.I.C.ed rorq doesn't require active defensive mods since it's invulnerable. you'd lose ewar but i don't know if it's that useful in these situations. P.A.N.I.C. is last resort where you've refit mids with cap/tank and capped yourself out on local reps already. it'd be easier to cyno in caps with capital neuts if you need it or form a subcap support fleet which is how we usually save them.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2811	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:33:51 - [405] - Quote Rowells wrote: 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. That's not saying anything. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2812	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:40:08 - [406] - 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. 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. This is a very reasonable explanation for the strange mechanism you employed to limit the abuse associated with the PANIC module. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Cade Windstalker 903	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:49:59 - [407] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: I haven't mined since the day they were released, while you're over here leaping to conclusions. To think I'm some rare fringe case where people bought plex proves you have a tiny zika ravaged mind. LOTS of people injected rorquals, you can look at the injector market to see that as it calmed down after the rorqual release. And do you think any of those people would have purchased them if the end result would have been anything near a 10 billion isk version of 2 hulks? No, so its a simple case of bait and switch, a **** play by CCP and if you think they didn't set out to gouge you like that you're nuts, this is classic CCP digging for pennies in the couch. Its a trash way to treat your player base after all these years. EDIT: And as far as 'looks to good to be true' mining still made less than any other profession. Super ratting can net you 400+/hr and yet they go after mining. Hi Grath, if you'd care to re-read my post you'll note that I specifically avoided any language implying you yourself did anything to do with a Rorqual. I assumed you were here posting because PL's boards or slack or whatever you guys use these days are blowing up with people raging over how much they spent chasing Rorqual dreams. I'm also perfectly aware that a lot of people injected Rorquals. They made a bet, that bet didn't play out. Nothing CCP did forced them to. That sort of risk/reward setup is, after all, the core of the Eve meta. And yes, Super Ratting nets you more raw ISK per hour, but super ratting isn't in danger of crashing some market, one quick glance at the Jita mineral market clearly shows what Rorquals have been doing and the massive surplus of minerals they've created. Then again maybe you can tell me why there's been such a rush to Inject Rorquals by players who clearly already have a ton of ISK kicking around if they're so under powered compared to Super Carriers?
Cade Windstalker 903	Posted - 2017.02.24 21:54:45 - [408] - Quote Thead Enco wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation. Indeed, there's practically no risk at all........ First off, I said the tiny change in risk from the PANIC changes, not that Rorquals were under no risk. Second, those losses don't mean much unless we have a comparison for the number of Rorquals actually deployed currently in Null, and I know just based on the numbers I have access to that the losses there are a tiny fraction of the losses out in Null. Most of the large groups have a lot of Rorquals out right now, and very very few are getting popped.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2812	Posted - 2017.02.24 22:06:25 - [409] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. This sounds reasonable, but your advertising for the Rorqual explicitly stated it was the ultimate mining ship. Not something to be balanced against a ship costing 1/20 of the price. I get that Eve ships usually increase linearly in power and exponentially in price, but this is a bit absurd here. At least make the components more widely available throughout New Eden, not just in a backwater whose access points are controlled by your friends. Quote: The Rorqual represents the most powerful version of all three mining foreman pillars by itself; capable of providing strong Mining Foreman Bursts, repairing allies and fighting off enemies, and vacuuming up ore faster than any other ship in New Eden. While still technically true, your advertising was blatantly false. Imagine any other company convincing consumers to invest in a product, then significantly downgrading the capability of that product two months later. I'm not a Texas lawyer, but that company would be in serious trouble. This may not have been such a huge concern before you totally monetized the skill training process with skill injectors, but it certainly is now. You lured a bunch of people to invest extra cash into your game, then switched the product they received. Even if it is within your rights as the developer, it's terrible customer service. And, no, I did not purchase a bunch of skill injectors. I trained the skills the normal way (finished Capital Industrial Ships V about 12 hours before you announced this change). I simply made the mistake of resubscribing with cash rather than PLEX. I took the capital changes and Rorqual changes as a sign that CCP was actually invested in making New Eden a better, more fun place to fly. Not simply trying to eke out every last bit of cash from an aging platform. You need to get back on the track of adding content drivers, not removing or penalizing them. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Hellfir Event Horizon Expeditionaries Apocalypse Now. 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 22:27:30 - [410] - Quote If you are going to change the mining yield and increase the times traveled you seriously need to consider changing the material requirements to produce these drones. The cost is out of control and is pushing up near the cost of a rorq hull per drone. I have a rorq i don't use the core its way to dangerous and i certainly don't use the drones at their current price. You also need to look at the mex yields per rock that have it, it is almost always the bottleneck for any kind of large scale production.

Lexia Nova GeneSia-IRC Axiom Vocation Alliance 6	Posted - 2017.02.24 22:45:02 - [411] - Quote Balancing mining.... are you having a laugh? Why on earth do you need to spread out ores in sites even more? Its already difficult enough getting everyone close enough for boosting (as rocks die off). Not all of us have rorq's you know....
Rusty Boon xX-Crusader-Xx Tactical Narcotics Team 32	Posted - 2017.02.24 22:45:51 - [412] - Quote That long info post q and a... nothing about the drones/yeild.... everything about the panic mod. Alot of us could give two ***** about the panic mod. Nerf it into the geound... dont touch the damn drones Or atleast q and a the yeild stuff instead of ignoring everyone.. Also to Grath. I had zika... living in a tropical climate has lots of new and exiting virus" to catch and try out. Although the hydrocephely it causes to unborns is funny and al. It does not make one comment poorly. That was all on that dude.
Cade Windstalker 904	Posted - 2017.02.24 22:48:40 - [413] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: This sounds reasonable, but your advertising for the Rorqual explicitly stated it was the ultimate mining ship. Not something to be balanced against a ship costing 1/20 of the price. I get that Eve ships usually increase linearly in power and exponentially in price, but this is a bit absurd here. At least make the components more widely available throughout New Eden, not just in a backwater whose access points are controlled by your friends. The current changes don't run counter to that line from the dev blog. It's still going to be a very powerful mining ship, but it might actually see some use from the other pillars now instead of just being a massive mining hoover. Also a large part of the current cost of Excavators seems to be as a result of everyone rushing to buy them because the Rorqual is so strong. If this change relaxes demand then the price will likely drop significantly as well. I'd also like to ask you how all the people who fund their accounts partially or largely through mining, but can't afford a Rorqual, would be impacted if the mineral market crashes like it seems to be doing. I'd bet they'd feel a lot like their content has been flatly driven out of the game.
Kain Doran Ember Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2017.02.24 23:24:42 - [414] - Quote Funny is that some of my corp members still say the ore is in jita still too expensive. So why the market need a fix?
paintballlawss Padecain Grass Fed Cannibals Cohortes Triarii 1	Posted - 2017.02.24 23:42:56 - [415] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Thead Enco wrote: TLDR; Instead of recreating the god damn wheel just change the values on offensive mods so you can't fit them on the Rorqual in the first place. How is this even remotely an Eve thing to do to a ship? I guarantee you if you removed the Battle Rorqual from existence you would have ten times the complaints this little joy of a thread is getting... Iminent Penance wrote: "addressing" versus quoting jargon that goes against EVERYTHING they are actually doing in any other scenario are very different. Maybe not to you with your biases in how you only flame people who want balance, but I mean fundamentally this is askiew for literally all other viewpoints. Refer to my posts, if they did this blanket nerf to t3s and fozzie came and said "if its an issue we may change t3 requirements dont worry" You wouldn't say "SEE LOOK FOZZIE SAID SOMETHING" you'd flip your **** and would be 100% opposite the mindset you're at now. Unless you're not really this ignorant and are instead an amazing troll, which would be funny, but fruitless to the insanity that these changes are Lol, first off I'm not flaming anyone. I'm being a little sarcastic, but that's a far cry from flaming. Second, I'm not against balance, I'm against uninformed people who want something to stay broken because they don't recognize the problem, and people who would rather gain a tiny amount of safety over implementing the actually better and more comprehensive solution to the existing problem. Also, if you'd read my posts, like this one I made 5 pages ago you'd know that I'm actually in favor of T3s getting nerfed because I think they push out too many other ship classes and are generally way too powerful. paintballlawss Padecain wrote: If anything i would think CCP Fozzie would understand the risk vs reward and with these rorq changes for the drones there is no longer a reward like how do you not see that?? I'd say he probably does, considering he has far more comprehensive numbers about the volume they've been mining vs the number lost, as well as how many people are mining with them vs how many people are boosting. Judging by the number of kills vs the rough volume of Excavator Drones sold I'd way the game is still running very Rorqual positive at the moment, and everyone I've talked to in Null either knows someone with one, wants to buy one, or has bought one (or several) in the last few months. For comparison here, the raw build price of a Super Carrier is down to around 12b right now (yay mineral market crashes) and the public sale price is still well above 20b, just to be conservative. The Rorqual currently makes about as much ISK per hour as that Super Carrier while risking less than half the value of the Super and for most users it's not even in that much more danger, because in most larger alliances you're about 1 ping away from rescue. And that's just what we can extrapolate from publicly available data. Given Fozzie's comments in this thread it seems like most people are using Rorquals like they're at practically no risk at all. This shows in how big of a deal people are making out of the tiny risk imposed by the changes to PANIC activation. The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining
Goborn The Collective Northern Coalition. 5	Posted - 2017.02.24 23:50:16 - [416] - Quote According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58% since you first introduced the changes late last year. On top of that you have now destroyed its pvp usage. For some unexplainable reason you did not figure out how stupidly broken it was to power project and perform certain pvp functions, something a certain alliance figured out in less then a day. It is my gut feeling that the mining yield as it was had massively positive gameplay effects. Now for some reason you see upper middle class joe having suddenly some cash to spend a bad thing. I'm going to go ahead and call that a good thing. You have now in a extremely short amount of time by your standards double nerfed this ship creating uncertainty and probably dented a lot of peoples investment and they are understandably very angry with you. What could possibly have happened since you introduced it in just a few months that has made you go wtf i hate mineral price now?
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 161	Posted - 2017.02.24 23:54:41 - [417] - 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?
Cade Windstalker 905	Posted - 2017.02.25 00:09:41 - [418] - Quote Goborn wrote: According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58% Your math is off. The paper yield got chopped by 25% once, then that remaining 75% got chopped by 25%, which leaves you with ~56.25% of the original post-changes level. paintballlawss Padecain wrote: The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining Yes, and those people in massive coalitions make up the vast majority of Rorqual users and thus the majority of mineral influx that is causing market problems. A smaller group that only has 1-2 Rorquals and still uses Exhumers actually benefits from this change because now those boosted Exhumers are mining more compared to a Rorqual, and this will likely push some people out of Rorqual Mining, meaning that demand and price for the Excavators should drop and the mineral price should recover. On top of that this makes it more viable, relatively, to just boost with a Rorqual and mine with Hulks, since the hull itself is only ~3B and pays out ~2.2B with full insurance.
Nove Nuke Pwn 'N Play Rate My Ticks 2	Posted - 2017.02.25 00:13:38 - [419] - Quote This is bull CCP. I have been playing this game for the last 10 years. I have 6+ accounts and have been paying with money all these years. I didnGÇÖt use Plex to pay for my accounts I know that your company needs money to pay for people and systems to run the company and to be profitable. I can understand this its economics and I am proud that I have paid over $9600.00 dollars to keep the company up and running EVE is my happy place. I love CCP Seagull and what she has been doing for the game. I canGÇÖt what till the Eve Universe gets bigger and better with new star gates come online. I am sick of CCP Fozzie Messing up the universe I am trying to build. I got only one Rorqual I spent 14 billion Isk to upgrade my ship to use it was setting for 3 years not doing a thing for me or my corp. I got home for work and my corp. The guys had sold 6 Rorquals and all Excavator drones so they would not take a loss on them. In one day I lost over 2.5 billion Isk and climbing. This is wrong Fozzie has done more damage to EVE Online than anybody in the gaming industry. For years he has Nerfs more and more stuff and damage the system. Please stop building up playerGÇÖs hopes and dreams and the Nerfing them in to the ground again and again. CCP you did not give us players a change to pay off the toys that they got and that is wrong. In the next few months the number Rorquals will be parked and not used at all just like before this is sad for all players in the game. This is problem with nerfing the game and a big reason why people get sick and tired and quieting the game. Most of the Eve community still hates Fozzie sov. The last 3 years the number of players has dropped in the Eve this is not a good for the game system and CCP. GÇ£We feel that we need to make another fairly significant in order to help keep this area of the Eve economy healthy.GÇ¥ This is bull yes this has dropped the Eve economy will balance out. This happens in the real world. The real problem is that some people are no longer running 4 or 5 account and have gone down to less accounts. CCP is losing money and that is the real problem less accounts means less money thatGÇÖs whatGÇÖs going on. I wish I had a plan to help CCP make up lost revenue in the real world. But destroying my hopes and dreams in EVE I was just starting to get ahead in my happy world. DonGÇÖt make me sell my Rorqual and drones and loss billions of Isk because Fozzie had another good idea fairy and he did not think it what this was going to do to the game long term. With the new changes Rorquals only 10% will be used in the game most will be parked in weekGÇÖs sad time for miners and the Hunters too. LetGÇÖs Make Eve Great Again. CCP Seagull please stop ccp Fozzie and his good idea fairy. Make a new class of smaller capital ship just for mining with six strippers on it and can use 2 excavator drones it can cost 2 to 3 billion + drones and can mine at about 70 million Isk per hour with no pain button with a small hold. With a small drone bay to defended itself. I would love a T3 type of mining ship that I can reconfigure to what I wonGÇÖt to mine with at about 30 to 35 million per hour. And cost about 1 to 2 billion.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 4003	Posted - 2017.02.25 00:50:09 - [420] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. Thanks for the passionate feedback so far! ....... 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. For the "Last rock" issue, or losing a "race" in being damped before the PANIC button is pushed: When a Rorq loses its lock on a rock, a one minute timer is set. During that time the PANIC mode can still be initialized. Entering warp zeros out the timer immediately. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction

MINESVSGANG Titans of Doom Circle-Of-Two 2	Posted - 2017.02.25 01:00:38 - [421] - Quote there will be 3. nerf of rorqual amount after this nerf. i guarantee it.
Roger Hallay Atlantis Kingdom Badfellas Inc. 16	Posted - 2017.02.25 01:29:48 - [422] - Quote Not very bright ideas Fozzie. Maybe evaluate the risk vs the profit for your customers rather then looking at overall eve(ccp)economy balance.. ...or come up with better excuses.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2817	Posted - 2017.02.25 01:32:20 - [423] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Goborn wrote: According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58% Your math is off. The paper yield got chopped by 25% once, then that remaining 75% got chopped by 25%, which leaves you with ~56.25% of the original post-changes level. paintballlawss Padecain wrote: The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining Yes, and those people in massive coalitions make up the vast majority of Rorqual users and thus the majority of mineral influx that is causing market problems. A smaller group that only has 1-2 Rorquals and still uses Exhumers actually benefits from this change because now those boosted Exhumers are mining more compared to a Rorqual, and this will likely push some people out of Rorqual Mining, meaning that demand and price for the Excavators should drop and the mineral price should recover. On top of that this makes it more viable, relatively, to just boost with a Rorqual and mine with Hulks, since the hull itself is only ~3B and pays out ~2.2B with full insurance. To get the good boosts you still have to be in Industrial Core mode. The only way to justify that risk is to be mining with the Rorqual as well. Otherwise, you will be boosting while aligned to your citadel or POS. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 25	Posted - 2017.02.25 01:37:09 - [424] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Goborn wrote: According to my best knowledge the Rorq's mining yield has now been nerfed by 58% Your math is off. The paper yield got chopped by 25% once, then that remaining 75% got chopped by 25%, which leaves you with ~56.25% of the original post-changes level. paintballlawss Padecain wrote: The only people having no risk is the people in MEGA Coaltions but for us small indy folk this nerf is huge and I dont even give a crap about the PANIC change except for the fact I have to lock a rock when there are much better ways to go about it than that but we might as well go back to hulk mining because there is very little reward to having a rorq on field and too the argument of super ratting is far more risky... im sorry but you are completely wrong super and titan ratting is way less risky then rorq mining... you siege up a rorq in a belt with that cost 16 bil for 5 mins with no backup and tell me how much your butthole puckers for smaller alliances the rorqual mining will be dead because there is no backup for them and you can make more and be safer by hulk mining Yes, and those people in massive coalitions make up the vast majority of Rorqual users and thus the majority of mineral influx that is causing market problems. A smaller group that only has 1-2 Rorquals and still uses Exhumers actually benefits from this change because now those boosted Exhumers are mining more compared to a Rorqual, and this will likely push some people out of Rorqual Mining, meaning that demand and price for the Excavators should drop and the mineral price should recover. On top of that this makes it more viable, relatively, to just boost with a Rorqual and mine with Hulks, since the hull itself is only ~3B and pays out ~2.2B with full insurance. this is also not considering drone travel time... which is becoming more significant, especially with the cycle time change
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 341	Posted - 2017.02.25 01:41:13 - [425] - Quote Time to boost and just mine with normal T2 mining drones
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2817	Posted - 2017.02.25 01:41:35 - [426] - Quote Lexia Nova wrote: Balancing mining.... are you having a laugh? Why on earth do you need to spread out ores in sites even more? Its already difficult enough getting everyone close enough for boosting (as rocks die off). Not all of us have rorq's you know.... As someone who has mined with an Orca booster in Null Sec, this is a valid concern. Even with a Higgs anchor rig, I can easily get out of my exhumers range fairly quickly. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 23	Posted - 2017.02.25 02:10:26 - [427] - Quote Reducing the excavator drone yield by HALF is really too much taking into consideration the huge price on them. They will be only 2,5 times better then augmented mining drones at 30x TIMES THE PRICE. It has no sense whatsoever. RETHINK what you are proposing. Nerfing the rorqual and carrier ratting at the same time ? Why do you want to enrage everyone living in nullsec ? STOP THE NERFS.
Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 9	Posted - 2017.02.25 02:56:38 - [428] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. Economy is not healthy, as you CCP did not listen to normal opinions like mine before introducing those changes, and why economy is not healthy? as those changes give huge advantage for few, over everyone. By few, those are goons and such, biggest entities who can supercap blob everything, as only those can use and use rorquals successfully. just look at zkill, where those rorquals die. ONLY, reasonable solution to your mess ccp now, is to make industry core cycle 30sec, and lower max rorqual mining to level of two boosted hulks. Also mining drones need require less resources to build, as from perspective someone who got access to those resources, numbers are just sick.
Damian Koskanaiken Suddenly Frigates Army of New Eden 1	Posted - 2017.02.25 03:29:18 - [429] - Quote These changes are awful. The risk/reward just became ridiculously unbalanced. Why should anyone use the rorqual when a basic fit that isn't garbage is 12b but only mines 2 hulks' worth at a time. I could mine with literally 40 fully fitted t2 hulks for that price and just decimate production of any hulk, and fleet warp and not have to worry about losing a 1.8b drone, let alone 5 of them. I'd have to lose 6 hulks at once to equate to the price of one drone. Why nerf rorquals and murder the risk/reward. Now they're practically useless.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 148	Posted - 2017.02.25 03:42:45 - [430] - Quote Damian Koskanaiken wrote: These changes are awful. The risk/reward just became ridiculously unbalanced. Why should anyone use the rorqual when a basic fit that isn't garbage is 12b but only mines 2 hulks' worth at a time. I could mine with literally 40 fully fitted t2 hulks for that price and just decimate production of any hulk, and fleet warp and not have to worry about losing a 1.8b drone, let alone 5 of them. I'd have to lose 6 hulks at once to equate to the price of one drone. Why nerf rorquals and murder the risk/reward. Now they're practically useless. Amen. Send fozzie to the unemployment line!

Cade Windstalker 910	Posted - 2017.02.25 04:16:53 - [431] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: this is also not considering drone travel time... which is becoming more significant, especially with the cycle time change Yes, but that math was still bad, especially since travel time is harder to factor in. Damian Koskanaiken wrote: These changes are awful. The risk/reward just became ridiculously unbalanced. Why should anyone use the rorqual when a basic fit that isn't garbage is 12b but only mines 2 hulks' worth at a time. I could mine with literally 40 fully fitted t2 hulks for that price and just decimate production of any hulk, and fleet warp and not have to worry about losing a 1.8b drone, let alone 5 of them. I'd have to lose 6 hulks at once to equate to the price of one drone. Why nerf rorquals and murder the risk/reward. Now they're practically useless. This math is just... what? 2 Hulks? This is a 25% nerf in yield, slightly more with increased time spent traveling due to cycle time reduction. Currently a Rorqual mines as much as 7 fully Rorqual boosted Hulks, or as much as 8.35 unsieged Rorqual boosted Hulks. Multiplying by the 25% nerf gives us: 7 * 0.75 = 5.25 8.35 * 0.75 = 6.26 Both of those are, to put it mildly, significantly more than 2. Also if you put out 39 hulks and boosted with 1 Sieged Rorqual you could mine like you have 72 Hulks on grid, so there's that... FT Diomedes wrote: To get the good boosts you still have to be in Industrial Core mode. The only way to justify that risk is to be mining with the Rorqual as well. Otherwise, you will be boosting while aligned to your citadel or POS. I don't think the math supports this. A Rorqual after insurance just boosting costs about 1.6b. The Platinum Insurance costs 635m and pays out 2.12b on ship destruction. Having a boosting Rorqual on grid and deployed increases the yield of all of your Hulks by 30.5% over having a Rorqual on-grid and not-deployed, 32.5m3/s vs 27.2m3/s from mining lasers only. That's a fairly significant increase in ore production. Also having a Rorqual on-grid gives you a fairly significant chance of getting your Hulks off, since they can spend more time moving and aligned before having to adjust due to the increased mining laser range, and because of the PANIC mode in the event of a rapid enough drop that the enemy manages to catch you. In this case, even assuming you just straight up lose the Rorqual (which is by no means guaronteed to happen every time) you're still only out that ~1.6b (if you're costing the Rorqual by raw materials it's literally just the cost of the insurance that you lose, 2.1b is the cost of materials) and in exchange your Hulks are safer and you get to mine like there's 30% more of them on-grid compared to mining with an aligned Rorqual. IMO that's riskier than an Orca or unsieged Rorqual, but it's still a fairly justifiable risk given the low cost of the Rorqual without drones compared to the Rorqual with drones, and the massively decreased likelihood of you getting dropped if you don't have 6-7b in drones floating around on field.
Xphox Nielson Nielson's Corporation Silent Infinity 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 04:35:49 - [432] - Quote Can I seriously have all my SP back? I thought gee, finally I should get the ship. Spend all this time training into one. I mine the ore, build my ship, get 3/4 completed on new drones and before I can even use it, it's jacked twice? WTH CCP? This is absurd. Complete BS.
Bruno Diaz Zero Atmosphere Hell's Pirates 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 04:51:42 - [433] - Quote more nerfed for rorqual, that socks! the ship and fit cost is like 10b.... why I go to want used, if whit two hulk I'll take the same ore... if you low the base yield, upgrade the bonus in rigs, or skills, but less ore less interest to used the 10 B ship...
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 149	Posted - 2017.02.25 04:58:46 - [434] - Quote We may need to vandalize a monument to get their attention guys. JK
xXDtwelveXx Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 05:00:11 - [435] - Quote What we should do ...is i think we should let them play this game ...on rheyr own for like half a year or even forever since ex players are involved in the creation of this game nothing can go good nothing ....if this game becomes only to suck from ppl $$$ them **** them ...let them play it ...myself spent lost of $$ to get there and now they takeing it away ...real life buy ing a car and after 3 month the sellers come to you and takes his car back with out giveing ur money back!! good one ...ima gonna jut let them play .,,
Bolshakov Alexei Siberian Alpha Fleet SOLAR FLEET 2	Posted - 2017.02.25 05:59:12 - [436] - Quote So much effort has been invested in the pumping equipment Rorqual, and now his nerf any longer! Burn in hell with their Nerf!
apollo429 Colonial Industries Badfellas Inc. 2	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:02:23 - [437] - Quote Gamble Aces wrote: Here's my tinfoil hat theory. CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again. This!!! so much this!!!!!
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 149	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:04:27 - [438] - Quote apollo429 wrote: Gamble Aces wrote: Here's my tinfoil hat theory. CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again. This!!! so much this!!!!! Yup and they need to stop.
apollo429 Colonial Industries Badfellas Inc. 2	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:06:21 - [439] - Quote The best way to react to this would be to starve eve of ore and minerals. If we could only get everyone to stop selling g their ore, pull their sell orders down and choke eve of minerals and watch the price of everything rise up. Let set the mineral market ourselfs. I would love to see trit hit 10isk a unit and see how CCP reacts
Bolshakov Alexei Siberian Alpha Fleet SOLAR FLEET 2	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:19:11 - [440] - Quote 2 Hulk for 14kkk ... Make time at least the core cycle 1 minute! And Increase agility. "CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again." It's true, no one more excessive greed to no good arguments. GREED P.S. Fozzy should be fired!!!

Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 149	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:23:40 - [441] - Quote Bolshakov Alexei wrote: 2 Hulk for 14kkk ... Make time at least the core cycle 1 minute! And Increase agility. "CCP gives zero fucks about the mineral market. CCP has lost a shitload of subs because people that previously had 10-12 accounts mining now have 1-3 accounts. Now they think by nerfing rorquals and buffing barges all these people will pay their subs again." -¡-é-+ -+-Ç-¦-¦-¦-¦, -+-+-+-+-ê-+-Å-Å -¦-¦-¦-+-+-ü-é-î -¦-ë-æ -+-+-¦-+-¦-+ -¦-+ -¦-+-¦-Ç-¦ -+-¦ -¦-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-¦. GREED P.S. Fozzy should be fired!!! ^^this
Rafau Maco Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:40:14 - [442] - Quote #Make Rorquals Great Again
Mistress Renegade Acme Aerospace 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 06:40:18 - [443] - Quote To solve the problems stated by CCP over the PANIC mode on Rorq's, why not just get rid of it all together. This solves the problem of invulnerable tackle, entosos or combat cyno etc. To compensate for this make the industrial core not anchor the ship in place. This way a Rorq mining can align and warp out if needed. The Rorq is a capital class ship so it still has a strong tank which can fend of small gangs which it currently can with out the PANIC mode.
Oddsodz Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 188	Posted - 2017.02.25 07:20:17 - [444] - Quote To my Non Miner mind. It is very easy to address many of the issues of the Rorqual. 1# Ban Entosis just like interceptors 2# Leave the PvE Isk making numbers alone. Nobody is bitching about the amount of ISK Per Hour apart from CCP. The ship is supposed to be a big rock muncher that also serves to protect his mining buddies. LET IT BE A BIG ******* ISK Printing ship. This is it's REWARD for fielding such a thing. The ore market will adjust just as it always has. If the market crashes. Well it will lead to interesting things to study and new interesting ideas for the cost of wars that are waged. 3# Cut it's local active tank by 50%. It's does not need to be at the level of a FAX for PVE. At best it should be at the level of a T2 fit marauder at the most. NOT FAX LEVEL. 4# The real tank of a Rorqual should be it's bat phone friends and the use of P.A.N.I.C for itself and its mining buddies. If you don't have the friends to defend a Rorqual, Don't field it. Right now. If I am out hunting, and I see a Rorqual on d-scan. I just look at it and say nope. No point in looking at it is as I need 50 dudes just to scare it's active tank. Let alone worry about the use of P.A.N.I.C. 5# The case of P.A.N.I.C along with Cyno use. To me it is easy, But will mean DEV time to introduce. Make it so that if you activate the Cyno module. You instantly drop out of P.A.N.I.C mode. Also you would not be able to enter P.A.N.I.C if you have a Cyno module active. (Yes I am fully aware that this would mean other ships would have to use a Cyno module to bring in a response fleet, Just like most fleets move about anyway. That is nothing new or anything that needs addressing). #6 Command Buff range could do with some love. Full disclosure. I do not MINE. I am a shoot guns PVP only type of player. I have no plans at this time to train the skills to fly the Rorqual or to overnight become a Miner.
Decebalus Rex Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 09:52:14 - [445] - Quote For those who say no one cares about mineral prices, there are thousands of miners in high sec who were screwed by your rorquals. There are people mining in ventures, and not a few of them. I started playing about 14 months ago, mining in a venture, trained barge and then exhumers, got 2 more accounts, cause it's stupid to have just one exhumer and an orca, managed to finish the boosting skills few months ago. Just in time. When rorqual buffs were announce, it felt like a joke, 1 rorqual mining as much as 12 exhumers, I actually knew it would come to this. People in rorqs in the bottoms of null sec, no one bothering them, making billions every day. And the price of minerals down the drain. All the miners in hisec were affected by rorq buffs, I used to mine about a belt a day, it wasn't much isk, now, the last 2 months, i think i've mined about 5 belts alltogether. The little isk I used to make was cut in half. By your rorquals! Check the price history on veldspar, scordite, plagio or minerals. It's half of what it was 4 months ago. I can't even sell my omber, no one is buying it. You're talking about killing the game? I've read every post in here and all I see are a bunch of whiners who got their cookie taken away. What rorq buffs did was making rich people richer and poor people poorer. Cause a lot of people start eve with mining. I'm pretty sure most of you did the same. How about those thousands of people, don't they matter at all? You want refunds on isk you spent to train and buy the ships? How about I get refunds on half a year training for exhumers, drones and orca boosts? Or even better, how about you all refund all those billions of isk you made in your iceblock rorquals? Everywhere in null sec and even wh, where I go, rorquals everywhere. Sure, they're no worth being used. Why are there thousands of them out there? If my math is correct, only Jita sold 20k excavator drones the last 4 months. How many ships does that make? I didn't test the ship, but I'm pretty sure the 2 hulks comparison is bullshit. It was mining as much as 12 exhumers when it came out, drones got nerfed 33%, and now 25% more, not even close to 2 hulks. Say it will mine as much as 2 hulks. That means you're mining as much as 2 and a half hulks now and you're fine with it? Give me a break. You made billions every day for 4 months, have other billions in stashed minerals and ruined the economy on top of that, and now you're complaining? Get the hell out of here, you punks! Take a venture and go mine for days, see how that's like.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 151	Posted - 2017.02.25 10:02:17 - [446] - Quote Decebalus Rex wrote: For those who say no one cares about mineral prices, there are thousands of miners in high sec who were screwed by your rorquals. There are people mining in ventures, and not a few of them. I started playing about 14 months ago, mining in a venture, trained barge and then exhumers, got 2 more accounts, cause it's stupid to have just one exhumer and an orca, managed to finish the boosting skills few months ago. Just in time. When rorqual buffs were announce, it felt like a joke, 1 rorqual mining as much as 12 exhumers, I actually knew it would come to this. People in rorqs in the bottoms of null sec, no one bothering them, making billions every day. And the price of minerals down the drain. All the miners in hisec were affected by rorq buffs, I used to mine about a belt a day, it wasn't much isk, now, the last 2 months, i think i've mined about 5 belts alltogether. The little isk I used to make was cut in half. By your rorquals! Check the price history on veldspar, scordite, plagio or minerals. It's half of what it was 4 months ago. I can't even sell my omber, no one is buying it. You're talking about killing the game? I've read every post in here and all I see are a bunch of whiners who got their cookie taken away. What rorq buffs did was making rich people richer and poor people poorer. Cause a lot of people start eve with mining. I'm pretty sure most of you did the same. How about those thousands of people, don't they matter at all? You want refunds on isk you spent to train and buy the ships? How about I get refunds on half a year training for exhumers, drones and orca boosts? Or even better, how about you all refund all those billions of isk you made in your iceblock rorquals? Everywhere in null sec and even wh, where I go, rorquals everywhere. Sure, they're no worth being used. Why are there thousands of them out there? If my math is correct, only Jita sold 20k excavator drones the last 4 months. How many ships does that make? I didn't test the ship, but I'm pretty sure the 2 hulks comparison is bullshit. It was mining as much as 12 exhumers when it came out, drones got nerfed 33%, and now 25% more, not even close to 2 hulks. Say it will mine as much as 2 hulks. That means you're mining as much as 2 and a half hulks now and you're fine with it? Give me a break. You made billions every day for 4 months, have other billions in stashed minerals and ruined the economy on top of that, and now you're complaining? Get the hell out of here, you punks! Take a venture and go mine for days, see how that's like. I started by doing missions. I didn't mine until about a year after starting eve. Just saying
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2017.02.25 10:38:50 - [447] - Quote BTW, no one uses P.A.N.I.C. to protect subcaps, in my alliance at least. if cheeky scrubs try and bomb our covetors and hulks we prelock and capital shield rep them. this works very nicely. For a large incoming fleet they need to leave. Back to the cost/performance of the drones. I'm sure it's been suggested already that a lower performance T2 variant would solve some of the problems with both yield and market demand. The capital outlay for a fully fitted rorq is 10Bn or so. This is a significant barrier to entry. Say there were T2 excavator variants that mined the same as the proposed nerf for actual 'excavator' drones for a few hundred million? I think most people would take that in much the same way as few people bother with 'augmented' drones for ratting. The cost of losing them is simply too high.
Lexia Nova GeneSia-IRC Axiom Vocation Alliance 10	Posted - 2017.02.25 10:52:57 - [448] - Quote Decebalus Rex wrote: For those who say no one cares about mineral prices, there are thousands of miners in high sec who were screwed by your rorquals. There are people mining in ventures, and not a few of them. I started playing about 14 months ago, mining in a venture, trained barge and then exhumers, got 2 more accounts, cause it's stupid to have just one exhumer and an orca, managed to finish the boosting skills few months ago. Just in time. When rorqual buffs were announce, it felt like a joke, 1 rorqual mining as much as 12 exhumers, I actually knew it would come to this. People in rorqs in the bottoms of null sec, no one bothering them, making billions every day. And the price of minerals down the drain. All the miners in hisec were affected by rorq buffs, I used to mine about a belt a day, it wasn't much isk, now, the last 2 months, i think i've mined about 5 belts alltogether. The little isk I used to make was cut in half. By your rorquals! Check the price history on veldspar, scordite, plagio or minerals. It's half of what it was 4 months ago. I can't even sell my omber, no one is buying it. You're talking about killing the game? I've read every post in here and all I see are a bunch of whiners who got their cookie taken away. What rorq buffs did was making rich people richer and poor people poorer. Cause a lot of people start eve with mining. I'm pretty sure most of you did the same. How about those thousands of people, don't they matter at all? You want refunds on isk you spent to train and buy the ships? How about I get refunds on half a year training for exhumers, drones and orca boosts? Or even better, how about you all refund all those billions of isk you made in your iceblock rorquals? Everywhere in null sec and even wh, where I go, rorquals everywhere. Sure, they're no worth being used. Why are there thousands of them out there? If my math is correct, only Jita sold 20k excavator drones the last 4 months. How many ships does that make? I didn't test the ship, but I'm pretty sure the 2 hulks comparison is bullshit. It was mining as much as 12 exhumers when it came out, drones got nerfed 33%, and now 25% more, not even close to 2 hulks. Say it will mine as much as 2 hulks. That means you're mining as much as 2 and a half hulks now and you're fine with it? Give me a break. You made billions every day for 4 months, have other billions in stashed minerals and ruined the economy on top of that, and now you're complaining? Get the hell out of here, you punks! Take a venture and go mine for days, see how that's like. You're not meant to be in highsec forever. Or if that is a personal choice that you have made to stay in highsec then you must have also made the same choice to not venture into nullsec and reap better rewards. I'm all for making things more fun and better in highsec but you cant moan that your safer space gives less income. (With incursions this isnt even entierly true but I digress)
Karmastat Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 11:32:02 - [449] - Quote My two cents: I see the PANIC module as a hard counter to Hot Drops from Covert Op Hot drops. But if u make the requirement to have an active target lock on anything -- wont that just mean the attackers will use an attack that breaks all target locks first? This would just make the fleets as vulnerable as before? since killmails can list the closest celestial to a kill, why not just check if an asteroid belt is closest celestial?
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 151	Posted - 2017.02.25 11:35:44 - [450] - Quote Karmastat wrote: My two cents: I see the PANIC module as a hard counter to Hot Drops from Covert Op Hot drops. But if u make the requirement to have an active target lock on anything -- wont that just mean the attackers will use an attack that breaks all target locks first? This would just make the fleets as vulnerable as before? since killmails can list the closest celestial to a kill, why not just check if an asteroid belt is closest celestial? That makes too much sense.

jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 4	Posted - 2017.02.25 11:42:09 - [451] - Quote I don't usually bother sticking my oar in, leaving it to CCP to make decisions. But my, what a terrible 'fix'. Regardless of the new mechanics behind PANIC/core invulnerability to ECM, you're still leaving the rorquals vulnerable in certain situations my peers have already pointed out. Not good. Now, from a personal point of view, I'm all in favour of reducing the effectiveness of rorquals as impromptu carriers, but there are better ways of fixing this. Increase jump fatigue and tie PANIC modules to jump reactivation timer are 2 that spring to mind. I mean, in what sort of mining situation would you jump into a system and spend 15 mins mining before jumping out. Farcical. As for the yield itself and the other changes that are intended, the only people this will affect are the small scale miners. The players out there with 5 or 10 rorquals will still be sitting on a mint, while the small scale miners will be wondering if the 11 billion isk ship they're risking will be cost effective in comparison with an exhumer with worth 3% of that that can still mine 1/3rd of the yield. As for the asteroid distance changes, that will put paid to rorquals being able to assist each other in belts. Out of range for remote caps and reps, out of rang for drone assistance. You've taken a ship you made viable after years of being useless and made a mockery of the changes we all hailed as insightful and necessary. As far as 'balancing the market' is concerned, what a load of tosh. Finally ships that were beyond the reach of many capsuleers were becoming a possibility, and CCPs response is to deny them that upwards progression. Shame on you CCP. I'd finally forgiven you for the sovereignty fiasco and now this...
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 151	Posted - 2017.02.25 11:45:55 - [452] - Quote jizzah wrote: Shame on you CCP. I'd finally forgiven you for the sovereignty fiasco and now this... You know what these awful changes have in common? Fozzie did it...
Lotus Rose Ascendance Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.02.25 12:57:31 - [453] - Quote While I am not here to shoot the messenger, I do feel it is a terrible shame that CCP as a team could not predict the impact of the original rorqual buff to the game. This is made much worse because to invest in the change people have spent a lot of time, isk and real money to buy in. I do understand their anger, I truly do. It is clear that the situation does need a fix though. What I really hope is that instead of all rorqual pilots being stuck for months in downward nerf spiral that you guys go ahead and get the fix right. Please listen to the feedback from players and work with us to do so. I can remember when the original buff was announced. I read the post with dismay, while noting a sense of excitement from others. I knew that in any of the settings that my industrial characters had been that deploying a rorqual in that space/with those people would likely mean death. Maybe in a day or a week, but death for certain. Only in the biggest alliances with decent support fleets would the risk/reward be viable for me. I forgot about rorquals for a while, and became bored with eve. Sometime later I joined GSF to play with some friends and quickly realised that my industrial pilots could indeed be useful and actually make a decent income for once, albeit with a huge isk investment and some training. This doesn't mean that I didn't see the nerfs coming, as I am sure most people did. Unlike supers and capitals sucking on an isk faucet the ever increasing armies of rorquals are drowning on a mineral faucet and affecting the market as a whole. Much like the booster changes, I see a one fix fits all approach to dealing with some of the current concerns, and again I see that the proposed fix will be disappointing in other areas. Until this announcement, my rorqual made around 2/3rds of a decent ratting super for around the same ratio of cost. However the super is aligned and relatively safe if the pilot has any idea of what s/he is doing and the rorquals are stuck in place. The price of the rorqual is not due to the cost of the hull and fit unlike the super, it's inflated due to the cost of excavator drones. High costs partly due to demand but also due to the fact that many of those parts drop in one region of space which surely has been heavily manipulated. It is a shame that this problem wasn't tacked in the last adjustment, people would be less angry if they hadn't had to invest huge amounts of isk to purchase the extremely squishy drones. I am by no means an economist, but the amount of ore being offloaded into Jita is crashing the mineral market, so is there a way that this issue can be addressed without too many more nerfs to the rorqual. With the composition of null sec mining anoms you have already created an issue with huge amounts of excess trit and pyerite. Again this is something that you could address. I hope that you do look at it when the nerf bat is put aside. I appreciate that you already have plans for the future of eve that you are working on and that you could chose to tackle the current situation with harsh adjustments to the rorqual but for the sake of the player base and everyone invested in this I hope that you are wiser and more committed to improving the situation as a whole. Perhaps you could also look at ways of making the export of huge amounts of compressed ore into high sec something that is much less appealing to the null sec rorqual miners. This isn't something that I know a lot about, but one idea would be to increase the size of compressed null sec ores. especially the spodumain. Another option is to reward mining in ways which are not directly related to the mineral faucet, so that these nerfs hurt less and improve mining as a whole. Perhaps something like a mining ESS or some kind of high/low/null sec missions which reward LP or isk, so that mining doesn't have to fall back into being the worst income of any profession in eve in all regions of space. It wouldn't hurt to buff the miners and their income without destabilising the market further. Just ideas from the top of my head, I'm sure many players have better ones. As for the panic module, I can see why the 'locking of a rock' is an option, but I do not like the vulnerabilities which spring up. I'm sure many people see them and would be ready to use them. While invulnerable, I feel that a rorqual should have very little capability at all. It's intended to be the last stand. Entosis modules shouldn't be able to be fitted alongside panic on a rorqual. Panic'd rorquals shouldn't be able to activate ewar, at this point they should be awaiting their reinforcements while taking care of the mining fleet. This may mean more work for CCP but I urge you to make the best fixes and tweaks that you can and not be limited by the easiest possible fix which will open up more issues.
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2685	Posted - 2017.02.25 14:31:15 - [454] - Quote It'd be interesting to see the actual data used to determine the health of the "mineral economy." We already know that CCP has no metrics for drone mining. If they did, it'd show up in the Monthly Economic Reports. Speaking as someone with intimate knowledge of the mining output of my alliance's region, I can guarantee you that it is still broken. CCP Quant has said as much in months past. So what is left to measure? It could be any number of potential things, but what I suspect it is (and please, prove me wrong here,) is that the Jita price of minerals (and potentially other major market hubs) was the deciding factor. To be brief, looking at Jita is not particularly representative of the state of mining as a whole. I can certainly go into more detail, but it'd be pointless to do so without confirmation that my hypothesis is true. For what it's worth, I had been expecting another rorqual nerf, and am expecting more to come. However, the nerfs should be for the right reasons, and not spurious ones. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
marly cortez Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion 178	Posted - 2017.02.25 14:54:21 - [455] - Quote Obi SToN3D wrote: once Fozzie has nerfed all the things maybe he will quit just like Greyscale but to what extent? Basically locking Rorquals into one system and reducing impetus to travel with them, Player Risk aversion kicking in, something CCP has never fully understood. As to Fozzies mind set on the game, Well when he nerfs the WETU cargo size all will be revealed. Gate camp low life ganker at his very best.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6499	Posted - 2017.02.25 15:23:36 - [456] - Quote Querns wrote: It'd be interesting to see the actual data used to determine the health of the "mineral economy." We already know that CCP has no metrics for drone mining. If they did, it'd show up in the Monthly Economic Reports. Speaking as someone with intimate knowledge of the mining output of my alliance's region, I can guarantee you that it is still broken. CCP Quant has said as much in months past. So what is left to measure? It could be any number of potential things, but what I suspect it is (and please, prove me wrong here,) is that the Jita price of minerals (and potentially other major market hubs) was the deciding factor. To be brief, looking at Jita is not particularly representative of the state of mining as a whole. I can certainly go into more detail, but it'd be pointless to do so without confirmation that my hypothesis is true. For what it's worth, I had been expecting another rorqual nerf, and am expecting more to come. However, the nerfs should be for the right reasons, and not spurious ones. CCP have metrics for drone mining. They're just not in the system used to generate the MER. Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Vivianne Athonille HC - Porkrinds 30	Posted - 2017.02.25 15:40:35 - [457] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: Time to boost and just mine with normal T2 mining drones I see your T2 mining drone usage and raise you one "micro Industrial Core" that fits on the Orca (and maybe even the Porpoise). Give us compression, bonus to boost range, and maybe reduced versions of some of the other bonuses. Re: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6841782#post6841782 At this point I'm ready to throw in the towel on the Rorqual and look forward to fielding something in the 1B to 2B price range which mines less ore and doesn't have PANIC but costs much less and provides similar functionality.
ultimatefox02 Core Industry. Blades of Grass 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 15:43:10 - [458] - Quote Pour r+¬soudre le probl+¿me il suffi de retirer les excavators et le panic mode , donn+¬ au Rorqual la possibilit+¬ lorsqu'il est d+¬ploy+¬ de cr+¬+¬ un force field comme une small tower , pour donn+¬ la possibilit+¬ au barge de ce mettre a l'abris et aussi de pouvoir compress+¬ et stock+¬ et pour compens+¬ le fait qu'il ni a plus d'excavators augmenter les bonus donn+¬ au barge par le Rorqual (la port+¬ et le yield). Le Rorqual d+¬ploy+¬, si il est attaque devrais avoir un mode de reenforce comme les towers mais ne durerais que 1 heure et cette heure pourrais +¬tre r+¬duite si le shield est r+¬par+¬ , enlever la restriction du ship maintenance bay sur les ship industriel , pour que nous puissions mettre un ship PVP ou un ship cyno dans le ship maintenance bay du Rorqual , il faudrait aussi augmenter la soute du Rorqual a 100 000m3 pour que nous puissions y mettre tout le fuel et strontium n+¬cessaire . De cette fa+ºon le Rorqual joue sont r+¦le de protecteur et d+¬fenseur de la flotte, tout en donnant les bonus directement sur le field. GOOGLE TRANSLATE To solve the problem it is enough to remove the excavators and the panic mode, given to the whale the possibility when deployed of created a force field like a small tower, given the possibility to the barge of this to shelter and also To be compressed and stored and compensated for the fact that it has no more excavators to increase the bonuses given to the barge by the minke whale (yield and yield). The whale deployed, if attacked should have a mode of reenforce like the towers but would last only 1 hour and this time could be reduced if the shield is repaired, remove the restriction of the ship maintenance bay on the industrial ship, so that we Could put a ship PVP or a ship cyno in the ship maintenance bay of the Whale, we should also increase the bunker of the Whale to 100 000m3 so that we can put there all the fuel and strontium necessary. This way the Rorqual plays are role of protector and defender of the fleet, while giving the bonuses directly on the field. sorry for my english.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1172	Posted - 2017.02.25 17:09:46 - [459] - Quote Decebalus Rex wrote: For those who say no one cares about mineral prices, there are thousands of miners in high sec who were screwed by your rorquals. Okay. Let's give a little bit of history before we talk about this. Many moons ago, Hi-Sec was the place to mine. There were literally caravans of freighters being titan jumped to null to build super caps and titans. Minerals just came from hisec, there was little reason to do mining in null. What did it take to reverse this? It took mineral buffs, Aegis-Sov, industrial structures, and Rorquals to really give null an edge - an edge they should have. If players put the time in to literally build, maintain, and defend an empire, there should be rewards. Likewise, the convenience and safety of Hi-Sec should come at a premium. Basically, crashing the mineral market was the best thing that ever happened - it made EvE, EvE again, where where was actually a risk/reward paradigm. That being said, the yield did not have to be changed. The tank and combat prowess and tank absolutely did. It's supposed to be a risk/reward thing, and with the Rorqual so defensible, there really isn't enough risk using them to justify the rewards. Heck, I'd support increasing the yield if they lost a significant margin of the tank. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2017.02.25 17:25:24 - [460] - Quote People have figured out how to steal the drones with snatch fleet and murder the ships with T3Cs very effectively. Their defensive capabilities are fine. However, it seems that the best way to kill a rorqual now would be to drop it with more rorquals. and even without a handy asteroid to lock it's still a stupidly good blops/logi ship with 10LY range and no fatigue. combat indy ships are supposed to be a joke for a lazy sunday afternoon roam, not a serious weapon.

Cade Windstalker 914	Posted - 2017.02.25 18:27:45 - [461] - Quote Karmastat wrote: My two cents: I see the PANIC module as a hard counter to Hot Drops from Covert Op Hot drops. But if u make the requirement to have an active target lock on anything -- wont that just mean the attackers will use an attack that breaks all target locks first? This would just make the fleets as vulnerable as before? since killmails can list the closest celestial to a kill, why not just check if an asteroid belt is closest celestial? Except that the Rorqual's Siege makes you immune to ECM and resistant enough to sensor damps that a single sebo or lock range implant will let you lock beyond warp range. The only way for you to have no ability to lock a rock is for an enemy to wait until you're either out of rocks or have warped away from all of them a long distance. That would require someone sitting there watching you mine, and if you're mining with a neutral in system then, um, yeah I think you're first mistake happened well before the PANIC module came into things. Vic Jefferson wrote: Decebalus Rex wrote: For those who say no one cares about mineral prices, there are thousands of miners in high sec who were screwed by your rorquals. Okay. Let's give a little bit of history before we talk about this. Many moons ago, Hi-Sec was the place to mine. There were literally caravans of freighters being titan jumped to null to build super caps and titans. Minerals just came from hisec, there was little reason to do mining in null. What did it take to reverse this? It took mineral buffs, Aegis-Sov, industrial structures, and Rorquals to really give null an edge - an edge they should have. If players put the time in to literally build, maintain, and defend an empire, there should be rewards. Likewise, the convenience and safety of Hi-Sec should come at a premium. Basically, crashing the mineral market was the best thing that ever happened - it made EvE, EvE again, where where was actually a risk/reward paradigm. That being said, the yield did not have to be changed. The tank and combat prowess and tank absolutely did. It's supposed to be a risk/reward thing, and with the Rorqual so defensible, there really isn't enough risk using them to justify the rewards. Heck, I'd support increasing the yield if they lost a significant margin of the tank. This isn't really correct. There started being a fair amount of Null industry before the Rorqual changes. It wasn't anything like High Sec but that makes sense just by dint of volume of players. What the Rorqual has done though is made a lot of people who never mined start mining, which has massively increased the flow of ore and minerals into the game. If this was just supplying Null then it wouldn't be much of a problem, but it's not just supplying Null it's actually generating more minerals than Null is consuming, even with the rush of ship and Citadel building it's created. That's what's crashing the mineral market, and nerfing the tank on these things isn't going to fix that, because most of the large groups are still mining way way way more than they're losing in value, because even getting in to threaten their Rorquals is difficult. Also nerfing the tank like you're suggesting would hurt the smaller groups more than the larger ones, so it makes more sense for CCP to adjust the reward part of risk/reward, since Rorquals aren't being threatened nearly as much as they probably figured they would be when they first deployed the initial changes. They've also been adopted by a lot of former non-miners, which has probably skewed things even more.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1172	Posted - 2017.02.25 18:54:05 - [462] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: This isn't really correct. There started being a fair amount of Null industry before the Rorqual changes. It wasn't anything like High Sec but that makes sense just by dint of volume of players. I gave a nod to this. All of those other changes really sequentially helped null industry, but the fact that it was now easy to get local minerals really put it over the top, i.e., where it should be compared to HiSec. Cade Windstalker wrote: What the Rorqual has done though is made a lot of people who never mined start mining, which has massively increased the flow of ore and minerals into the game. If this was just supplying Null then it wouldn't be much of a problem, but it's not just supplying Null it's actually generating more minerals than Null is consuming, even with the rush of ship and Citadel building it's created. That's what's crashing the mineral market, and nerfing the tank on these things isn't going to fix that, because most of the large groups are still mining way way way more than they're losing in value, because even getting in to threaten their Rorquals is difficult. This I disagree entirely, reasons why will be in the next section. Cade Windstalker wrote: Also nerfing the tank like you're suggesting would hurt the smaller groups more than the larger ones, so it makes more sense for CCP to adjust the reward part of risk/reward, since Rorquals aren't being threatened nearly as much as they probably figured they would be when they first deployed the initial changes. They've also been adopted by a lot of former non-miners, which has probably skewed things even more. This touches on the heart of the problem more than anything. You have to make the Rorqual defensible enough that more than just the largest groups can use them, but at the same time, you have to make it so they are actually vulnerable when used by the largest groups. Honestly, the problem isn't really all that different than the old carrier problem - a problem of scale. And it is a very difficult task. You could nerf the tank on them to the point where they are vulnerable, but you would have to outright get rid of PANIC. So I've done my fair share of blops against hardened and well defended sov space. The most important thing is speed - can my damage outpace the response fleet? Although one of the intentions of AegisSov was largely to punish bloat, it has had the opposite effect - empires can attain massive scale without gaining any of the friction that should accompany it because you can stuff so many players into so little space comfortably. Horde has nearly 13,000 pilots, and only needs one pocket of Fade (5 systems) to feed that many players. This density problem, combined with cynos, combined with PANIC, combined with the local tank means any reasonable sov empire, barring gross and hilarious incompetence, will be able to respond in time - the window is simply massive. Basically, I think we would all be happy with a high risk, high reward ship. If they want to embrace iterative design and balance, why would they simultaneously take away the reward and the risk at the same time? You want these two to be in balance. They should have kept the yield, but taken away one defensive trick at a time until such a time as they weren't invulnerable in the right hands. HiSec should leave everyone who lives there wanting. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Cade Windstalker 914	Posted - 2017.02.25 20:25:56 - [463] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: I gave a nod to this. All of those other changes really sequentially helped null industry, but the fact that it was now easy to get local minerals really put it over the top, i.e., where it should be compared to HiSec. This isn't really going to change though. The rock composition out in Null is better in basically every way, a fleet of Boosted Hulks in Null being boosted off a Rorqual is still about 10% better than an Orca, and a Rorqual with drones is still going to be worth about six Hulks in a belt before you add on any Hulks its boosting. The problem we've got right now is that between the implicit discount of building your own stuff vs buying it, the relative safety a large alliance can provide for a mining Rorqual (or twelve), and the massive amounts of ore these things pull in the mineral market hit the saturation point about a month ago and now everything dropping. The only thing that's holding things down right now is the general in-elasticity of the mineral market and the expense of hauling things to High Sec. Vic Jefferson wrote: This I disagree entirely, reasons why will be in the next section. This touches on the heart of the problem more than anything. You have to make the Rorqual defensible enough that more than just the largest groups can use them, but at the same time, you have to make it so they are actually vulnerable when used by the largest groups. Honestly, the problem isn't really all that different than the old carrier problem - a problem of scale. And it is a very difficult task. You could nerf the tank on them to the point where they are vulnerable, but you would have to outright get rid of PANIC. So I've done my fair share of blops against hardened and well defended sov space. The most important thing is speed - can my damage outpace the response fleet? Although one of the intentions of AegisSov was largely to punish bloat, it has had the opposite effect - empires can attain massive scale without gaining any of the friction that should accompany it because you can stuff so many players into so little space comfortably. Horde has nearly 13,000 pilots, and only needs one pocket of Fade (5 systems) to feed that many players. This density problem, combined with cynos, combined with PANIC, combined with the local tank means any reasonable sov empire, barring gross and hilarious incompetence, will be able to respond in time - the window is simply massive. Basically, I think we would all be happy with a high risk, high reward ship. If they want to embrace iterative design and balance, why would they simultaneously take away the reward and the risk at the same time? You want these two to be in balance. They should have kept the yield, but taken away one defensive trick at a time until such a time as they weren't invulnerable in the right hands. HiSec should leave everyone who lives there wanting. I appreciate how reasonable and well thought out this is, but I think it runs into the same fallacy as the whole "Carrier ratting is perfectly safe argument" which is that you can say that it requires gross negligence to lose a ship, but the reality is it requires just a little bit of negligence and these sorts of losses are relatively frequent. Not so much that anyone is going to lose money Carrier ratting, but frequent enough to be balanced in practice. A guy on reddit did a lovely analysis of Rorqual losses since Ascension which I'm going to reference for a lot of the rest of this. The two main things that stand out to me here are that Rorquals are dying absolutely everywhere, not just outside the major Sov alliances. The recent gank of one Goon's seven Rorqual accounts stands out to me as a good example of this. The attackers dread-bombed him during the TZ transition and a fleet couldn't form in time to save him due to lack of pilots and FCs. The other thing that stands out is that while PANIC is certainly powerful it's not all-powerful and plenty of Rorquals are dying with one fitted. Even more are dying without one though, and just based on what little word of mouth and market intel I've got the total losses since Ascension haven't even come close to making a dent in the total population of Rorquals or the volume of minerals they're producing. What that's at risk of doing is pricing out anyone and everyone who doesn't own a Rorqual from being able to PLEX their account(s) through mining, which is a fair number of people. While I can definitely agree that Null should be more rewards for more risk and overall effort (especially in logistics) it shouldn't completely remove playstyles or wreck the overall economy. Now, I can definitely appreciate and get behind that it's a little ridiculous how many people you can pack into a small area these days. There was another post on Reddit discussing how fast mining enoms respawn, and I have to agree that's a bit silly, but changing it wouldn't actually fix the Rorqual right now, because the risk vs reward is such that mining in a Rorqual has become more attractive to a lot of people than Carrier or even Super Ratting. When you're pulling in people who previously turned their noses up at mining that's a pretty good indication the risk/reward is out of whack. As I said previously and still stand by I think any increase in risk sufficient to reign in the major null blobs would make the Rorqual useless to anyone else, and probably make it all but defenseless without a batphone on standby. Given that, which I don't feel is an unreasonable set of assumptions, the thing that makes the most sense is to reduce the mineral output to push some of the people that have flocked to the new OP hotness out of the market. Reduced demand should also lower the price on the Excavators, lowering the amount being risked somewhat as well.
Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 112	Posted - 2017.02.25 20:52:48 - [464] - Quote Karmastat wrote: My two cents: I see the PANIC module as a hard counter to Hot Drops from Covert Op Hot drops. But if u make the requirement to have an active target lock on anything -- wont that just mean the attackers will use an attack that breaks all target locks first? This would just make the fleets as vulnerable as before? since killmails can list the closest celestial to a kill, why not just check if an asteroid belt is closest celestial? The counter argument to this is that "in siege, the rorqual is immune to ewar" Yes? My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2686	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:05:05 - [465] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: So I've done my fair share of blops against hardened and well defended sov space. The most important thing is speed - can my damage outpace the response fleet? Although one of the intentions of AegisSov was largely to punish bloat, it has had the opposite effect - empires can attain massive scale without gaining any of the friction that should accompany it because you can stuff so many players into so little space comfortably. Horde has nearly 13,000 pilots, and only needs one pocket of Fade (5 systems) to feed that many players. This density problem, combined with cynos, combined with PANIC, combined with the local tank means any reasonable sov empire, barring gross and hilarious incompetence, will be able to respond in time - the window is simply massive. Aegis sovereignty actually did nothing to change how densely you can pack space. The ore anomaly spawn mechanics that are in place today have been in place for longer than I've been playing this game, and today's ore anomaly asteroid composition has been in place for nearly two years. What changed was the removal of AFK carrier ratting in the Citadel expansion. Suddenly, the most scalable method of making money in nullsec was gone. Mining was the next thing in line after AFK carrier ratting was removed, due to its largely hands-off gameplay mechanics. We were already mining a lot in barges and exhumers, and then Rorquals were released, significantly over-tuned at release. It's only natural we and others would go whole hog on them. The existence of skill injectors exacerbated this problem, as well. Without them, you'd have seen a much more gradual ramp up to today's Superfund-style mining operations, as multiboxers et. al. slowly trained pilots up the long way or competed for a tiny slice of available Character Bazaar offerings. Mistakes were made, but let's be sure to attribute them to the right sources. Aegis sovereignty, for all its faults, wasn't responsible here. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Karmastat Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:12:10 - [466] - Quote Panther X wrote: Karmastat wrote: My two cents: I see the PANIC module as a hard counter to Hot Drops from Covert Op Hot drops. But if u make the requirement to have an active target lock on anything -- wont that just mean the attackers will use an attack that breaks all target locks first? This would just make the fleets as vulnerable as before? since killmails can list the closest celestial to a kill, why not just check if an asteroid belt is closest celestial? The counter argument to this is that "in siege, the rorqual is immune to ewar" Yes? May be true, if its in seige and has the core on and running, etc. However my real point - that only one person has commented on - is to remind CCP of the fact - that their servers know if u are near a celestial or not - so when the Panic Button is pressed that a simple data call to a routine that determines the type of celestial you are near (same one used for Killmails) and allowing PANIC mode only if in a belt seemed a much easier solution. As to the Economy? the charts show Production of ore and Minerals has skyrocketed which is tilting the market. I would say the market was tilted before all this came up .. we need our long lost economist back, please
Querns GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2686	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:13:05 - [467] - Quote Karmastat wrote: However my real point - that only one person has commented on - is to remind CCP of the fact - that their servers know if u are near a celestial or not - so when the Panic Button is pressed that a simple data call to a routine that determines the type of celestial you are near (same one used for Killmails) and allowing PANIC mode only if in a belt seemed a much easier solution. Fozzie said, earlier, that proximity checks are considerably more expensive than locked target checks. Don't expect them to relent on that. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1174	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:13:56 - [468] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: When you're pulling in people who previously turned their noses up at mining that's a pretty good indication the risk/reward is out of whack. Thanks for responding so completely. This was one part that still made me....contemplative. So, I think it's healthier for the game overall for 'non-miners' to adopt mining in sov space that they live in than adopting some of the other activities that are out of whack as far as risk/reward. High Sec incursions are literally anathema to everything EvE stands for as far as risk/reward, and players from all walks of space have incursion alts, same with faction warfare alts. Basically it's better and healthier for people to have activities that are actually tied to the space they live in, and the groups they are part of, rather than just having a series of alts to earn income with because none of the local activities are appealing enough. The rest of your counter-points are well taken, but by that counter-point, that would seem to implicate that since Incursions have made us (or our alts ) into hi-secers, incursions should be removed from Hi-Sec entirely because they distort the entire rest of the game. Honestly, it's a little telling that CCP will use the nerf hammer on nullsec to fix the economy, but the Hi-Sec incursion beast is tacitly ignored. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Karmastat Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:21:49 - [469] - Quote Querns wrote: Karmastat wrote: However my real point - that only one person has commented on - is to remind CCP of the fact - that their servers know if u are near a celestial or not - so when the Panic Button is pressed that a simple data call to a routine that determines the type of celestial you are near (same one used for Killmails) and allowing PANIC mode only if in a belt seemed a much easier solution. Fozzie said, earlier, that proximity checks are considerably more expensive than locked target checks. Don't expect them to relent on that. I'll check that thanks.. I'm not sure i believe it though. the number of Rorquals hitting the Panic button has got to be a very very minor fraction of the killmails being generated every second however, and they do a prox check for those. (unless the check is done by zKill somehow, which might change things). Plus how many overviews have the asteroid belt on them with distance indicated? Mmmmm .. Naw ... I dont buy the expensive Argument, they may be more expensive per call than a target lock, but the total bandwidth/CPU cycles is very low do to not happening very often. Just my opinion.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 33	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:23:25 - [470] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Okay. Let's give a little bit of history before we talk about this. Many moons ago, Hi-Sec was the place to mine. There were literally caravans of freighters being titan jumped to null to build super caps and titans. Minerals just came from hisec, there was little reason to do mining in null. What did it take to reverse this? It took mineral buffs, Aegis-Sov, industrial structures, and Rorquals to really give null an edge - an edge they should have. If players put the time in to literally build, maintain, and defend an empire, there should be rewards. Likewise, the convenience and safety of Hi-Sec should come at a premium. Basically, crashing the mineral market was the best thing that ever happened - it made EvE, EvE again, where there was actually a risk/reward paradigm. That being said, the yield did not have to be changed. The tank and combat prowess and tank absolutely did. It's supposed to be a risk/reward thing, and with the Rorqual so defensible, there really isn't enough risk using them to justify the rewards. Heck, I'd support increasing the yield if they lost a significant margin of the tank. Sherman, set the WABAC Machine to pre-CSM6. Gun mining was a thing. The loot table contained meta zero mods when with combined with bounties made this a lucrative play style in all corners of New Eden. Mining in Hi-sec was a third world income level. And self-destruction insurance on the undock was a possible because the mineral value was lower than Premium. (prepare to fast forward) Fast Forwarding to CSM6. Its proposed to remove drone drops which are refined into large portion of the minerals of market. With the stroke of a pen, the Chairman can bankrupt a rival alliance. We are talking the same worthy who, learning day one of the summit that all Wormholes classes contain ABC ores, had a near meltdown demanding the removal of these ores because they should be exclusive to null-sec. (insert: something something virgins, something sex advice for comedic effect). The follow on effect is high-sec is left to fill the void. Safety where does that come into the equation? Until July 2012, mining barges had a single mid-slot. How could they cope against rats out of high-sec with almost zero tank. That's long before we touch on how reviled the activity is, and over-farmed for "content generation". The mineral buffs came at the advice of a single player. No townhall, no tabled to the CSM - one player. Can I forgiven for not being inspired by whole process?

Teebling Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 145	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:29:20 - [471] - Quote I scanned down a wormhole, avoided being seen by whole corp, found two Hulks and a Rorqual. Went to suicide my Hecate to kill one of the hulks before their fleet formed to kill me. Hulk down into structure and suddenly stops taking any damage whatsoever! What a rubbish feature - please remove PANIC.
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 303	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:34:30 - [472] - Quote This thread is great. So many carebears whining that their easymode ISK printing machine gets nerfed. Oddsodz wrote: 2# Leave the PvE Isk making numbers alone. Nobody is bitching about the amount of ISK Per Hour apart from CCP. The ship is supposed to be a big rock muncher that also serves to protect his mining buddies. LET IT BE A BIG ******* ISK Printing ship. This is it's REWARD for fielding such a thing. The ore market will adjust just as it always has. If the market crashes. Well it will lead to interesting things to study and new interesting ideas for the cost of wars that are waged. The Rorqual is an industrial command ship. It is supposed to support and protect a mining fleet, not be the mining fleet. The current Rorqual is so good at mining, it makes all other forms of mining obsolete and the mechanics strongly favor the big coalitions who always have a capital fleet ready to squash anyone who dares to tackle one of their Rorquals. Just look who complains in this thread ... mainly Goons, PL and NC. They act like they represent the entirety of EVE.
Cade Windstalker 914	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:38:44 - [473] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: When you're pulling in people who previously turned their noses up at mining that's a pretty good indication the risk/reward is out of whack. Thanks for responding so completely. This was one part that still made me....contemplative. So, I think it's healthier for the game overall for 'non-miners' to adopt mining in sov space that they live in than adopting some of the other activities that are out of whack as far as risk/reward. High Sec incursions are literally anathema to everything EvE stands for as far as risk/reward, and players from all walks of space have incursion alts, same with faction warfare alts. Basically it's better and healthier for people to have activities that are actually tied to the space they live in, and the groups they are part of, rather than just having a series of alts to earn income with because none of the local activities are appealing enough. The rest of your counter-points are well taken, but by that counter-point, that would seem to implicate that since Incursions have made us (or our alts ) into hi-secers, incursions should be removed from Hi-Sec entirely because they distort the entire rest of the game. Honestly, it's a little telling that CCP will use the nerf hammer on nullsec to fix the economy, but the Hi-Sec incursion beast is tacitly ignored. Thank you for the civil and intelligent discussion, it's been a refreshing change I sort of agree with this and at the same time I don't. I'm going to avoid getting into the whole "Incursions are OP" thing, because I disagree and that's an argument for another thread. Sufficed to say that there's a ton of logistics, planning, and organization that keeps incursion groups running, and that I can say from experience that no where near everyone out in Null has an Incursion alt. Same with Faction Warfare and various other activities. The actual major issue here, that I think separates the Rorqual from Incursions and Carrier ratting and Level 5 missions and even Factional Warfare is that when something breaks the mineral market is has massive and far reaching implications. When someone decides to Incursion instead of Carrier rat they're actually choosing a bit of safety over generating more ISK, so they're not even causing inflation. When someone decides to Rorqual Mine instead of Carrier rat though they're increasing the supply of minerals in the game, and when a ton of people choose to do that it can cause a major swing in the mineral market, which is what we're currently seeing. That mineral swing is going to have a pretty significant impact on anyone doing production in the game because it pushes down their ability to make ISK, and it's not really pushing down the value of other goods along with it the way changes in the money supply in-game tend to. What this means is that this massive shift towards Rorqual mining is going to price out a lot of smaller producers who were previously able to easily PLEX their accounts. It's possible that the shift will push some people out of Rorqual mining as well, but since without a yield change the number of mining hours required to build a capital ship remains the same the relative attractiveness of swapping away from mining to other activities is a bit skewed. This is especially true when you consider that the people mining in Rorquals are also often old enough to just stand up a production alt if they don't have one already, so they can turn those minerals into ships, especially Supers, and bump their profit margins significantly. I think the profit margin on a Hel right now is something like 5b profit on 12b in minerals. That's why I don't think the current state of the Rorqual is healthy, even if it's pulled in people who might otherwise being doing other activities, or other activities elsewhere. Personally though I think most of the people it's pulled in would be Carrier or Super Ratting, not running in other space. Super ratting is a similar cost investment to a Rorqual and drones and pays in about the same bracket, where as the general average for Incursions is a bracket or two down, generally between 90 and 150m before LP. That said, I would fully support more group-oriented and higher reward PvE in Null. Something like Rogue Drone Infestations or something where you'd need to gather up a combined Cap and Sub-Cap fleet and run things as a group for big payouts of some kind, because I absolutely agree that people should be encouraged to use the space they occupy, and I also think that there should be incentive to spread out a bit more than currently. I also don't like that end-game Null PvE is solo, and CCP have expressed a similar sentiment, so there's that too. The main thing though is I don't think the amazing Rorqual mineral faucet is a healthy way to draw people to an activity.
November Audene KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.25 21:55:53 - [474] - Quote I have only been playing this game for a year and JUST got into capital ships. I am very against the proposed changes to drones, both excavator and carrier. These changes make it much less profitable to be a capital pilot for the purpose of making isk, and as someone who can only fly one ship, this impacts me a lot. I am particularity concerned about the proposed increase to fighter sig radius. I just started carrier ratting this week, and already I am about to see my ratting life and learning curve get much more difficult. These changes don't really affect those who have played this game for years and have many accounts, but for new and new-ish players like me this is a really bad thing. On a different note, I am concerned that this change will cause people to be more cautious with their ships as with less ore being mined, ship prices will increase. With more caution comes less content, and content drives the heart of this game.
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2017.02.25 22:01:24 - [475] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Now, I can definitely appreciate and get behind that it's a little ridiculous how many people you can pack into a small area these days. There was another post on Reddit discussing how fast mining enoms respawn, and I have to agree that's a bit silly, but changing it wouldn't actually fix the Rorqual right now, because the risk vs reward is such that mining in a Rorqual has become more attractive to a lot of people than Carrier or even Super Ratting.. it's also the lack of micromanagement compared to carrier ratting, coupled with the massive capacity of the ore anoms which can comfortably fit up to a dozen rorquals. fade is stuffed to the gills with VNIs so it's maddening to carrier rat there. rorq mining is really chill in comparison because it's easy to get your own good sized nice nug to nom on.
Cade Windstalker 915	Posted - 2017.02.25 22:11:29 - [476] - Quote Mr Bignose wrote: it's also the lack of micromanagement compared to carrier ratting, coupled with the massive capacity of the ore anoms which can comfortably fit up to a dozen rorquals. fade is stuffed to the gills with VNIs so it's maddening to carrier rat there. rorq mining is really chill in comparison because it's easy to get your own good sized nice nug to nom on. A couple of people on Reddit were reporting that there are guys in their Alliance with 40+ Rorquals that just go through and eat Ore anoms in an hour each.
Vic Jefferson Knights of Poitot Rote Kapelle 1174	Posted - 2017.02.25 22:27:21 - [477] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: The actual major issue here, that I think separates the Rorqual from Incursions and Carrier ratting and Level 5 missions and even Factional Warfare is that when something breaks the mineral market is has massive and far reaching implications. When someone decides to Incursion instead of Carrier rat they're actually choosing a bit of safety over generating more ISK, so they're not even causing inflation. I would tend to disagree wholeheartedly. They are causing inflation by earning 80% of the ISK at 0.001% of the risk. They are dumping wealth into the game that has no opportunity cost. It's a hilariously unjust double-standard. The moment nullsec has a grip on an economy they should dominate, things are adjusted, but it's been OK for incursions to literally stomp out so many other economies. I cry foul. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 3	Posted - 2017.02.25 22:36:21 - [478] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: A couple of people on Reddit were reporting that there are guys in their Alliance with 40+ Rorquals that just go through and eat Ore anoms in an hour each. it kind of gets too busy above a dozen but i guess it depends on how co-ordinated you are. also you have to clear the mercoxit and if you're rolling it every hour then you need quite a few deep core subcap miners. but yeah, it's kind of nuts and I don't think these kind of balance passes are really addressing that.
Cade Windstalker 917	Posted - 2017.02.25 23:03:53 - [479] - Quote Querns wrote: Karmastat wrote: However my real point - that only one person has commented on - is to remind CCP of the fact - that their servers know if u are near a celestial or not - so when the Panic Button is pressed that a simple data call to a routine that determines the type of celestial you are near (same one used for Killmails) and allowing PANIC mode only if in a belt seemed a much easier solution. Fozzie said, earlier, that proximity checks are considerably more expensive than locked target checks. Don't expect them to relent on that. At least not without a really good reason at least. Also knowing what celestial you're near is pretty easy, you just need to iterate through the list of celestials and you can do that quickly with an oct-tree since Celestials don't move or change. Asteroids do though, so what would have to happen is that every time someone hits a PANIC module it basically searched through everything in a radius around it until it finds an asteroid or hits a range limit, which probably requires building an oct tree and checking each object in it as you get further from the ship to see if it's an asteroid. It's mostly unlikely that this performance hit would matter too much, but on the flip side every little bit helps, and if hitting PANIC causes a bit of a lag spike then you might get someone hitting like fifty of em to try and induce TiDi or something.
Cade Windstalker 917	Posted - 2017.02.25 23:10:44 - [480] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: The actual major issue here, that I think separates the Rorqual from Incursions and Carrier ratting and Level 5 missions and even Factional Warfare is that when something breaks the mineral market is has massive and far reaching implications. When someone decides to Incursion instead of Carrier rat they're actually choosing a bit of safety over generating more ISK, so they're not even causing inflation. I would tend to disagree wholeheartedly. They are causing inflation by earning 80% of the ISK at 0.001% of the risk. They are dumping wealth into the game that has no opportunity cost. It's a hilariously unjust double-standard. The moment nullsec has a grip on an economy they should dominate, things are adjusted, but it's been OK for incursions to literally stomp out so many other economies. I cry foul. Like I said, I'd rather not get into this here. If you want to argue opportunity cost for Incursions PM me and we can hash it out there. Sufficed to say that for the moment CCP are happy with the risk/reward for Incursions. My point is that it doesn't have the same kind of far reaching game impact that the mineral market crashing does. If I'm off doing Incursions then I'm not generating so much ISK that I'm wrecking other parts of the economy, and the LP Incursions generate actually takes ISK out of the game when it's used. The only thing Incursions take away from is participation in other things by the people running them. Anyone who doesn't want to Incursion is free to not, it's not going to see their ability to PLEX their account ruined because they've decided to keep doing Level 4s, or Carrier rat. Rorquals, on the other hand, are flooding the market with minerals and that's seriously threatening to wreck mining as a profession for everyone who doesn't either have a Rorqual or a maxed out Orca booster and 20 Hulks. To me this isn't a double standard, it's two completely different situations, and it's not about Null dominating, it's about Null basically squishing everything else.

Ltcartial State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2017.02.25 23:25:19 - [481] - Quote some Ideas that probly work better then just nerfing the rorqs. 1. What about making the rorq's have a min distance they have to keep from other rorqs in a belt when core mode is active? This would spread out rorq mining and make it still have a good Isk to reward while at the same time giving those players that have 10 rorq miners work harder for that ore. Spreading out 10 rorq accross multi belts/systems would differently slow down the amount one person can mine and balance off the market. I would say rorq core min distance from another rorq in core would be a great idea if it had not been nerfed so much in the past giving a very bad balance risking 12B ship for crap yield. 2. Or better yet nerf the heck out of rorq mining yield and just boost the heck out of the mining links so others in the belt mining more to balance the risk of having that 12B assets out on the field for others to injoy. Say bye bye to the 40man rorq fleets, get those barges back out on the field . The great thing about the rorq was it would boost others mining making not just one person want to play and injoy mining but make large grps come together to mine. So when you have costly assets on the field let it do its job and boost others and protect others all while the rest of the fleet is mining more and having a good time as a grp.
Circumstantial Evidence 382	Posted - 2017.02.25 23:39:04 - [482] - Quote Archeos wrote: [link] RETHINK what you are proposing. Nerfing the rorqual and carrier ratting at the same time ? Why do you want to enrage everyone living in nullsec ? STOP THE NERFS. Somehow the "null-sec cartels" and their "CSM lackeys" were unable to stop another nerf to the Rorqual's output - I wonder if Dinsdale is surprised by this. Thank you CCP Fozzie for taking the time to write such a detailed reply on your reasoning; agree or not it has spawned a great discussion about the issues.
handige harrie Vereenigde Handels Compagnie 380	Posted - 2017.02.25 23:40:01 - [483] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: H 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. add a hull bonus: Due to its specialized features the Rorqual (or to the panic module): - can't fit entosis module. - can't fit ewar modules. just like intreceptors that with the entosis restriction. Now both point #1 and #3 are taken care off, while point#2 is still wide available (i don't see how #2 is a bad thing) Baddest poster ever
AOSA Atreidun Order 8	Posted - 2017.02.26 00:09:06 - [484] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: :Edit: Posted some more detail on our thought process regarding PANIC restrictions and some initial Q&A here :Edit: Hello again folks. Got another set of changes today for your feedback. These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. At the same time we're preparing some other changes related to mining that have more to do with QoL and module balance. Here's the package of somewhat related changes we have in mind at the moment: Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid (including ice). I've posted a bit more explanation of why we're leaning towards this solution in a reply here. We're definitely interested in hearing what other options you folks can think of to reach the same goals, but please read that post first for background. Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks! Perhaps the changes to the ship aren't enough. If players abuse the ship by adding modules that it shouldnt even be able use, then maybe the cure is to add restrictions to the modules. Make it so capital warp disruptors can only be fitted to combat capitals, make PANICs only affect industrial ships, etc.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3069	Posted - 2017.02.26 00:13:43 - [485] - Quote handige harrie wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: H 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. add a hull bonus: Due to its specialized features the Rorqual (or to the panic module): - can't fit entosis module. - can't fit ewar modules. just like intreceptors that with the entosis restriction. Now both point #1 and #3 are taken care off, while point#2 is still wide available (i don't see how #2 is a bad thing) Seconding this. If entosis links and tackle on a Rorqual present a problem, disallow them on the ship entirely. It's a specialized, non-combat ship so this doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility. This is a much cleaner solution than the proposed "must have an asteroid locked" mechanic. As for the secondary cyno, I think that we're just going to have to live with. The whole point of the PANIC module is to call in reinforcements, and lighting a cyno is kind of important to achieving that goal. Without entosis or tackle/ewar capability, the offensive uses of a PANIC/cyno combo are relatively limited. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Panther X High Flyers Northern Coalition. 112	Posted - 2017.02.26 01:06:08 - [486] - Quote I think there's also something else that needs to be said about the whole null-sec ores versus empire. We have to build and maintain our own infrastructure. Getting and keeping the industrial index up and buying and moving the upgrades itself. That's not cheap. Plus having the infrastructure to organize our own response fleets, cyno in defensive units etc. This stuff all costs money, which we have to include in our cost of ownership. Whereas Empire you just warp to belt and chew. Yes, rorq's should be isk printing machines. But they should cost money and make an *appropriate* return on investment. Just though that should be said because no one has brought that up. My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2017.02.26 03:19:10 - [487] - Quote (1) I've seen a few people suggest a post-nerf rorqual will mine an equivalent amount to 2 hulks. That's not true. Post nerf, a max yield rorqual will mine around as much as 3.6 perfectly boosted max-yield hulks. Do the math. Don't believe **** you read from random people in this thread. (2) The drop in excavator drone price since this was announced suggests the investment:income ratio will remain similar post-nerf. Multiboxers win again!
Sister Bliss Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 105	Posted - 2017.02.26 04:16:46 - [488] - Quote Hilmar, call me.
Cade Windstalker 921	Posted - 2017.02.26 04:46:02 - [489] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: (1) I've seen a few people suggest a post-nerf rorqual will mine an equivalent amount to 2 hulks. That's not true. Post nerf, a max yield rorqual will mine around as much as 3.6 perfectly boosted max-yield hulks. Do the math. Don't believe ** you read from random people in this thread. (2) The drop in excavator drone price since this was announced suggests the investment:income ratio will remain similar post-nerf. Multiboxers win again! Can you post your math? By my check the new Rorqual will mine as much as about 5.25 Rorqual boosted Hulks. Also investment to income is only really relevant to losses, it still means the overall m3 over time is dropping significantly, which should help arrest the fall of mineral prices for everyone else. AOSA wrote:** Perhaps the changes to the ship aren't enough. If players abuse the ship by adding modules that it shouldnt even be able use, then maybe the cure is to add restrictions to the modules. Make it so capital warp disruptors can only be fitted to combat capitals, make PANICs only affect industrial ships, etc. It's not that the ship shouldn't be able to use these modules. Battle Rorquals have a long, storied, amusing, and drunken history in Eve. The problem is the combination of these modules and the new PANIC module. Also if you missed it PANIC already only affects mining ships.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2017.02.26 05:29:09 - [490] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: (1) I've seen a few people suggest a post-nerf rorqual will mine an equivalent amount to 2 hulks. That's not true. Post nerf, a max yield rorqual will mine around as much as 3.6 perfectly boosted max-yield hulks. Do the math. Don't believe ** you read from random people in this thread. (2) The drop in excavator drone price since this was announced suggests the investment:income ratio will remain similar post-nerf. Multiboxers win again! Can you post your math? By my check the new Rorqual will mine as much as about 5.25 Rorqual boosted Hulks Sure! I stopped rounding and using rough numbers and calculated the post-nerf Rorqual to be 3.44x as good as a max-yield max-boosts hulk. Obviously the rorq will lose some yield to drones flight time and re-positioning, but the hulk is a clickfest and needs to move sometimes too. This is just comparing easily calculable yield calues. ~math~ (1) A current max yield rorqual is 1,188,000 m3 per hour (All Vs, T2 core, mining rigs) (source: PYFA). (2) The nerf will drop that to 75% of current values, or 891,000 m3 per hour (3) A max yield hulk (MSM II, crystal IIs, 3x MLU lows) is 111,000 m3 per hour before boosts, and ~258,922 m3 per hour after rorqual boosts (see max boost value here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/) (4) 891,000 (post-nerf rorq) / 258,922 (max hulk) = 3.44**

Cade Windstalker 922	Posted - 2017.02.26 05:57:12 - [491] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Sure! I stopped rounding and using rough numbers and calculated the post-nerf Rorqual to be 3.44x as good as a max-yield max-boosts hulk. Obviously the rorq will lose some yield to drones flight time and re-positioning, but the hulk is a clickfest and needs to move sometimes too. This is just comparing easily calculable yield calues. ~math~ (1) A current max yield rorqual is 1,188,000 m3 per hour (All Vs, T2 core, mining rigs) (source: PYFA). (2) The nerf will drop that to 75% of current values, or 891,000 m3 per hour (3) A max yield hulk (MSM II, crystal IIs, 3x MLU lows) is 111,000 m3 per hour before boosts, and ~258,922 m3 per hour after rorqual boosts (see max boost value here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/ ) (4) 891,000 (post-nerf rorq) / 258,922 (max hulk) = 3.44 I think your numbers for a maxed out Hulk are off somewhere, though I'll certainly admit my earlier numbers were off since I completely forgot to put mining crystals and implants in when checking numbers. Pyfa is showing me current numbers for a max-boosted Hulk at 226km3 per hour but I'm getting the same Rorqual numbers you are. I'm not factoring in drones because Hulks in Null often can't or won't mine right up against the rocks so the drones lose quite a bit of yield, and also some people may run combat drones instead. Even with drones and drone rigs though I'm still getting 250km3 which is ~9km3 short of your numbers. Without the drones that puts a Rorqual post-change at ~3.94 fully boosted Hulks, or ~4.33 Orca Boosted Hulks. Are you using the faction MLUs? Those cost like 700m each, and therefore aren't cost effective for a comparison like this. The whole point of a Hulk instead of a Rorqual is to have less hanging out in the belt. Also FYI put a space between your URL and the close parens or it'll add the parenthesis to the URL.
Yodik Dwarfed ORE 29	Posted - 2017.02.26 12:12:54 - [492] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. panic working only on industrial ships, except rorquals. so maybe need lock industrial ship for activating? L - Logic. -Æ -+-Ä-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-+-+-+-Å-é-+-+-¦ -ü-+-é-â-¦-å-+-+ - -¦-¦-ç-¦-¦ Prospect.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 17	Posted - 2017.02.26 13:14:20 - [493] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: I think your numbers for a maxed out Hulk are off somewhere, though I'll certainly admit my earlier numbers were off since I completely forgot to put mining crystals and implants in when checking numbers. Pyfa is showing me current numbers for a max-boosted Hulk at 226km3 per hour but I'm getting the same Rorqual numbers you are. I'm not factoring in drones because Hulks in Null often can't or won't mine right up against the rocks so the drones lose quite a bit of yield, and also some people may run combat drones instead. Even with drones and drone rigs though I'm still getting 250km3 which is ~9km3 short of your numbers. Without the drones that puts a Rorqual post-change at ~3.94 fully boosted Hulks, or ~4.33 Orca Boosted Hulks. Are you using the faction MLUs? Those cost like 700m each, and therefore aren't cost effective for a comparison like this. The whole point of a Hulk instead of a Rorqual is to have less hanging out in the belt. Also FYI put a space between your URL and the close parens or it'll add the parenthesis to the URL. PYFA is weird about boosts, so I typically don't use it for calculations. Without command boosts, are we agreed that the hulk is 111,000 per hour (no mining drones)? Just a T2 fit: 3x T2 strip miners fit with T2 crystals and 3x mining laser upgrade IIs. From there, I just used the max mining boost figure here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/ That says the maximum Mining Laser Optimization bonus is -57.13% cycle time, which must require a perfectly skilled rorqual, with an active T2 industrial core, on a mining foreman mindlinked pilot. Any number of those things could be weird in PYFA, but it's been weird for so long (and would so regularly crash my computer when I tried back in the day) that I haven't looked. 110,000 m3/ hour pre-boosts, boosts reduce cycle 42.87% of initial value, end value is 256,589 m3 per hour.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2825	Posted - 2017.02.26 14:40:24 - [494] - Quote Mistress Renegade wrote: To solve the problems stated by CCP over the PANIC mode on Rorq's, why not just get rid of it all together. This solves the problem of invulnerable tackle, entosos or combat cyno etc. To compensate for this make the industrial core not anchor the ship in place. This way a Rorq mining can align and warp out if needed. The Rorq is a capital class ship so it still has a strong tank which can fend of small gangs which it currently can with out the PANIC mode. Honestly, it would be a better solution to simply remove the PANIC module completely. That solves the problems associated with t completely, rather than some bizarre hack that will not even address the biggest issues. A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
marly cortez Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion 179	Posted - 2017.02.26 15:53:33 - [495] - Quote The whole concept of pulling Roquals into the belts was always going to be a very thorny issue, CCP tempted players into accepting this with the reward of huge yields, apparently always with the intent to Nerf these yields once players had bought them and were happily flying them around like frigates. It's no use players now hyperventilating over the changes CCP are proposing, there will be more and they will never be in the best interests of miners using them however these changes proposed need a careful appraisal imo, a lot of issues are caused by there imposition and few solved This said it should come as no surprise to CCP that players took what was offered and ran with it, they individually have little concern of market prices, only the price on the day they sell but with almost everyone flying around in T1 ships, market instability and a host of negative changes in the game trusting CCP with anything right now is also well beyond the players.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3074	Posted - 2017.02.26 15:56:26 - [496] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him. But...mah yields! (I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out before someone else does....) Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Cade Windstalker 927	Posted - 2017.02.26 16:14:33 - [497] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: PYFA is weird about boosts, so I typically don't use it for calculations. Without command boosts, are we agreed that the hulk is 111,000 per hour (no mining drones)? Just a T2 fit: 3x T2 strip miners fit with T2 crystals and 3x mining laser upgrade IIs. From there, I just used the max mining boost figure here: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/mining-foreman-revolution/ That says the maximum Mining Laser Optimization bonus is -57.13% cycle time, which must require a perfectly skilled rorqual, with an active T2 industrial core, on a mining foreman mindlinked pilot. Any number of those things could be weird in PYFA, but it's been weird for so long (and would so regularly crash my computer when I tried back in the day) that I haven't looked. 110,000 m3/ hour pre-boosts, boosts reduce cycle 42.87% of initial value, end value is 256,589 m3 per hour. Yes, with no implants, drones, or other modifiers beyond MLU 2s and T2 crystals I'm getting 111km3 per hour. Okay, after playing around with the numbers myself it looks like Pyfa is not correctly factoring in (of all things) the 25% bonus from a T2 Mining Foreman Burst, so it looks like your numbers are correct, though you don't seem to have factored in implants on the Hulk pilots, though that would push the ratio down further.
Cade Windstalker 927	Posted - 2017.02.26 16:18:28 - [498] - Quote marly cortez wrote: The whole concept of pulling Roquals into the belts was always going to be a very thorny issue, CCP tempted players into accepting this with the reward of huge yields, apparently always with the intent to Nerf these yields once players had bought them and were happily flying them around like frigates. It's no use players now hyperventilating over the changes CCP are proposing, there will be more and they will never be in the best interests of miners using them however these changes proposed need a careful appraisal imo, a lot of issues are caused by there imposition and few solved This said it should come as no surprise to CCP that players took what was offered and ran with it, they individually have little concern of market prices, only the price on the day they sell but with almost everyone flying around in T1 ships, market instability and a host of negative changes in the game trusting CCP with anything right now is also well beyond the players. There's literally zero evidence that CCP 'always intended to nerf the yield' here. First off, if that was the case, they'd have nerfed the yield on the Ice drones as well. What seems to have caused CCP to nerf the Rorqual is the huge number of Null combat and ratting pilots who took one look at the Rorqual, did a bit of math, and immediately jumped ship from their Super ratting to go scoop ore. If I had to guess CCP's original numbers were based at least in part on the proportion of players who were mining when they made the changes, since the number of miners tends to be fairly low and static. The surprise here was a bunch of people who formerly yelled about how boring and unrewarding mining was jumping into the profession. Also if you think most people using T1 ships is a problem you clearly haven't been paying attention for the last 14 years... T1 ships have always been in the majority.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2828	Posted - 2017.02.26 16:28:40 - [499] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: A properly-fit Rorqual can tank very well for long enough for help to arrive, without PANIC module. I watched one tank 30 Gilas for 15 minutes while we formed a leisurely response fleet to come save him. But...mah yields! (I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out before someone else does....) You mean like how properly fitted Exhumers are harder to suicide gank? What a concept! While they are at it, they can also turn Excavator drones into Excavator fighters, so it is harder to multibox them. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 19	Posted - 2017.02.26 16:55:49 - [500] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: What seems to have caused CCP to nerf the Rorqual is the huge number of Null combat and ratting pilots who took one look at the Rorqual, did a bit of math, and immediately jumped ship from their Super ratting to go scoop ore. If I had to guess CCP's original numbers were based at least in part on the proportion of players who were mining when they made the changes, since the number of miners tends to be fairly low and static. The surprise here was a bunch of people who formerly yelled about how boring and unrewarding mining was jumping into the profession. Bingo. We can speculate as to whether or not it should have been surprising, given predictable greedy human behavior, but I think you're spot on. The more I think about it, the more I think this nerf might actually work quite well: it is likely to drop single rorqual income levels well below single carrier income levels (assuming the fighter signature nerf doesn't kill the profession entirely), which should push the meta closer to where it's always been: multiboxers can earn more mining, single boxers can earn more actively shooting rats. It will also make the bar higher for rorquals to match supercarrier income, so some people will settle for "just" super ratting instead of firing up 3+ rorqual accounts. The end result will be fewer total rorquals mining and more pilots creating isk via ratting, both of which should help stabilize ore prices in the short term. If the problem really was EVERYONE, including single-pilot players, rushing into rorqual mining, then this could smooth things over. Multiboxed rorqual fleets will largely be replacing the large multibox mining fleets that were already possible at massive scale. We'll see... Cade Windstalker wrote: Yes, with no implants, drones, or other modifiers beyond MLU 2s and T2 crystals I'm getting 111km3 per hour. Okay, after playing around with the numbers myself it looks like Pyfa is not correctly factoring in (of all things) the 25% bonus from a T2 Mining Foreman Burst, so it looks like your numbers are correct, though you don't seem to have factored in implants on the Hulk pilots, though that would push the ratio down further. Thanks for running through the numbers with me! I did neglect implants on the hulks, probably because I've ignored them on my null hulks (which are actually skiffs, because I am lazy). But you're right that they would close the gap a bit more.

Whale Sex Patriotic Tendencies Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.02.26 17:58:32 - [501] - Quote Okay so crazy idea, what if after the last asteroid in a belt/anomaly is popped it triggers a 60sec timer that allows you to engage PANIC.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 7	Posted - 2017.02.26 19:58:29 - [502] - Quote Let me add one more question to the (almost definitely pointless) argument before I call it quits and endure the changes rather than maintaining the vain hope they'll actually listen. A speculation that's been made is this-the number of solo miners will drop due to there being more isk to be made super ratting (see Cade Windstalker's point). On the same trend, chars that used to multibox with a mass of hulks (you know who you are) before changes, were training them into rorquals. What will happen when the rorquals being sold by the solo miners are being bought by the indy pros, and the 25% nerf is cancelled out by 25% more rorquals being fielded overall. What will happen if ore hitting market stays the same? Will there be another nerf, then another, and another. Until we're back to using them as jump freighters and crushing ore at a pos. Markets in the real world, and this one doubtless follows similar trends, have a habit of balancing themselves without the need for some omnipresent hand fiddling the books. As the majority of preferred ships out there need more than just ore, there's scope for other materials choking the production of everyday assets. Moon mining, faction and officer drops, PI-none of this is in any way affected by the mineral glut. Anyways, off back to killing s**t. o/
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Sherwood Hisec Industrial Technologies 323	Posted - 2017.02.26 20:12:17 - [503] - Quote Hey CCP - how about a boost to Rorquals/Capital Tractor beams in which they allow the Rorqual to tractor rocks closer, but has to maintain an active tractor on it to keep it close. If they drop the tractor the rock will return to a spot in the belt? This isn't totally tended to be a single boost for the rorqual. but would allow the rorqual to assist in relocating rocks in the belt to help other mines as well.... At least with an option like this it would add some fun game play to mining. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 #NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 4	Posted - 2017.02.26 20:22:10 - [504] - Quote So, got dropped on today by a large fleet AHAC and BS fleet with heavy neut pressure. all the subcaps on grid died immediately. I managed to half refit to high cap (before my depot was RFed) and run my injector giving me enough cap to run my hardeners and booster for a couple of minutes. then my capacitor was drained, my tank broke and I hit the button. at no point during P.A.N.I.C.was I thinking that ewar would be handy right now or that my dead subcap miner friends would have benefited from being frozen on a bubble****ed grid with me for a few more minutes before I joined them in their inevitable deaths. it was pretty clear it was the rorqs who needed saving, not the mining fleet, and P.AN.I.C. was simply buying time for the reponse fleet. this is in practice how P.A.N.I.C. is actually used and it's not quite as advertised. so tl;dr in practice if you nerf entosis or ewar during P.A.N.I.C. it won't be vaguely missed by actual mining rorquals.
Tron Blackdust Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.02.26 22:40:49 - [505] - Quote How would it be with a new beginning - remove the mining drones New capital mining lasers are being introduced (Mats like other T2 things) ore and pi and npc trade old drones for the new laser -remove the indu core Since the rorq is now mobile, the panic module can be deleted building-costs 3 times a capital Ehp + dps ~2 times a capitalship Boost of a orca + 25% - make the moonmining as announced an active thing Thereby less people will mining normal ores This reduces the minerals on the market and keep the price stable -entosis modules can only fited on capitalships no more useless sovfu... No further restrictions and or problems correct wrong but this could be a start
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1222	Posted - 2017.02.26 23:53:10 - [506] - Quote Dear Fozzie; No-one disputes that the PANIC module needs some reworking and balancing. Indestructible, long range, low fatigue Jump HICS are a problem, we're 100% in agreement on that. Simply making the PANIC module act like the carrier Network Sensor Array will 100% solve this problem (no use of EWAR modules when active). However, your proposed changes go a lot, lot further than just addressing this one area of mutual concern. To be blunt, the proposed changes to Rorqual mining yield are both insanely heavy handed and completely unnecessary. I would suggest there are several different changes you could make to address the 'oversupply' of some minerals (something only you seem to think is a problem). The most obvious change would be to alter the respawning mechanism for Ore Anomalies in upgraded 0.0 systems. Currently, once you mine out a Colossal Ore Anomaly, a new one spawns in that system near instantly. Perhaps change Ore Anomalies to behave like Ice Belts where they respawn four hours after being mined out? Currently Trit prices are going down simply due to oversupply of Trit and a rather chronic UNDERSUPPLY of Mexallon making for a major bottleneck in production chains. If there was more Mexallon available, 0.0 miners wouldn't need to export their Trit/Pyreite surplus, which wouldn't upset the hisec miners with their CONCORD protection (and seriously, the only people who might be whinging about Rorqual mining yields are the hisec miners who are taking very, very little risk by comparison). Have you actually run the numbers on what a combination of reduced raw yield coupled with faster cycle times will actually do to Rorqual mining yields? We all know that paper-DPS figures are a long way shy of actual applied DPS in combat. The same applies to paper mining yields. The extra travel time being added to Excavators will utterly kill off their ability to efficiently mine ore. If you cut Rorqual mining yield down to roughly 1.5-2 Hulks (that's on-paper yield, not actual in-belt yield which will be lower again), there will be no reason to ever use a Rorqual. In this instance, the preferred mining platform will once again be the Exhumer line of ships and the preferred Mining Booster will be the Porpoise. There will be literally no sane reason to ever undock in a Rorqual except to use it as obvious bait. The reasoning you have used to justify nerfing Rorqual mining yield is spurious to say the least and you've been extremely self-contradictory about your motives for such a change. On the one hand, you claim a need to interfere in the EVE market because of falling mineral prices. In the same breath, you justify the exorbitant cost of Excavator Drones as a function of the market forces of supply and demand. Which is it? I predict that the changes you are proposing will lead to a complete collapse in demand for Excavator drones, leaving a great many people sitting on a pile of now-worthless drones that we paid north of ISK1b each for. If you go down the path of swinging the nerf bat so quickly and with such reckless abandon, will there be some kind of compensation for those of us who built and trained into Rorquals? Perhaps a one-off, one-time only, opt-in offer of reimbursing the Hull, Rig and Excavator Drone costs as well as reimbursing the SP spent training into Rorquals AND extracting and reimbursing the cost of the Skillbooks? The Capital Industrial Ships skillbook is ISK500,000,000 and is required to fly exactly ONE ship. Given that Rorquals only recently became worthwhile to train into for many people and given just how quickly you feel it necessary to nerf it into uselessness, such a reimbursement is only fair. And now for the ISK15,000,000,000 Question: As for myself, I'm in quite the quandary. My Rorqual is in a C4 wormhole, so I only get to use it when Bob decides to grant me an Ore site. So far, I've mined back enough Ore to nearly pay for two Excavator Drones. Do I sell the drones now and try to avoid the upcoming and entirely predictable price crash? Do I melt the Rorqual down and use the minerals for something useful? Do I extract the skills and put them back into something useful? Or do I wait and pray for some sort of sanity to prevail in Reykjavik? I really do have to ask: did you not think some of these things through BEFORE you made the Rorqual changes last November? Surely some of the problems that have arisen should have been glaringly obvious from the outset. Risk is supposed to equal Reward. You're removing all the Reward while keeping the Risk at the same level. This is not the way to balance something. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Andrei Rianovski Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2017.02.27 00:10:07 - [507] - Quote Making asteroid-lock a requirement to activate the PANIC module is just really, really, really weird. Better nerf-solutions are available; unless CCP specifically wants ECM to be an effective counter to the PANIC activation, in which case it would be nice for that to be stated directly ... because otherwise (no, still) it's just really weird. ... And I don't even have anything to do with Rorquals!
Stud Duficious Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 13	Posted - 2017.02.27 01:33:52 - [508] - Quote any changes to the Rorqual this soon after their last change.... I will be quitting eve. I'm tired of these changes and isk sink traps of ccp
Cade Windstalker 930	Posted - 2017.02.27 01:47:23 - [509] - Quote Andrei Rianovski wrote: Making asteroid-lock a requirement to activate the PANIC module is just really, really, really weird. Better nerf-solutions are available; unless CCP specifically wants ECM to be an effective counter to the PANIC activation, in which case it would be nice for that to be stated directly ... because otherwise (no, still) it's just really weird. ... And I don't even have anything to do with Rorquals! Which explains why you think this. The Siege mode makes you ECM immune and the minimum you can get a stock rorqual with 5s down to for lock range is around 148k, so an implant or sebo makes you immune to damps as well even if you warp to a ping and back. In the few instances where you can't lock a rock for whatever reason, and can't dock up, then you've probably just been massively out-played and they deserve the kill. jizzah wrote: Let me add one more question to the (almost definitely pointless) argument before I call it quits and endure the changes rather than maintaining the vain hope they'll actually listen. A speculation that's been made is this-the number of solo miners will drop due to there being more isk to be made super ratting (see Cade Windstalker's point). On the same trend, chars that used to multibox with a mass of hulks (you know who you are) before changes, were training them into rorquals. What will happen when the rorquals being sold by the solo miners are being bought by the indy pros, and the 25% nerf is cancelled out by 25% more rorquals being fielded overall. What will happen if ore hitting market stays the same? Will there be another nerf, then another, and another. Until we're back to using them as jump freighters and crushing ore at a pos. ... This seems a bit unlikely. Anectodally I know a lot of old high SP pilots who either trained into or could already fly and just bought Rorquals due to the amount of ore they could pull in. I know significantly fewer industrialists currently doing the same. Even though some of them have quite a few accounts the balance here is still Rorqual-negative on the whole. This is currently reflected in the current price of Excavator drones, which has dropped enough in the last three day to almost completely cancel out the rise in prices over the last month. Even on the off chance that you're correct and the long term result is still a lot of Rorquals we'll probably only see more nerfs if we're only seeing Rorquals and no mixed Rorqual Hulk fleets. Fozzie flat out stated that their goal here is for the Rorqual to be used for both mining and boosting, rather than just as a super-miner. A longer term change would also give more time for the market to adapt, rather than the current flood of minerals and consequent collapse in the markets. This would also give CCP more options rather than just hard nerfs to adjust the Rorqual. If they want to make them more expensive to run they could introduce a new item that is reasonably in-demand but takes core components of the Excavator Drones to manufacture, thus driving their price up. Coelomate Tian wrote: Bingo. We can speculate as to whether or not it should have been surprising, given predictable greedy human behavior, but I think you're spot on. The more I think about it, the more I think this nerf might actually work quite well: it is likely to drop single rorqual income levels well below single carrier income levels (assuming the fighter signature nerf doesn't kill the profession entirely), which should push the meta closer to where it's always been: multiboxers can earn more mining, single boxers can earn more actively shooting rats. It will also make the bar higher for rorquals to match supercarrier income, so some people will settle for "just" super ratting instead of firing up 3+ rorqual accounts. The end result will be fewer total rorquals mining and more pilots creating isk via ratting, both of which should help stabilize ore prices in the short term. If the problem really was EVERYONE, including single-pilot players, rushing into rorqual mining, then this could smooth things over. Multiboxed rorqual fleets will largely be replacing the large multibox mining fleets that were already possible at massive scale. We'll see... My evidence on this is somewhat circumstantial but I personally know probably half a dozen combat and ratting pilots who trained into Rorquals due to the Ascension changes and another half dozen who were looking at it when these nerfs dropped and have decided not to as a result. On top of that if you look at a lot of the people complaining quite a few aren't from industrial corps or alliances, they're from null PvP groups. I know this is all hardly conclusive, but I'd bet the number of people mining in Null went up a lot after Ascension and is going to drop off over the next month or so. Coelomate Tian wrote: Thanks for running through the numbers with me! I did neglect implants on the hulks, probably because I've ignored them on my null hulks (which are actually skiffs, because I am lazy). But you're right that they would close the gap a bit more. Thank you! Always happy to be corrected by someone who knows their stuff and is polite about it :)
Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 26	Posted - 2017.02.27 02:12:21 - [510] - Quote Mephiztopheleze wrote: Dear Fozzie; No-one disputes that the PANIC module needs some reworking and balancing. Indestructible, long range, low fatigue Jump HICS are a problem, we're 100% in agreement on that. Simply making the PANIC module act like the carrier Network Sensor Array will 100% solve this problem (no use of EWAR modules when active). However, your proposed changes go a lot, lot further than just addressing this one area of mutual concern. To be blunt, the proposed changes to Rorqual mining yield are both insanely heavy handed and completely unnecessary. I would suggest there are several different changes you could make to address the 'oversupply' of some minerals (something only you seem to think is a problem). The most obvious change would be to alter the respawning mechanism for Ore Anomalies in upgraded 0.0 systems. Currently, once you mine out a Colossal Ore Anomaly, a new one spawns in that system near instantly. Perhaps change Ore Anomalies to behave like Ice Belts where they respawn four hours after being mined out? Currently Trit prices are going down simply due to oversupply of Trit and a rather chronic UNDERSUPPLY of Mexallon making for a major bottleneck in production chains. If there was more Mexallon available, 0.0 miners wouldn't need to export their Trit/Pyreite surplus, which wouldn't upset the hisec miners with their CONCORD protection (and seriously, the only people who might be whinging about Rorqual mining yields are the hisec miners who are taking very, very little risk by comparison). Have you actually run the numbers on what a combination of reduced raw yield coupled with faster cycle times will actually do to Rorqual mining yields? We all know that paper-DPS figures are a long way shy of actual applied DPS in combat. The same applies to paper mining yields. The extra travel time being added to Excavators will utterly kill off their ability to efficiently mine ore. If you cut Rorqual mining yield down to roughly 1.5-2 Hulks (that's on-paper yield, not actual in-belt yield which will be lower again), there will be no reason to ever use a Rorqual. In this instance, the preferred mining platform will once again be the Exhumer line of ships and the preferred Mining Booster will be the Porpoise. There will be literally no sane reason to ever undock in a Rorqual except to use it as obvious bait. The reasoning you have used to justify nerfing Rorqual mining yield is spurious to say the least and you've been extremely self-contradictory about your motives for such a change. On the one hand, you claim a need to interfere in the EVE market because of falling mineral prices. In the same breath, you justify the exorbitant cost of Excavator Drones as a function of the market forces of supply and demand. Which is it? I predict that the changes you are proposing will lead to a complete collapse in demand for Excavator drones, leaving a great many people sitting on a pile of now-worthless drones that we paid north of ISK1b each for. If you go down the path of swinging the nerf bat so quickly and with such reckless abandon, will there be some kind of compensation for those of us who built and trained into Rorquals? Perhaps a one-off, one-time only, opt-in offer of reimbursing the Hull, Rig and Excavator Drone costs as well as reimbursing the SP spent training into Rorquals AND extracting and reimbursing the cost of the Skillbooks? The Capital Industrial Ships skillbook is ISK500,000,000 and is required to fly exactly ONE ship. Given that Rorquals only recently became worthwhile to train into for many people and given just how quickly you feel it necessary to nerf it into uselessness, such a reimbursement is only fair. And now for the ISK15,000,000,000 Question: As for myself, I'm in quite the quandary. My Rorqual is in a C4 wormhole, so I only get to use it when Bob decides to grant me an Ore site. So far, I've mined back enough Ore to nearly pay for two Excavator Drones. Do I sell the drones now and try to avoid the upcoming and entirely predictable price crash? Do I melt the Rorqual down and use the minerals for something useful? Do I extract the skills and put them back into something useful? Or do I wait and pray for some sort of sanity to prevail in Reykjavik? I really do have to ask: did you not think some of these things through BEFORE you made the Rorqual changes last November? Surely some of the problems that have arisen should have been glaringly obvious from the outset. Risk is supposed to equal Reward. You're removing all the Reward while keeping the Risk at the same level. This is not the way to balance something. I was told that since EVE is a sanbox game, the game developers listen and take heed of the players opinions. But unfortunately it doesn't seem to be case when it comes to miners. They have no idea how to balance the game, and even if everyone will tell them that nerfing the rorqual so it will be earning 50% of what a carrier will be able to earn at the same time, is NOT the way to go, i am sure that in march we will see CCPL Fozzie implement the nerf.

Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1223	Posted - 2017.02.27 02:17:06 - [511] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: I know significantly fewer industrialists currently doing the same. Even though some of them have quite a few accounts the balance here is still Rorqual-negative on the whole. This is currently reflected in the current price of Excavator drones, which has dropped enough in the last three day to almost completely cancel out the rise in prices over the last month. the current price drop on Excavator Drones can be easily explained by two simple factors: 1: People aren't buying Excavators because the proposed changes will make them valueless if implemented (economists would call this "Falling Demand") and 2: People are attempting to sell their excavators and recoup some of the non-trivial costs before the floor completely drops out of that market. (Economists would call this Increased Supply). Essentially, what we're seeing with Excavator Drone prices is basic economics. Demand is dropping, because these drones are set to become useless compared to an Exhumer that costs 1/5th the price. Supply is rising due to people looking to offload an asset that is set to become worthless. Supply > Demand = Falling Prices. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Cade Windstalker 931	Posted - 2017.02.27 03:51:17 - [512] - Quote Archeos wrote: I was told that since EVE is a sanbox game, the game developers listen and take heed of the players opinions. But unfortunately it doesn't seem to be case when it comes to miners. They have no idea how to balance the game, and even if everyone will tell them that nerfing the rorqual so it will be earning 50% of what a carrier will be able to earn at the same time, is NOT the way to go, i am sure that in march we will see CCPL Fozzie implement the nerf. Having the developers listen is not the same thing as the devs doing what you personally want, or even what the majority of your little corner of the game wants. Having the devs listen means having them take in feedback, consider opinions, facts, and available options, and come to a decision. It definitely does not mean that you are always going to be happy with what they've done or that your opinion is in the right. Also, a little econ 101. Carriers produce raw ISK. The only things that determine how much they make are the bounties on the rats they kill and how fast they can kill them. Miners produce materials. Miners only make what those materials are worth, and thus their income and buying power exist relative to the total of the Eve economy since their work underpins the value of almost everything to one degree or another. Thus, if something is introduced which makes it very very easy to produce minerals then the value of minerals will drop and the income of miners will drop along with it. It is literally impossible for CCP to buff your income in the form of minerals mined without it then dropping in the long term, especially if they introduce something that gets a lot more people mining, meaning they're all fighting for a piece of a now much larger pie but one that hasn't increased in value all that much. Mephiztopheleze wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: I know significantly fewer industrialists currently doing the same. Even though some of them have quite a few accounts the balance here is still Rorqual-negative on the whole. This is currently reflected in the current price of Excavator drones, which has dropped enough in the last three day to almost completely cancel out the rise in prices over the last month. the current price drop on Excavator Drones can be easily explained by two simple factors: 1: People aren't buying Excavators because the proposed changes will make them valueless if implemented (economists would call this "Falling Demand") and 2: People are attempting to sell their excavators and recoup some of the non-trivial costs before the floor completely drops out of that market. (Economists would call this Increased Supply). Essentially, what we're seeing with Excavator Drone prices is basic economics. Demand is dropping, because these drones are set to become useless compared to an Exhumer that costs 1/5th the price. Supply is rising due to people looking to offload an asset that is set to become worthless. Supply > Demand = Falling Prices. Yes, that is in fact the economic underpinnings of what I'm saying, but it doesn't suggest at all that they're going to become "valueless", because post-changes a Rorqual is still going to mine several times what a Hulk does and if the Drones literally had a worth of 0 the Rorqual would be a no-brainer choice for mining. It does suggest that people are moving away from using the Rorqual though, which is kind of the point of these changes. Adjusting the risk/reward curve for the ship so it's less attractive so people who never previously mined will stop wrecking the mineral market.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1224	Posted - 2017.02.27 04:08:36 - [513] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Mephiztopheleze wrote: the current price drop on Excavator Drones can be easily explained by two simple factors: 1: People aren't buying Excavators because the proposed changes will make them valueless if implemented (economists would call this "Falling Demand") and 2: People are attempting to sell their excavators and recoup some of the non-trivial costs before the floor completely drops out of that market. (Economists would call this Increased Supply). Essentially, what we're seeing with Excavator Drone prices is basic economics. Demand is dropping, because these drones are set to become useless compared to an Exhumer that costs 1/5th the price. Supply is rising due to people looking to offload an asset that is set to become worthless. Supply > Demand = Falling Prices. Yes, that is in fact the economic underpinnings of what I'm saying, but it doesn't suggest at all that they're going to become "valueless", because post-changes a Rorqual is still going to mine several times what a Hulk does and if the Drones literally had a worth of 0 the Rorqual would be a no-brainer choice for mining. It does suggest that people are moving away from using the Rorqual though, which is kind of the point of these changes. Adjusting the risk/reward curve for the ship so it's less attractive so people who never previously mined will stop wrecking the mineral market. I would very much like to see your math on how a Rorqual will mine 'several times what a Hulk does' after these proposed changes. My own math seems to indicate anything from about a ~30-40% hit to current yield up to potentially around a ~75% hit. It will all come down to when you finish your Industrial Core cycle and how far away the next asteroid is. The reduced cycle time means that the drones will spend more time travelling. If you have just cycled back into siege when the 'roid depletes, your drones will have a significant travel time to the next rock for the whole five minute cycle, which will significantly reduce your effective yield over time. We all know that paper-DPS figures can be extremely misleading when applied to actual combat scenarios. The same applies to paper mining yield figures when Drone Travel Time is a rather major factor (have you seen how slowly those things move?). In any event, this is a case of CCP going too far, too fast. I've yet to hear any even vaguely economically rational argument from Fozzie or yourself as to WHY Rorqual mining yield is so much of a problem that it needs to be whacked with the Nerfhammer Of Thor. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 25	Posted - 2017.02.27 04:40:47 - [514] - Quote Quote: Even on the off chance that you're correct and the long term result is still a lot of Rorquals we'll probably only see more nerfs if we're only seeing Rorquals and no mixed Rorqual Hulk fleets. Fozzie flat out stated that their goal here is for the Rorqual to be used for both mining and boosting, rather than just as a super-miner. I think you are severely underestimating the min/max of miners...
Aleverette Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.02.27 05:00:32 - [515] - Quote Now I have a question after all these buff/nerf charades EVE have been through. What was the purpose of you buffing Rorqual? Were you trying to make it a powerful solo mining ship so players with only one or two accounts could be involved in industrial activities? Or just simply wanted to give current Rorqual pilots a new toy to play with? If the answer is the second one, go ahead and nerf it however you like. But if the answer is the first one, then I sincerely suggest you should reconsider how to fit Rorqual into the universe instead of giving it a big ass invincibility and a set of gamebreaking drones. EVE is a complicated system (at least more complicated than most of other MMO) , thus, providing a new set of game mechanics in depth is necessary in order to increase gameplay variety. You rush too much.
Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2017.02.27 05:18:12 - [516] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Having the developers listen is not the same thing as the devs doing what you personally want, or even what the majority of your little corner of the game wants. Having the devs listen means having them take in feedback, consider opinions, facts, and available options, and come to a decision. It definitely does not mean that you are always going to be happy with what they've done or that your opinion is in the right. Also, a little econ 101. Carriers produce raw ISK. The only things that determine how much they make are the bounties on the rats they kill and how fast they can kill them. Miners produce materials. Miners only make what those materials are worth, and thus their income and buying power exist relative to the total of the Eve economy since their work underpins the value of almost everything to one degree or another. Thus, if something is introduced which makes it very very easy to produce minerals then the value of minerals will drop and the income of miners will drop along with it. It is literally impossible for CCP to buff your income in the form of minerals mined without it then dropping in the long term, especially if they introduce something that gets a lot more people mining, meaning they're all fighting for a piece of a now much larger pie but one that hasn't increased in value all that much. . A little econ 101 for you too. No one seems to be complaining about the mineral market crash and it won't bother anyone if it goes down a bit futher, it will happen with or without the nerf. The only thing that will change is that now people who want to mine will have to get additional plexed accounts to field more rorquals to make up for the lost money. As for CCP being able to make the mineral market healthy and buff miner income - yes they can do it easily. And it has already been suggested in this thread. Some of the better examples include : 1) Stopping ratts drop ammunition, that means that t1 ammo would only come from industrialists. And while at it, making the ammunition require more minerals to produce, would create a very nice sinkhole for the minerals, as ammunition is the most common used and discarded thing in eve, and the rise in price wouldn't hurt even a 1 day old newbee. 2) Making the pirate supers balanced so that their price wouldnt come from the blueprint, and their final cost wouldn't be that of a titan but maybe 2,5 x a normal super carrier. And if the increase in price would come from the price of minerals, it would be a very nice sinkhole. 3) Balancing the asteroid yield in null so that null miners wouldn't have to export the abundant pyrite and tritanium to high sec and ruin the highsec markets. 4) Rising the mineral cost of citadels, especially the astrahaus, its dirt cheap right now. 5) They can introduce mineral costs to literally any item that gets used a lot, like nanite paste or boost scripts, the possibilities are endless. But the real point is that noone really is complaing about the mineral prices, the market will adapt. And cheap ships are a nice thing to have. The problem is that CCP is trying to make the rorqual a ship that will only appear as a booster, and everyone is trying to explain that untill it has the best yield out of all the mining ships all the die hard miners will still use them. This nerf wont change a thing for the 10-20 rorqual boxers.
Archeos KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2017.02.27 05:44:13 - [517] - Quote Oh yeah and lets not forget another thing. The change to mining drones mine time from 90sec to 60sec is a huge boost for the orca. Orca now which is sitting at around the yield of a boosted hulk will be able to mine 1,5x times as efficiently as a hulk, fielding a much bigger cargo hold, much more ehp, and being able to defend itself with drones. It costs only 2x times more than a hulk, doesnt have to be immobile like the rorqaul, doesnt field 1,5billion drones, and is anti gang proof. I promise you that everyone in highsec will be mining in orcas and porpoises after the change. The only solution is bringing up a tier 3 mining ship that would be a semi capital ship like the orca, and have a better yield than an orca.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1226	Posted - 2017.02.27 06:20:40 - [518] - Quote Archeos wrote: Oh yeah and lets not forget another thing. The change to mining drones mine time from 90sec to 60sec is a huge boost for the orca. Orca now which is sitting at around the yield of a boosted hulk will be able to mine 1,5x times as efficiently as a hulk, fielding a much bigger cargo hold, much more ehp, and being able to defend itself with drones. It costs only 2x times more than a hulk, doesnt have to be immobile like the rorqaul, doesnt field 1,5billion drones, and is anti gank proof. I promise you that everyone in highsec will be mining in orcas and porpoises after the change. The only solution to replacing industrial command ships with laser mining ships is making a tier 3 mining ship that would be a semi capital ship like the orca, and have a yield between an orca and a rorqaul. Maybe giving it some kind of ability to anchor on a rorqual and send ore directly to the rorquals ore hold would be a nice thing. The progression tree for the industrial command ship is porpoise->orca->rorqual now, and the barge is barge->exhumer. Also the train for an exhumer is like 2x or more times the train to get into an orca. So why go the exhumer route when a hulk is the endgame for that skill plan ? actually, the cycle reduction is a NERF to all drone mining ships as drones will now spend more time travelling and less time mining. it's a bigger nerf to the Rorq than it is to the Orca simply because the Orca doesn't lock itself in place for five minutes at a time. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Mama Baer The Tiny Co. 2	Posted - 2017.02.27 07:51:57 - [519] - Quote Why not spawn more NPC mining fleets and reduce the supply in certain areas?
apollo429 Colonial Industries Badfellas Inc. 7	Posted - 2017.02.27 07:54:19 - [520] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Now for some Q&A from the thread so far: . 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. So your completely OK with players setting the prices for the drones and the materials to build the drone but are not OK with players setting the market for minerals. Also minerals are not the go to for prices anymore. Its all about compressed ore remember? Yes minerals can set the price for compressed ore but players have the ability to effect both markets. That's something you do not seem to want to allow anymore. Let us crash OUR market. Let us fix our market, why don't you focusnob giving us reasons to go to war with each other like you are supposed to be doing fozzie

Lord Kaho Banished Braindead Zombies Circle-Of-Two 1	Posted - 2017.02.27 08:50:06 - [521] - Quote This kind of change... well.. I dont know. Lower income with a CAPITAL Industrial Ship. Invested much ISK (for a "normal" Player 11bill is alot) to get nerfed a CAPITAL Ship down... So ill Sell it and go back to Barges.... Panic Modul can only be activated when Ore is active? Okay.... But why should a CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL Ship be able to Fit a Entosing Modul, go in Core and not be effected from ECM while doing PVP / SOV Warfare? You should Decress the Ships DPS / PVP ability... Industrial Ship: Should be able to do... Industrial Jobs? CAPITAL s INDUSTRIAL Ship: Should not be able to do PVP / SOV Warfare. We will see how the market brokes. Payed much money for that damn BPO. xD
Orli1983 Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.27 09:23:19 - [522] - Quote CCP the great magician show : CCP takes sh..t (rorq beforre buff) and CCP change this sh..t it into gold (rorq after buff).. then after returning home i have pockets full of sh..t.... bravoo
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2017.02.27 13:37:18 - [523] - Quote Archeos wrote: Oh yeah and lets not forget another thing. The change to mining drones mine time from 90sec to 60sec is a huge boost for the orca. Orca now which is sitting at around the yield of a boosted hulk will be able to mine 1,5x times as efficiently as a hulk, fielding a much bigger cargo hold, much more ehp, and being able to defend itself with drones. It costs only 2x times more than a hulk, doesnt have to be immobile like the rorqaul, doesnt field 1,5billion drones, and is anti gank proof. I promise you that everyone in highsec will be mining in orcas and porpoises after the change. The only solution to replacing industrial command ships with laser mining ships is making a tier 3 mining ship that would be a semi capital ship like the orca, and have a yield between an orca and a rorqaul. Maybe giving it some kind of ability to anchor on a rorqual and send ore directly to the rorquals ore hold would be a nice thing. The progression tree for the industrial command ship is porpoise->orca->rorqual now, and the barge is barge->exhumer. Also the train for an exhumer is like 2x or more times the train to get into an orca. So why go the exhumer route when a hulk is the endgame for that skill plan ? Nope. The change is only to Excavator mining drones, not all mining drones. The Orca cannot use Excavator mining drones - it doesn't have a large enough drone bay.
Cade Windstalker 932	Posted - 2017.02.27 13:59:25 - [524] - Quote Grognard Commissar wrote: I think you are severely underestimating the min/max of miners... I made no statements one way or the other about proportions or anything of the sort, and neither has Fozzie. Some people use fleets of Skiffs instead of Hulks. Some people will always choose lower risk over higher risk and higher reward. Grognard Commissar wrote: actually, they could fix the mineral distribution, making it so that you can actually use all the minerals you mine. Wouldn't actually help if the total amount mined is vastly exceeding the amount being consumed. Note that the price of Mex has started falling as well in the last month, over about the same time Excavator Drones shot up in price. If bottlenecks were the only issue then we'd be seeing a spike in the price of those minerals matching the drop in the others. Instead we're seeing drops across the board. Mephiztopheleze wrote: I would very much like to see your math on how a Rorqual will mine 'several times what a Hulk does' after these proposed changes. My own math seems to indicate anything from about a ~30-40% hit to current yield up to potentially around a ~75% hit. It will all come down to when you finish your Industrial Core cycle and how far away the next asteroid is. The reduced cycle time means that the drones will spend more time travelling. If you have just cycled back into siege when the 'roid depletes, your drones will have a significant travel time to the next rock for the whole five minute cycle, which will significantly reduce your effective yield over time. We all know that paper-DPS figures can be extremely misleading when applied to actual combat scenarios. The same applies to paper mining yield figures when Drone Travel Time is a rather major factor (have you seen how slowly those things move?). In any event, this is a case of CCP going too far, too fast. I've yet to hear any even vaguely economically rational argument from Fozzie or yourself as to WHY Rorqual mining yield is so much of a problem that it needs to be whacked with the Nerfhammer Of Thor. First off, all that stuff about 'roids depleting and cycling down is already true today, so you can't try to find some math to factor that in and then say that's part of the current nerfs. As to how to deal with it, run a rock scanner and keep track of how much ore is left in your rocks. If you're about to run one out it might be worthwhile to either leave it or time your move around it depleting. In fact with the yield nerfs you'd actually spend less time moving because you need to spend more time on each rock, making this less of a factor in yield not more. Ideal yield on a Rorqual post-changes is going to be something like 3-3 1/2 T2 Hulks, that still makes it by far the best ship to have in a belt if you can afford one. The big limiting factor on that right now is the price of the drones, but if demand drops then the price will drop as well, making the ship more affordable for those still using it. As for 'economically rational arguments' take a look at the price of minerals. The market is flooding, prices are dropping, and supply is massively outpacing demand at the moment, despite the massive and in-demand mineral sinks we have in the form of Citadels. There's also the fact that the Rorqual isn't even being used to boost much these days, it's only being used as a mining ship despite being a fantastic booster. On top of that we have anectdotal evidence that it's pulling people who would never have thought about mining previously into doing so, purely because of how good the Rorqual is. That's both economics and game balance covered. If you don't find those 'rational' then "c'est la vie". Mephiztopheleze wrote: actually, the cycle reduction is a NERF to all drone mining ships as drones will now spend more time travelling and less time mining. it's a bigger nerf to the Rorq than it is to the Orca simply because the Orca doesn't lock itself in place for five minutes at a time. Actually you're both wrong, because if you'll note the only thing that's changing is the cycle-time on the Excavator drones, not on mining drones overall.
Cade Windstalker 932	Posted - 2017.02.27 14:22:13 - [525] - Quote Archeos wrote: No one seems to be complaining about the mineral market crash and it won't bother anyone if it goes down a bit futher, it will happen with or without the nerf. The only thing that will change is that now people who want to mine will have to get additional plexed accounts to field more rorquals to make up for the lost money. This is flatly incorrect, there are people expressing something along the lines of "Thank ** finally!" in this very thread because of exactly this. Also this claim is just farcical on the whole. Just because you haven't heard of anyone complaining doesn't mean it's not happening, and it would be a bit ridiculous if people weren't since overall mining income has dropped between 10 and 25% over the last month or two, depending on where you're mining and what. Archeos wrote:** As for CCP being able to make the mineral market healthy and buff miner income - yes they can do it easily. And it has already been suggested in this thread. Some of the better examples include : 1) Stopping ratts drop ammunition, that means that t1 ammo would only come from industrialists. And while at it, making the ammunition require more minerals to produce, would create a very nice sinkhole for the minerals, as ammunition is the most common used and discarded thing in eve, and the rise in price wouldn't hurt even a 1 day old newbee. 2) Making the pirate supers balanced so that their price wouldnt come from the blueprint, and their final cost wouldn't be that of a titan but maybe 2,5 x a normal super carrier. And if the increase in price would come from the price of minerals, it would be a very nice sinkhole. 3) Balancing the asteroid yield in null so that null miners wouldn't have to export the abundant pyrite and tritanium to high sec and ruin the highsec markets. 4) Rising the mineral cost of citadels, especially the astrahaus, its dirt cheap right now. 5) They can introduce mineral costs to literally any item that gets used a lot, like nanite paste or boost scripts, the possibilities are endless. But the real point is that noone really is complaing about the mineral prices, the market will adapt. And cheap ships are a nice thing to have. The problem is that CCP is trying to make the rorqual a ship that will only appear as a booster, and everyone is trying to explain that untill it has the best yield out of all the mining ships all the die hard miners will still use them. This nerf wont change a thing for the 10-20 rorqual boxers. This idea is just ridiculous. The amount of T1 ammo dropped by rats, let alone the amount actually picked up and sold, is an absolutely tiny fraction of all the T1 ammo used in the game. If you think the price of T1 ammo is low because of pirate drops then I've got some bad news, it's low because of player production and competition and the willingness of new or uneducated miners to sell product for less than the cost of minerals. This is also kind of ridiculous. First off, the benefits of pirate capitals over their standard counterparts are marginal. On top of that 2.5 times the mineral cost of a standard Super is slightly less than the mineral cost of a Titan. The reason these things cost so much isn't even the Blueprint cost so much as the general scarcity and lack of demand, so anyone making one can basically set their own price on the things. They're already stupidly expensive in minerals, about 1.5 times a normal Super. Also the Blueprint cost is set purely by player supply and demand, they're not hard to get they're in the Serpentis Pirate LP store, and even at 10,000 ISK per LP the BP would still only cost about 5 Billion. Doesn't work if demand doesn't meet or exceed supply, and that only works if enough stuff is getting destroyed, which it clearly isn't. See: current dip in Mex prices despite its bottleneck status. The Astrahus isn't supposed to be super super expensive, and it's fairly easy to make, which is the reason it's sitting at about cost of production. This would just hurt the ability of people to own Citadels, not actually fix the problem. Your suggestions here only amount to an admission that the yield of the Rorqual at present is broken. If CCP has to introduce new mineral sinks to balance out a new ship then it's pretty clearly broken the economy, and you would still be screwing over anyone who mines without a Rorqual because the relative value of what they mine would still be crap because so much of the mineral market would be taken up by Rorquals and things would still be relatively more expensive because you've just increased the amount of minerals they require. The Rorqual will see use as a mining ship as long as it mines remotely more than a Hulk, which it still will, comfortably, after these changes. Your entire argument, that no one is complaining, is literally refuted by people in this thread. Never mind this one over in GD and a few others that we've seen over the last few months. If your next response is "but that's not enough people!" then I'm just going to point out that you're moving the goalposts after being proven wrong and that you just want your mineral faucet, you don't actually care if people are complaining or not.
Freelancer117 so you want to be a Hero 517	Posted - 2017.02.27 19:32:56 - [526] - Quote When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense Eve online is : A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Freelancer117 so you want to be a Hero 517	Posted - 2017.02.27 20:39:50 - [527] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Right, so this was just a cash grab that CCP pulled to get players interested in a ship only to run it back into uselessness 2 months later after players had invested heavily in the new ship. All you had to say is that you guys are finding new and interesting ways to milk your player base for cash, and they put you at the helm of it all. Well, I guess that answers the question about whether anyone in PL bought PLEX to buy Rorquals... Seriously, how has someone who's played as long as the average PL player not figured out that if something looks too good it probably is and is going to get nerfed... I haven't mined since the day they were released, while you're over here leaping to conclusions. To think I'm some rare fringe case where people bought plex proves you have a tiny zika ravaged mind. LOTS of people injected rorquals, you can look at the injector market to see that as it calmed down after the rorqual release. And do you think any of those people would have purchased them if the end result would have been anything near a 10 billion isk version of 2 hulks? No, so its a simple case of bait and switch, a **** play by CCP and if you think they didn't set out to gouge you like that you're nuts, this is classic CCP digging for pennies in the couch. Its a trash way to treat your player base after all these years. EDIT: And as far as 'looks to good to be true' mining still made less than any other profession. Super ratting can net you 400+/hr and yet they go after mining. CCP Games being classy as usual when it comes to selling skill training "time", it's their "time" and your dime http://massivelyop.com/2016/02/15/eve-player-uses-28000-of-skill-injectors-to-create-max-character/ Eve online is : A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 715	Posted - 2017.02.27 20:44:22 - [528] - Quote Stud Duficious wrote: HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LEAVE THE GAME OVER THIS? Not just because of this.. But because of a build up of stuff relating to industry and solo play.. I have just biomassed all the characters on 2 of my 4 accounts, I've tried to hang on hoping for something positive, but while ever Fozzie is here it's doubtful if this'll ever happen. I love the game and I'm going to fanfest, but, like others, I'm now struggling to find a way forward, or a good reason to log on anymore... I'll re-evaluate the remaining 2 accounts going forward after fanfest. 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.
Cade Windstalker 940	Posted - 2017.02.27 21:13:50 - [529] - Quote Freelancer117 wrote: When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense I'd say give it about 3-6 months and we'll be about there or even lower. Right now the cost to make one of these things is sitting around 1.1b in materials, but just looking at the four most expensive bits of this most of that cost is driven by demand for the drones themselves. As that demand drops off after these changes (which already seems to be happening) and supply catches up we'll probably see cost of production on these things come down to around 5-600m or so, which would be about what you'd get if the four most expensive parts all drop in price by about half. Drago Shouna wrote: Stud Duficious wrote: HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LEAVE THE GAME OVER THIS? Not just because of this.. But because of a build up of stuff relating to industry and solo play.. I have just biomassed all the characters on 2 of my 4 accounts, I've tried to hang on hoping for something positive, but while ever Fozzie is here it's doubtful if this'll ever happen. I love the game and I'm going to fanfest, but, like others, I'm now struggling to find a way forward, or a good reason to log on anymore... I'll re-evaluate the remaining 2 accounts going forward after fanfest. .... why? Seriously, why is an adjustment to a change that isn't even three months old at this point making you consider un-subbing or biomassing your characters or whatever? I'm legitimately curious why a balance change in a game, and to something that hasn't even been around that long, has you posting like someone shot your dog.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 162	Posted - 2017.02.27 21:28:28 - [530] - 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.

Stud Duficious Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 16	Posted - 2017.02.27 22:28:15 - [531] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Freelancer117 wrote: When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense I'd say give it about 3-6 months and we'll be about there or even lower. Right now the cost to make one of these things is sitting around 1.1b in materials, but just looking at the four most expensive bits of this most of that cost is driven by demand for the drones themselves. As that demand drops off after these changes (which already seems to be happening) and supply catches up we'll probably see cost of production on these things come down to around 5-600m or so, which would be about what you'd get if the four most expensive parts all drop in price by about half. Drago Shouna wrote: Stud Duficious wrote: HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LEAVE THE GAME OVER THIS? Not just because of this.. But because of a build up of stuff relating to industry and solo play.. I have just biomassed all the characters on 2 of my 4 accounts, I've tried to hang on hoping for something positive, but while ever Fozzie is here it's doubtful if this'll ever happen. I love the game and I'm going to fanfest, but, like others, I'm now struggling to find a way forward, or a good reason to log on anymore... I'll re-evaluate the remaining 2 accounts going forward after fanfest. .... why? Seriously, why is an adjustment to a change that isn't even three months old at this point making you consider un-subbing or biomassing your characters or whatever? I'm legitimately curious why a balance change in a game, and to something that hasn't even been around that long, has you posting like someone shot your dog. I'm one of those that is considering quitting. The reason is because of "Bait and Switch" that CCP is doing with this change. Just a few months ago they nerved the coequals and to do it again to this magnitude this soon isn't about balancing the game, it's about getting people to invest and change the mechanics so large amounts of isk and assets are down the drain. Me for example spent 100 bil on injectors to get many rorqual toons only to be turned into very expensive hulks. I'm not the only one that did this. I know many others who spent a lot of isk to get multiple toons that are rorqual pilots. I feel the right thing for CCP to do is to reimburse everyone who spent isk on injectors and the skill points to fly the rorquals or at the very least make an announcement that this change will happen 6 months to a year from now so that people who invested a great amount of isk can make it back....
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 715	Posted - 2017.02.27 22:46:25 - [532] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Freelancer117 wrote: When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense I'd say give it about 3-6 months and we'll be about there or even lower. Right now the cost to make one of these things is sitting around 1.1b in materials, but just looking at the four most expensive bits of this most of that cost is driven by demand for the drones themselves. As that demand drops off after these changes (which already seems to be happening) and supply catches up we'll probably see cost of production on these things come down to around 5-600m or so, which would be about what you'd get if the four most expensive parts all drop in price by about half. Drago Shouna wrote: Stud Duficious wrote: HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LEAVE THE GAME OVER THIS? Not just because of this.. But because of a build up of stuff relating to industry and solo play.. I have just biomassed all the characters on 2 of my 4 accounts, I've tried to hang on hoping for something positive, but while ever Fozzie is here it's doubtful if this'll ever happen. I love the game and I'm going to fanfest, but, like others, I'm now struggling to find a way forward, or a good reason to log on anymore... I'll re-evaluate the remaining 2 accounts going forward after fanfest. .... why? Seriously, why is an adjustment to a change that isn't even three months old at this point making you consider un-subbing or biomassing your characters or whatever? I'm legitimately curious why a balance change in a game, and to something that hasn't even been around that long, has you posting like someone shot your dog. Read my first line. Read my second line, then think. Go check my posts going back a year or 18 months about the small guys getting shafted all the time. Unlike a lot of guys I was already trained into a Rorqual well before these changes and drones hit, but I didn't bother with the new drones...unlike some. These guys are now being deliberately shafted by CCP and Fozzie in a way indicative of how large swathes of the player base have been treated over about the last 2/12 to 3 years. Personally I'm sick of waiting to be blindside by the next nerf bat.... BTW..enough of the CCP fanboi stance, it's getting sickening and boring to read now. 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.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 33	Posted - 2017.02.28 00:10:04 - [533] - Quote Archeos wrote: The change to mining drones mine time from 90sec to 60sec is a huge boost for the orca. Highlighting pretty much what is wrong with much of this thread. All mining drones except Excavator Drones have a standard 60sec cycle Orca's cannot field Executor Drones. Not to mention that why is only Null or High-Sec in the picture? No love to buff low-sec yields or wormholes? And who knew what null-sec can re-define carrying coal to Newcastle? Importing Trit and Pyrite to hi-sec?
Stud Duficious Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 17	Posted - 2017.02.28 01:28:24 - [534] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Freelancer117 wrote: When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense I'd say give it about 3-6 months and we'll be about there or even lower. Right now the cost to make one of these things is sitting around 1.1b in materials, but just looking at the four most expensive bits of this most of that cost is driven by demand for the drones themselves. As that demand drops off after these changes (which already seems to be happening) and supply catches up we'll probably see cost of production on these things come down to around 5-600m or so, which would be about what you'd get if the four most expensive parts all drop in price by about half. Drago Shouna wrote: Stud Duficious wrote: HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LEAVE THE GAME OVER THIS? Not just because of this.. But because of a build up of stuff relating to industry and solo play.. I have just biomassed all the characters on 2 of my 4 accounts, I've tried to hang on hoping for something positive, but while ever Fozzie is here it's doubtful if this'll ever happen. I love the game and I'm going to fanfest, but, like others, I'm now struggling to find a way forward, or a good reason to log on anymore... I'll re-evaluate the remaining 2 accounts going forward after fanfest. .... why? Seriously, why is an adjustment to a change that isn't even three months old at this point making you consider un-subbing or biomassing your characters or whatever? I'm legitimately curious why a balance change in a game, and to something that hasn't even been around that long, has you posting like someone shot your dog. Read my first line. Read my second line, then think. Go check my posts going back a year or 18 months about the small guys getting shafted all the time. Unlike a lot of guys I was already trained into a Rorqual well before these changes and drones hit, but I didn't bother with the new drones...unlike some. These guys are now being deliberately shafted by CCP and Fozzie in a way indicative of how large swathes of the player base have been treated over about the last 2/12 to 3 years. Personally I'm sick of waiting to be blindside by the next nerf bat.... BTW..enough of the CCP fanboi stance, it's getting sickening and boring to read now. That's exactly it... it seems to much like bait and switch to me. Baited us to go and spend billions on injectors only to nerf it this fast this soon and so much. I mean 2 nerfs in 3 months that took 30% each time... There is so many other ways to fix this than attacking what so many have invested into. Nerf the panic mod... I get it... but nerf once again the amount it can mine. Why would I spend and risk 13 bil on a rorqual mining that can only mine as much as 2 hulks now? This is why I believe that those that invested so much should get reimbursed.
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3786	Posted - 2017.02.28 02:11:10 - [535] - Quote Just a few things... T1 ammo. Do some people not realise t1 ammo has pretty good margins? I mean ammo gets used a lot. Even when ships aren't dying, ammo is still getting used. Drago. It seems you're always quitting. Like most qq'ers it's idle threats. Bait and switch? Bullshit. Many features on eve that are introduced get balance passes shortly after. If you buy into a ship you do so with the knowledge it may be changed at any point. If you try to say you didn't know this could happen you're a ******* moron. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Beaute Suprenate Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 19	Posted - 2017.02.28 02:27:44 - [536] - Quote I have also invested a lot into this new setup (Rorqual / Excavator) and it seems to me that the point of this was to reduce the price of minerals which should reduce the price of caps which should encourage their use in combat which should bring new blood into the cap fight arena. Nerfing the Excavator is directly opposed to that goal. Better think this out. Why do you want to protect the price of minerals? The lower the price, the more that will get used thus helping the price of BPCs which have been low for a long time. BPCs will be more in demand. Im not quitting over this but you are once again screwing me.
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3786	Posted - 2017.02.28 02:35:27 - [537] - Quote Beaute Suprenate wrote: I have also invested a lot into this new setup (Rorqual / Excavator) and it seems to me that the point of this was to reduce the price of minerals which should reduce the price of caps which should encourage their use in combat which should bring new blood into the cap fight arena. Nerfing the Excavator is directly opposed to that goal. Better think this out. Why do you want to protect the price of minerals? The lower the price, the more that will get used thus helping the price of BPCs which have been low for a long time. BPCs will be more in demand. Im not quitting over this but you are once again screwing me. Trying too hard to make a conspiracy out of this. If the idea was to reduce the cost of caps then why not reduce mineral requirements? Why make a change that reduces mineral worth and everything linked to them across the board? The **** is wrong with people? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2017.02.28 03:05:56 - [538] - Quote Beaute Suprenate wrote: I have also invested a lot into this new setup (Rorqual / Excavator) and it seems to me that the point of this was to reduce the price of minerals which should reduce the price of caps which should encourage their use in combat which should bring new blood into the cap fight arena. Nerfing the Excavator is directly opposed to that goal. Better think this out. Why do you want to protect the price of minerals? The lower the price, the more that will get used thus helping the price of BPCs which have been low for a long time. BPCs will be more in demand. Im not quitting over this but you are once again screwing me. No, this actually is against new blood, new players earn there first isk from mining most of time. Also you invested alot? why did you do it? If not for players like you who HAVE TO HAVE IT, excavator price should be 300mil/unit, as planned on before release by devs. More so, following your logic about capital usage, but by not being one building them, current mineral price drop so much, that loosing premium insured capital is FREE. As so, in opposition to your logic, about I WANT RED BUTTON EASY MODE, there should be insurance payout removed from nullsec, as why there would be it in first place if there is no Concord, and empire network to run it.
Cade Windstalker 944	Posted - 2017.02.28 03:21:32 - [539] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. If you have a problem with my views, oh well not my problem. Though for the record I don't think CCP can do no wrong, I just tend to give them a lot more of the benefit of the doubt than most, and I'm often already thinking in the same direction they are. Comes from knowing my game design and knowing the game in general pretty well. If you have a problem with my arguments then refute them. If you can't do that then that is also not my problem, though I may take a small amount of enjoyment out of your annoyance and general bitterness. I would also like to remind you that your experience in the game is by no means universal or globally applicable. Just because you mine does not mean you speak for all miners. Also assuming that I don't mine is a bit funny, given your only apparent evidence for this is my lack of agreement with you. As to your ideas, the yield needs to drop. The first nerf didn't do it, the second one seems to be. It might could gain back 5% but probably not much more than that. The external modules thing doesn't actually fix the Entosis problem. As Fozzie pointed out, you already can't Entosis and PANIC, it breaks the Entosis, the problem is that you can then use the PANIC as an emergency button to save your Entosis ship. No reason to mess with cyno requirements or make the PANIC act as a cyno, the person can just light one themselves, simply don't include that on any module restrictions. Having the Core not lock you in place removes most of the downsides to it, not a fan. Stud Duficious wrote: I'm one of those that is considering quitting. The reason is because of "Bait and Switch" that CCP is doing with this change. Just a few months ago they nerved the coequals and to do it again to this magnitude this soon isn't about balancing the game, it's about getting people to invest and change the mechanics so large amounts of isk and assets are down the drain. Me for example spent 100 bil on injectors to get many rorqual toons only to be turned into very expensive hulks. I'm not the only one that did this. I know many others who spent a lot of isk to get multiple toons that are rorqual pilots. I feel the right thing for CCP to do is to reimburse everyone who spent isk on injectors and the skill points to fly the rorquals or at the very least make an announcement that this change will happen 6 months to a year from now so that people who invested a great amount of isk can make it back.... I'll be frank, this is straight tin-foil hat thinking. There's zero evidence that CCP are trying anything like a bait and switch. If they'd just nerfed it 50% the first time people would have screamed bloody murder, same as they're doing now, but louder. CCP, rather clearly, over shot with the first iteration of the Rorqual. The first round of nerfs equally clearly failed to halt the slide in mineral prices or produce any significant change in player behavior. CCP, and every other game dev, needs to be free to adjust their design up or down, or the game is going to pretty quickly go to ***. You, and everyone else, who invested large amounts of ISK on this bet made just that, a bet. It's no different from times in the past when people have made market bets on changes CCP have announced and lost big. Either because those changes changed, or because the changes didn't have the effect the speculators expected. My personal hope is that you and everyone else who got bitten on this will be slower to rush for the next shiny new thing that seems too good to be true, because it probably is and is about to get nerfed. What CCP certainly can't do is refund you or anyone else. They haven't completely changed the Rorqual, made it worthless, or even made it so you can't earn back your investment, they've just increased the time required for you to do so. If CCP had to refund everyone every time they made a change there would be basically zero investment in this game, because every patch something would be getting refunded. That would suck*.
Cade Windstalker 944	Posted - 2017.02.28 03:29:47 - [540] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Read my first line. Read my second line, then think. Go check my posts going back a year or 18 months about the small guys getting shafted all the time. Unlike a lot of guys I was already trained into a Rorqual well before these changes and drones hit, but I didn't bother with the new drones...unlike some. These guys are now being deliberately shafted by CCP and Fozzie in a way indicative of how large swathes of the player base have been treated over about the last 2/12 to 3 years. Personally I'm sick of waiting to be blindside by the next nerf bat.... BTW..enough of the CCP fanboi stance, it's getting sickening and boring to read now. Fun fact, I can fly a Rorqual. I also didn't rush head long at this, and I'm mostly unmoved by the changes because they're not going to affect me much. Personally my main stake in all this is me looking at the price of minerals and thinking of all the newbies I've known over the years mining to PLEX their account for the first few months, and wondering how many more hours a month they now need to mine to do that. Anyways, if you didn't go for the drones then I'm really not sure what the issue is. The Boosts are staying the same, and actually getting slightly stronger with the range boost buff, so if you're using a Rorq for boosting it's unaffected. Daichi Yamato wrote: Beaute Suprenate wrote: I have also invested a lot into this new setup (Rorqual / Excavator) and it seems to me that the point of this was to reduce the price of minerals which should reduce the price of caps which should encourage their use in combat which should bring new blood into the cap fight arena. Nerfing the Excavator is directly opposed to that goal. Better think this out. Why do you want to protect the price of minerals? The lower the price, the more that will get used thus helping the price of BPCs which have been low for a long time. BPCs will be more in demand. Im not quitting over this but you are once again screwing me. Trying too hard to make a conspiracy out of this. If the idea was to reduce the cost of caps then why not reduce mineral requirements? Why make a change that reduces mineral worth and everything linked to them across the board? The **** is wrong with people? Yeah, this is about the point I'm at with this whole "bait and switch" nonsense. If anyone cares to go read the original Rorqual Change thread the massive preponderance of opinion there is that no one will ever put such an expensive ship out in a belt, even with the massive mining yield CCP gave it originally. There are a few people going "this might be a bit much?" but not many, and almost everyone is going "7b ship, lawl no!". Clearly this was not the majority opinion once the Rorqual hit the live servers So yeah, not a bait and switch, just a lot of non-miners suddenly going "oh look, mining looks good right about now..." Seriously, if CCP could see this massive shift coming do you really think their magical foresight would somehow stop short of seeing the rage in this thread?

Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2017.02.28 03:51:30 - [541] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Seriously, if CCP could see this massive shift coming do you really think their magical foresight would somehow stop short of seeing the rage in this thread? I seen it coming, pointed it out in many places, yet **** hit a fan.
ultimatefox02 Core Industry. Blades of Grass 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 03:54:28 - [542] - Quote Seriously, if CCP could see this massive shift coming do you really think their magical foresight would somehow stop short of seeing the rage in this thread? Lol IS NOT JUST THE RAGE HE SEE , IF THIS **** CONTINUE,he see minus 4 accounts , and you see minus 4 accounts if you dont stop anny stupid idea like that. CCP you pass some good years before, but now is the END if you put this update online.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1234	Posted - 2017.02.28 04:29:58 - [543] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: .... why? Seriously, why is an adjustment to a change that isn't even three months old at this point making you consider un-subbing or biomassing your characters or whatever? I'm legitimately curious why a balance change in a game, and to something that hasn't even been around that long, has you posting like someone shot your dog. It's the sheer speed and scale of these changes that's got so many panties in a knot. For years, the Rorqual was the unloved apex of the Industrial tree. A great behemoth of a machine that would do nothing other than sit in the safety of a POS shield, providing system wide boosts. I remember one former corpmate who would log in straight after downtime, load up their Rorqual with fuel, start up a standing mining fleet and activate the boosts. That Rorqual sat in that POS shield for MONTHS. This was The First Age of the Rorqual. Last November, changes were made and all of a sudden, a ship that had been dear to the hearts of many if only in the scale of its disappointment, became a viable ship to actually fly. Rorquals were removed from the safety of the POS shield and thrown into the hurly burly in the belts. The Second Age of the Rorqual had arrived and a golden time it was for those who already had characters capable of flying the beast. A great many players, myself included saw the Rorquals out in the belts and thought: "sweet, FINALLY I have an actual reason to train into this ship". So we trained. Oh dear Lord how we trained a whole suite of skills that we'd never have spent time on otherwise. We invested in the drones, rigs, hull and fittings. We trucked in Heavy Water by the Occator load along with piles of 3200 Cap Booster charges. We bought into the dream that Fozzie had sold us. It's an expensive dream. It's a dream that requires great risks to fulfill and it's a dream that takes considerable time to fully skill into. The dreamers came from across New Eden. From deepest nullsec right up to the very borders of HiSec. Even the fringe dwelling denizens of C1-C4 Anoikis bought into the dream. Trucking in compressed ore by the Miasmos load. Building capital components and setting up capital shipyards specifically to offer up a Rorqual to the grace of Bob when (s)He decides to bless us with an Ore site in our home wormholes. In January, barely two months after the initial changes, tweaks were made to yield. Wise heads nodded sagely and proclaimed "yeah, well, it was sucking up an insane amount of Ore, kinda had to happen...." Thus, we entered the Third Age of the Rorqual. Mining yields were down on The Golden Second Age, but were decent enough that we persisted in following the dreams sold by Fozzie. Players saw these changes and thought 'meh, it's still a solid mining vessel', so they skilled, they trained, they purchased. Then in February came the news that Fozzies Dream was undergoing another set of tweaks. Wise heads nodded sagely and proclaimed "indestructible long range low fatigue Jump HICs are a clearly a problem, CCP is right to fix this". Then we discovered the extent of the changes and we saw that yet another nerf to mining yield was on the cards. The second serious nerf in as many months. This news has upset the Dreamers, we the foolish followers of Fozzie. The dream started to fade even while workers toiled away in capital shipyards to build them. Students of Mining Foreman V and Advanced Spaceship Command V suddenly saw their future careers vaporized before their very eyes. We bought into a dream only to have the dream descend into Dante's Inferno before we could make the first repayment on our shiny new mining toys, and certainly long before many of us have managed to pay out our 'student loans' for training and recover the sunk costs of the ship and drones itself. There is uncertainty over the exact extent of how these changes will affect total yield. This uncertainty leads to fear, which in turn has led to anger that the changes have come so fast, not giving players a chance to alter their plans in time. Anger that the dream we will realise is not the dream we were sold. But most of the anger is reserved for Fozzie himself. Anger that apparently he never considered the repercussions of a low-fatigue, long range jump ship that can pack enough heavy scrams to reliably tackle a supercarrier and then giving it an invulnerability mode. Anger that Fozzie has decided to change his mind on such short notice, making a lot of players regret some of their recent training and purchasing decisions. Anger that we will be left with vastly expensive assets that are rapidly declining in value while simultaneously being forced to spend more time recouping initial investments. Most of all, we're angry because Fozzie's own reasoning for making the change is self contradictory. Apparently the Mineral market needs CCP intervention, but the value of Excavator Drones is left to the market. A market that is currently in freefall as legions of min-max EVE nerds get out their calculators and pocket protectors to figure out if the risk:reward of using Hulks outweighs the risk:rewards of using a Rorqual. Does that clear it up for you? Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 715	Posted - 2017.02.28 07:34:30 - [544] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Just a few things... T1 ammo. Do some people not realise t1 ammo has pretty good margins? I mean ammo gets used a lot. Even when ships aren't dying, ammo is still getting used. Drago. It seems you're always quitting. Like most qq'ers it's idle threats. Bait and switch? Bullshit. Many features on eve that are introduced get balance passes shortly after. If you buy into a ship you do so with the knowledge it may be changed at any point. If you try to say you didn't know this could happen you're a ***** moron. Please show me a post where I have ever mentioned I was quitting. Please show me a post where I have mentioned bait and switch. Please tell me when exactly I bought into a rorq, as I said, I was trained into a rorq before all this. I actually sold my Rorq in Provi before moving to Fountain and didn't bother replacing it. 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.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 8	Posted - 2017.02.28 10:44:15 - [545] - Quote Mephiztopheleze wrote: It's the sheer speed and scale of these changes that's got so many panties in a knot... [full quote, to which I'll add a +1] ...Does that clear it up for you? Pretty much what a lot of us have been trying to say, yet we're getting hit with 'inaccurate calculations' and 'tinfoil-hat' and 'you don't speak for all miners', while seemingly themselves becoming an impromptu spokesperson for a section of the player base. Pretty ironic. I'm a big fan of changes and tweaks, but have always leaned towards baby steps rather than massive overhauls. If you're going to tweak a ship, then tweak an area, then look to see how the changes have affected the whole, as the law of unintended consequences show massive far reaching overhauls will have massive far reaching implications. 25% is by no means a 'tweak', it's a pretty massive nerf. And I very much doubt that any subtractions to the yield be rebalanced should the changes prove to be wholly counterproductive to the grand scheme of things. Pre-aligned porpoise/orca and exhumer fleets may well replace the 14B killmails that are on a constant stream. I wonder, just how much of the 'excessive' minerals being mined in nullsec are going towards replacing said ships? Oh, and for the record I've also been able to fly the rorquals pre-patch. Was a refreshing change being able to actually field it for a change. Anyway, sorry for ruffling feather there if anyone purports to take umbrage. No offence intended.
Aliza Cosma Chupinskowa It Girl Society 2	Posted - 2017.02.28 10:47:06 - [546] - Quote In a time member counts grows up you mess again with stupid game fixes. Why you do not what the game needs, more opportunities to destroy ships, more oportunitys that need ore (for example for the citadells), or why can't we build our own stargates that need ore to build.... this is an 2 or 3 yeahr old announcement by the way. Listen to the one or other good tip in this thread to fix ore outcome without bashing your happy customors. You as company allways fogett you have a job because we pay you for the game. A game that lifes and die with the oportunity to destroy things. That should be the way to fix things. thats the way you make money and thats the way eve works. destruction..... With that in mind, you don't have to do this stupid fix. But everyone who is playing a bit longer knows CCP give a **** about what we the customer that keep this company and game with our money alive, say. So in this way it's wastet time to say anything... CCP learns only if the people say good bye, sad but true.
JonasML Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 12:25:59 - [547] - Quote I was away from the game for 2 years, and happy to stay gone, then I see this awesome mining patch coming out... 6 months later I'm coming back around to "** you CCP". Maybe you should start small and buff next time, instead of beating the out of something with a Nerf bat. BTW, nerfing excavators right when you're also buffing T2 drones.... not amused. The mineral prices have been high for a while now, and the Rorqual mining is finally putting them back to their lower prices, the same prices that saw huge fleet fights, affordable battleships, etc etc. You made all kinds of changes for "new players", but the biggest complaint I've heard from them is how much grinding they have to do to afford ships. Screwing with the Rorqual is DIRECTLY interfering with the market, no 2 ways about it, and you should keep your hands off for at least another 3 months before you make this change to drone yields. 2 nerfs in 6 months to something people paid billions to use is too damn much. Regarding the PANIC changes... where do I start? Oh I know, FIRE the IDIOT who came up with it. If you have a problem with Rorqs being used for tackle, remove their ability to fit tackle ffs, leave the damn module alone. I dare say that it would be easier to insert the code into the preexisting system that prevents certain ships from fitting certain mods, rather than inserting all new code that forces an asteroid lock for use. Start with removing the ability to use heavy webs, wait a bit, then maybe go further. See what I'm doing here, baby steps, spelling it right out for you, almost like I'm talking to children. As a final note, you may want to have a long talk with your lawyer, if you haven't done so already, about what happened to Blizzard a while back. You know, that big lawsuit they got hit with (and LOST) where they got sued for tons of money in a class action suit. Wasn't that over nerfing something people paid big RL money for? You know, kind of like people paying money for PLEX to buy those drones... the ones you're nerfing now? Well damn, hate to be in your shoes if you pull this ** on the Asian server.
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 173	Posted - 2017.02.28 13:19:10 - [548] - Quote CCP can you make mining drones more intelligent and have them stop when the asteroid is empty? Like when they're actually empty and not just when the cycle is ended and a lot of overkill has happened?
Pegs Thiesant The Draconis Combine Hell's Sirens 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 14:00:16 - [549] - Quote Ahh the joys of being a miner. Another nerf to the mining community of EVE, would be fun to watch if every miner in the game decided not to mine for a few days see how the ore and mineral prices go. Either that or actually give the Rorq what it is supposed to have for defense, I mean a bubble to protect it for a few mins, now that's going away as well unless u are actually targeting something, it is a CAPITAL ship with all the capabilities of a Jump Freighter and drone bay of more then most ships in the game. Try and git it proper defenses i.e. the ability to actually defend itself, guns, rockets etc and the ability to field fighters instead of 5 poxy drones either that or make caps and supers able to mine, that would be fun.
Panther X HIGH FLYERS Northern Coalition. 114	Posted - 2017.02.28 16:19:23 - [550] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Hey CCP - how about a boost to Rorquals/Capital Tractor beams in which they allow the Rorqual to tractor rocks closer, but has to maintain an active tractor on it to keep it close. If they drop the tractor the rock will return to a spot in the belt? This isn't totally tended to be a single boost for the rorqual. but would allow the rorqual to assist in relocating rocks in the belt to help other mines as well.... At least with an option like this it would add some fun game play to mining. That's actually not a bad idea. Saves Rorqs from having to slowboat from rock to rock to maintain a perfect sub 10km distance. I like it. Because you know, the capital tractor really is worthless other than for its range. And that's what we have MTU's for My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

arts scie somethin' under snow Ultimate Space 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 16:25:55 - [551] - Quote -P-¦-¦-ë-¦-+-+-ü-î: -Ç-+-Ç-¦-¦ - 4 -à-¦-+-¦-¦ -+-+-+-â-ç-+-+-+-ü-î: -Ç-+-Ç-¦-¦ - 2 -à-¦-+-¦-¦ -º-â-Ä -+-¦-¦-¦-+-ü -+-é -ª-+-+-ª-+-+-ƒ-ì -ò-ü-+-+ -é-¦-¦ -+-Ç-+-¦-+-+-¦-+-é-î-ü-Å, -é-+ -+-+-Ç-¦ -+-¦-¦-Å-+-ï-¦-¦-é-î -ü -ä-+-+-+-+ WTS rorqual
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 305	Posted - 2017.02.28 16:45:32 - [552] - Quote Freelancer117 wrote: When the 'Excavator' ore mining drones cost 700M instead of 1,7B a piece, this change will make sense Excavator drones are supposed to cost 300mill, but the huge demand keeps the price so high. Prices will drop. The Augmented mining drone cost over 200 mill when it was released, now, 3 months later, it costs 51 mill.
Cade Windstalker 947	Posted - 2017.02.28 17:16:03 - [553] - Quote I appreciate the length and depth of your response, unfortunately I'm going to have to chop it up a bit to poke at specific bits. Mephiztopheleze wrote: ... The dreamers came from across New Eden. From deepest nullsec right up to the very borders of HiSec. .... As I've said a couple of times here, I think this is probably the actual issue. The issue isn't the dedicated miners who have been mining for years, the issue is all the random Carrier and Super ratters who have gone and dumped a ton of skill injectors into 2 or 3 or 10 characters to get into a Rorqual because suddenly there's this ship that makes almost as much as a Super Carrier (or more if your Alliance does minerals for ships directly) and you can multi-box them a lot easier than a Carrier. Mephiztopheleze wrote: ... In January, barely two months after the initial changes, tweaks were made to yield. Wise heads nodded sagely and proclaimed "yeah, well, it was sucking up an insane amount of Ore, kinda had to happen...." ... Then in February came the news that Fozzies Dream was undergoing another set of tweaks. Wise heads nodded sagely and proclaimed "indestructible long range low fatigue Jump HICs are a clearly a problem, CCP is right to fix this". Then we discovered the extent of the changes and we saw that yet another nerf to mining yield was on the cards. The second serious nerf in as many months. ... I guess this is where I just sorta scratch my head and shrug a bit. The first round of nerfs weren't particularly controversial, if anything there were just as many people calling for a bigger nerf as for less of one or a different one. The first nerf clearly didn't stop the slide in the mineral market, and it clearly didn't get many people to change their playstyle, so why is this nerf unjustified when the initial conditions that justified the first one haven't really shifted much? It feels to me that the reason the second nerf feels unjustified to a lot of people is because it's actually enough of a nerf to make the Rorqual something other than an absolutely certain go-to ship for Null mining, and a better option for buying a Capital or bigger ship than actually getting together the ISK to buy it outright, in basically every instance. Mephiztopheleze wrote: ... There is uncertainty over the exact extent of how these changes will affect total yield. This uncertainty leads to fear, which in turn has led to anger that the changes have come so fast, not giving players a chance to alter their plans in time. Anger that the dream we will realise is not the dream we were sold. ... I feel like everything here is grounded in something irrational. The changes are on Sisi and are fairly easily tested, the extent of and impact of these changes are pretty easily mathematically analyzed, at least in terms of mining yield. Even the PANIC change is pretty small for actual miners. Also if CCP waited longer on this, either on announcing it or on implementing it, the only thing that would change is more people would invest in the current state of things, and the people already invested would have a little more time to exploit this to the maximum. Neither of those is an actually desirable outcome for CCP, as is the current negative market conditions persisting any longer than necessary. As to the 'dreams you were sold' should CCP put a disclaimer at the top of each set of patch notes that says "All changes are potentially subject to change. We reserve the right to buff and nerf things as we feel is good for the game. Consider this when making decisions based on upcoming changes." Would that fix this apparent investment issue people have with rushing toward new OP things like lemmings? Mephiztopheleze wrote: Anger that apparently he never considered the repercussions of a low-fatigue, long range jump ship that can pack enough heavy scrams to reliably tackle a supercarrier and then giving it an invulnerability mode. As weird as this might sound this was pointed out as a potential problem. CCP left it in to see what would happen and see if it would actually be a problem. Generally speaking, at least personally, this is something I like about CCP. They don't lock things down from the outset and lock us into only one use for a ship or module. They give us tools and see what we do with them. It's only when a tool creates a significant problem, either in Risk/Reward or in the use of other tools that something gets changed or nerfed. Personally I'd rather have that approach than have CCP just create things for one very specific use-case and try to restrict anything that might fall outside that.
Cade Windstalker 947	Posted - 2017.02.28 17:17:12 - [554] - Quote Mephiztopheleze wrote: ... Most of all, we're angry because Fozzie's own reasoning for making the change is self contradictory. Apparently the Mineral market needs CCP intervention, but the value of Excavator Drones is left to the market. A market that is currently in freefall as legions of min-max EVE nerds get out their calculators and pocket protectors to figure out if the risk:reward of using Hulks outweighs the risk:rewards of using a Rorqual. Does that clear it up for you? Personally at least the logic here is a bit self-contradictory to me. The prices of Excavator Drones are almost purely a function of the current demand for them. They're not being destroyed in numbers anywhere near what's being produced, so the price will come down as demand does. CCP even buffed the drop rates of the primary cause of the initial high cost, the Elite Drone AI's to help bring costs down faster. Also the price of these drones isn't actually causing a major problem for anyone beyond those purchasing them. The price of these drones has very little secondary effect on the rest of the game. The mineral market on the other hand has wide-ranging effects, and from the way supply looks right now we're way past the point of "supply and demand" explaining this, we're at a point where the mineral market simply can't absorb the quantities of ore being produced. The market might eventually catch up, but in the meantime the crash in mineral prices is having adverse affects on every miner who can't afford a Rorqual, which is a not insignificant number of players. On top of that, and to me the really big difference here, is that the mineral flood was directly caused by CCP. They put in a new ship with a vastly higher mining capacity and that's caused a flood of minerals onto the market. That's directly CCP's fault. They also put the mining drones into the game, but the actual price of them has been largely set by players and their demand for the drones. As demand drops off the cost should drop, which is what we're already seeing, even before these changes. Does that make sense? I'm honestly not sure I've explained why I see these as such distinctly different things. I could try and post all the econ and stats and crap, but I'm not sure that would help Henry Plantgenet wrote: CCP can you make mining drones more intelligent and have them stop when the asteroid is empty? Like when they're actually empty and not just when the cycle is ended and a lot of overkill has happened? You can do this the same way you do a mining laser. Call the drones to return and orbit to end their cycle early and return with whatever they've mined.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2017.02.28 17:49:25 - [555] - Quote Tangent: It's interesting to speculate about why CCP thought the rorqual numbers were reasonable in the first place. Perhaps they expected a spike in mineral demand from alpha clones, who buy/lose ships but have pathetic mining abilities? Or maybe they made predictions based on miners switching from hulks to rorquals, without (sufficiently) factoring in players who had never mined switching into the profession and away from other income streams? There were posts (like mine ) predicting rorquals would be multiboxed to death within minutes of the changes being announced in October, and I'm sure they saw that coming themselves, but for some reason they underestimated the total economic disruption.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 8	Posted - 2017.02.28 18:13:08 - [556] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Does that make sense? I'm honestly not sure I've explained why I see these as such distinctly different things. I could try and post all the econ and stats and crap, but I'm not sure that would help. I seriously considered digging out my analytical measurement equations and feeding the mineral price and supply numbers into excel to see if there really is a 25% drop on prices. Obviously trit's not going to be ideal as it's 4 per unit, so even a slight drop in price will look to have far-reaching effects when the reality is it's not really a 25% shift, so a full analysis of all mineral prices and an extrapolation of future trends would be a great place to start. I've got enough work on at the moment though to add this burden. Plus there's always going to be a degree of personal bias in whoever decides to punch the numbers. We've already seen on here an argument made using mining comparison between max skill rorquals and hulks that wasn't even close to accurate in real terms, having paid zero attention to drone travel time, repositioning, etc and I've yet to see a viable argument vs the whole massive isk and more importantly time investment made by people to field them when compared to exhumers. Rather it's been said, in not so many words, tough s**t. CCP can do what they want. As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet.
Cade Windstalker 948	Posted - 2017.02.28 19:19:18 - [557] - Quote jizzah wrote: I seriously considered digging out my analytical measurement equations and feeding the mineral price and supply numbers into excel to see if there really is a 25% drop on prices. Obviously trit's not going to be ideal as it's 4 per unit, so even a slight drop in price will look to have far-reaching effects when the reality is it's not really a 25% shift, so a full analysis of all mineral prices and an extrapolation of future trends would be a great place to start. I've got enough work on at the moment though to add this burden. Plus there's always going to be a degree of personal bias in whoever decides to punch the numbers. We've already seen on here an argument made using mining comparison between max skill rorquals and hulks that wasn't even close to accurate in real terms, having paid zero attention to drone travel time, repositioning, etc and I've yet to see a viable argument vs the whole massive isk and more importantly time investment made by people to field them when compared to exhumers. Rather it's been said, in not so many words, tough st. CCP can do what they want. Some eyeballing says it's between 5% and 25% depending on which rock you're mining. The real difficulty though is looking at time horizons. If you go back to the start of the Rorqual changes and look to today several of the higher end minerals that ended up being bottlenecks in the Rorqual-powered economy end up higher now than they were before the initial changes. On the flip side if you go back a month or so and look at today there's a distinct downward trend even on these bottlenecks. All of these bottleneck ores are scarce in High Sec though, and that's where the mineral surplus is going to have the greatest impact, both because it's mostly High Sec minerals being impacted and because High Sec miners don't have the option of going and getting a Rorqual to compete. Looking at the price for raw 5 and 10% Jaspet in High Sec it looks like we're sitting at around a 7% drop compared to before the changes (ignoring a weird spike in price right before the changes dropped). Also, regarding the discussion of Hulks vs Rorquals, the only thing that did was serve to contextualize the changes, since the yield of a Hulk isn't changing. No one in that discussion was pretending that those numbers were what a Rorqual would mine in practice. That was purely for context and to debunk the people throwing around the "The Rorq is only going to mine as much as 2 Hulks!" folks. jizzah wrote:** As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet. Personally I agree, but not at the expense of the mineral market as a whole. We're still looking at a ship that's going to mine multiple times more per character than the next ship down when that ship is fully boosted by the ship we're discussing. The change from T1 mining barges to T2 isn't close to that large of a jump. How is a 3x increase in mining potential per ship not enough to make this the king of the mining line? If the Rorqual is the only thing anyone should be mining in if they can use it then that's not just being a good ship, that's clearly a broken risk/reward tradeoff. That would be like if Capitals suddenly became the only thing anyone should bring to a fight because you no longer need sub-caps. The last time that came close to happening people raged until CCP fixed it.
Aka Evil Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.02.28 20:01:21 - [558] - Quote Enochia Starr wrote: I think the nerf is too damn high, .. https://youtu.be/9TKOmqYLZ2Q
JonasML Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2017.02.28 20:27:01 - [559] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: jizzah wrote: I seriously considered digging out my analytical measurement equations and feeding the mineral price and supply numbers into excel to see if there really is a 25% drop on prices. Obviously trit's not going to be ideal as it's 4 per unit, so even a slight drop in price will look to have far-reaching effects when the reality is it's not really a 25% shift, so a full analysis of all mineral prices and an extrapolation of future trends would be a great place to start. I've got enough work on at the moment though to add this burden. Plus there's always going to be a degree of personal bias in whoever decides to punch the numbers. We've already seen on here an argument made using mining comparison between max skill rorquals and hulks that wasn't even close to accurate in real terms, having paid zero attention to drone travel time, repositioning, etc and I've yet to see a viable argument vs the whole massive isk and more importantly time investment made by people to field them when compared to exhumers. Rather it's been said, in not so many words, tough st. CCP can do what they want. Some eyeballing says it's between 5% and 25% depending on which rock you're mining. The real difficulty though is looking at time horizons. If you go back to the start of the Rorqual changes and look to today several of the higher end minerals that ended up being bottlenecks in the Rorqual-powered economy end up higher now than they were before the initial changes. On the flip side if you go back a month or so and look at today there's a distinct downward trend even on these bottlenecks. All of these bottleneck ores are scarce in High Sec though, and that's where the mineral surplus is going to have the greatest impact, both because it's mostly High Sec minerals being impacted and because High Sec miners don't have the option of going and getting a Rorqual to compete. Looking at the price for raw 5 and 10% Jaspet in High Sec it looks like we're sitting at around a 7% drop compared to before the changes (ignoring a weird spike in price right before the changes dropped). jizzah wrote: As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet. Personally I agree, but not at the expense of the mineral market as a whole. We're still looking at a ship that's going to mine multiple times more per character than the next ship down when that ship is fully boosted by the ship we're discussing. The change from T1 mining barges to T2 isn't close to that large of a jump. How is a 3x increase in mining potential per ship not enough to make this the king of the mining line? If the Rorqual is the only thing anyone should be mining in if they can use it then that's not just being a good ship, that's clearly a broken risk/reward tradeoff. That would be like if Capitals suddenly became the only thing anyone should bring to a fight because you no longer need sub-caps. The last time that came close to happening people raged until CCP fixed it. Clearly you know nothing about mining, particularly nullsec mining. When Fozzie fucks with lowsec PVP, I'll be happy to hear from you, until then get a clue. The mineral market has undergone steady inflation over the last 5+ years. There was a drop in prices when the drone regions were released about 8 years ago, which was quickly soaked up by an increase in capitals and supers and has been on the rise ever since - WELL PAST THE ORIGINAL PRICES. CCP didn't go making huge nerfs then though, they only nerfed 1 alloy drop, very slightly, to fix the huge drop in zydrine value. Has anything dropped to less than 50% it's pre-excavator value? No? No problem then. In fact, some minerals like mexallon are going up. Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven? In nullsec, Rorquals are the only thing to mine in, until Fozzie gets his head out of his ass and finally builds a reasonable damn interceptor that isn't impossible to kill or catch (apologies Fozzie if you really are just the poor bastard who has to announce everything and get screamed at). Hulks or barges are used to clear the mercoxit and maybe ochre, why else would you put them out when a 'ceptor will rip the tin can apart and get away with it? FYI, carriers are the new cruisers, EVERYONE in 0.0 rats in them, North, South, drone regions, only place you might not see it being common is npc nullsec and even then it happens. In pvp FAX are the new make or break fleet fight ships. Whoever has the most wins. Either way, subcaps are becoming obsolete, only highly specialized T2/T3 ships have value for anything other than "swarm" fleets - ever see the 100+ man tier 3 bc fleets fielded by NC. and others?. Bring your subcap fleet into someone's sov and see what happens. And seriously, *** Jaspet? WTF? Who mines Jaspet in nullsec? Jaspet has absolutely nothing to do with Rorqual mining, unless you have some idiot using one in lowsec in which case I will probably ** myself LOLing when he dies. Any drops in the mineral market are coming from primarily the renter groups who export it to pay their bills, and they aren't selling Jaspet. The major groups are doing exactly what they should be doing, stockpiling for war, which is why so many of us are hitting the roof over this. CCP, this is a bad idea, pay attention to those who actually do the damn nullsec mining. Those who hug highsec will always whine about nullsec goodies.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 8	Posted - 2017.02.28 20:27:24 - [560] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: jizzah wrote: As far as I'm concerned, the rorqual is the pinnacle of the mining line and this should reflect on it's potential as a miner, not as a booster, or a glorified can magnet. Personally I agree, but not at the expense of the mineral market as a whole. We're still looking at a ship that's going to mine multiple times more per character than the next ship down when that ship is fully boosted by the ship we're discussing. The change from T1 mining barges to T2 isn't close to that large of a jump. How is a 3x increase in mining potential per ship not enough to make this the king of the mining line? I believe the orca mines 1.5 times a fully maxed exhumer. That's almost comparable boosts, a pretty decent amount of yield and all in the relative safety of highsec. Cade Windstalker wrote: If the Rorqual is the only thing anyone should be mining in if they can use it then that's not just being a good ship, that's clearly a broken risk/reward tradeoff. That would be like if Capitals suddenly became the only thing anyone should bring to a fight because you no longer need sub-caps. The last time that came close to happening people raged until CCP fixed it. This is where you really lose me. The vast majority of ore mined in null comes from sites. In order to get a new site to spawn, the old site needs to be cleared-ergo, the mercoxit has to be mined too. Therefore 'rorquals only' is a bit of a blinkered statement. I can think of 2 different means of dealing with a bloom in an item. The first way is by creating a sink of sorts. I believe someone mentioned and was (pretty unfairly) shot down ammo drops from npc's. Release some faction ammo BPCs that drop from spawns, make the mineral cost of producing said ammo the means of equalising the market surplus. A much better way of 'balancing' an irregularity in supply would be to tweak the spawn rates of the asteroids. Look at market, see there's too much of one mineral and not enough of another, adjust the anom spawn, see how the market adjusts. Then tweak again accordingly. Baby steps. With either example, miners are happy as they're still seeing a decent return for their investment, industry is happy as the minerals are available without a surplus of one and not enough of another, so production of ships continues unabashed and I'm happy due to the increase of capsuleers in game, waiting to die. The only thing I can say with any real certainty is if the mining nerf goes ahead, more than a few accounts will go back into hibernation until such a time as the wheel turns full circle and miners get noticed again. In any case, it will be a real shame to see this revitalised eve return to pre-ascension numbers. JonasML wrote: Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven? \o As for the rest of you post, I agree. But for the sake of the children and squeamish here, I'm curbing both my temper and pottymouth. Toma will be so proud...

FT Diomedes The Graduates 2833	Posted - 2017.02.28 20:48:32 - [561] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Tangent: It's interesting to speculate about why CCP thought the rorqual numbers were reasonable in the first place. Perhaps they expected a spike in mineral demand from alpha clones, who buy/lose ships but have pathetic mining abilities? Or maybe they made predictions based on miners switching from hulks to rorquals, without (sufficiently) factoring in players who had never mined switching into the profession and away from other income streams? There were posts (like mine ) predicting rorquals would be multiboxed to death within minutes of the changes being announced in October, and I'm sure they saw that coming themselves, but for some reason they underestimated the total economic disruption. Yes, but they could fix the multiboxing potential for the Rorqual by turning the Excavators into Fighters. That lowers the multiboxing potential for the ship by making it require more input and more attention. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Circumstantial Evidence 383	Posted - 2017.02.28 21:30:10 - [562] - Quote JonasML wrote: Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven? Both of these ships were affected by Tier-i-cide changes; CCP increased mineral requirements to build all former tier 1 and 2 ships in the Odyssey expansion of 2013
Gemma Skord Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2017.02.28 23:03:06 - [563] - Quote I like the nerf. For newer players the super strong Rorqual is bad. It makes all other mining ships obsolete. Getting into a Rorqual takes for ever when you have to train 10,000 basic skills first.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 346	Posted - 2017.03.01 01:35:28 - [564] - Quote What needs adding to the industrial core and panic modual is on the network sensor array EW Capacitor Need Bonus9,999,900 % this would fix the panic modual without this stupid must have an asteroid to target milarky...
Strange Shadow Hedion University Amarr Empire 69	Posted - 2017.03.01 03:25:06 - [565] - Quote A bit of lore opportunity wasted here. PANIC module should not just require asteroid lock, it should also *consume* said asteroid to power itself. Just destroy the asteroid you've found with that procedure of yours, doesn't matter how, simple poof is enough. Amount and type of ore in asteroid isn't important, 1 veldspar is enough. What will this accomplish? Suddenly, asteroid lock is not just abstract requirement, but make sense - PANIC needs a lot of energy, and now you must point it to energy's source. And seriously who will care about some roid disappearing at the desperate times of PANIC activation.
Cade Windstalker 954	Posted - 2017.03.01 04:31:02 - [566] - Quote JonasML wrote: Clearly you know nothing about mining, particularly nullsec mining. When Fozzie fucks with lowsec PVP, I'll be happy to hear from you, until then get a clue. The mineral market has undergone steady inflation over the last 5+ years. There was a drop in prices when the drone regions were released about 8 years ago, which was quickly soaked up by an increase in capitals and supers and has been on the rise ever since - WELL PAST THE ORIGINAL PRICES. CCP didn't go making huge nerfs then though, they only nerfed 1 alloy drop, very slightly, to fix the huge drop in zydrine value. Has anything dropped to less than 50% it's pre-excavator value? No? No problem then. In fact, some minerals like mexallon are going up. Show of hands who remembers a 100m Megathrawn or Raven? In nullsec, Rorquals are the only thing to mine in, until Fozzie gets his head out of his ass and finally builds a reasonable damn interceptor that isn't impossible to kill or catch (apologies Fozzie if you really are just the poor bastard who has to announce everything and get screamed at). Hulks or barges are used to clear the mercoxit and maybe ochre, why else would you put them out when a 'ceptor will rip the tin can apart and get away with it? FYI, carriers are the new cruisers, EVERYONE in 0.0 rats in them, North, South, drone regions, only place you might not see it being common is npc nullsec and even then it happens. In pvp FAX are the new make or break fleet fight ships. Whoever has the most wins. Either way, subcaps are becoming obsolete, only highly specialized T2/T3 ships have value for anything other than "swarm" fleets - ever see the 100+ man tier 3 bc fleets fielded by NC. and others?. Bring your subcap fleet into someone's sov and see what happens. Clearly you know nothing about economics. The cost of minerals has gone up over the last four years largely because the ISK supply has gone up, which has increased what people are willing to pay for minerals, which has driven prices up. Also, if you'd checked Mexallon in the last month, you'd know that it plateaued and is dropping in value along with the other bottleneck minerals. The reason for this is also clearly visible in the form of an increase in supply of Mexallon, along with other minerals, over the last few months. There has been a small uptick in Mex prices in the last few days but that could easily be due to people selling the Rorquals and the market trying to use the current glut of minerals thus forcing bottlenecks higher again, only time will tell which it is. Also comparing current events to Eve circa 2007 is a bit laughable. First off, CCP back then operated a lot differently from CCP now. On top of that the drone minerals that you're touting have since been largely removed from the game for being not healthy for mining. Magic solution to Inties killing your Exhumers: Tank mining ships Use Rorqual as support ship (Excavators optional) Put repper(s) on aggressed Exhumer laugh Caps being important is not the same thing as Caps being the only thing anyone uses. The Rorqual is going to be important to any mining fleet because it provides the best boosts available and solid support for the fleet. That doesn't mean it's making those smaller ships obsolete though. Caps need sub-caps or they get picked apart, just because not everything is getting used in a Null fight or you can't just bring a kitchen sink to a fight and win doesn't mean Capitals are pushing out Sub Caps. JonasML wrote: And seriously, ******* Jaspet? WTF? Who mines Jaspet in nullsec? Jaspet has absolutely nothing to do with Rorqual mining... I called out Jaspet because it's a commonly available Mexallon rich High Sec ore. I apologize if this wasn't clear from context. The reason I used it as an example was because it's the High Sec ore that's undergone the lowest price drop in the last three months and if Rorquals weren't dropping the price of ore in High Sec and the Mex-bottleneck theory was accurate we would expect it to have gone up in price, not dropped along with everything else.
Cade Windstalker 954	Posted - 2017.03.01 04:32:01 - [567] - Quote jizzah wrote: I believe the orca mines 1.5 times a fully maxed exhumer. That's almost comparable boosts, a pretty decent amount of yield and all in the relative safety of highsec. You have been misinformed. An Orca mines less than half what a Hulk does fully boosted, and barely beats out an un-boosted no-implant Skiff before drone travel is taken into account (and before the T2 mining drone changes coming up). jizzah wrote: This is where you really lose me. The vast majority of ore mined in null comes from sites. In order to get a new site to spawn, the old site needs to be cleared-ergo, the mercoxit has to be mined too. Therefore 'rorquals only' is a bit of a blinkered statement. You only need to fully mine an Anomaly if you run out of other stuff to mine before it naturally despawns and respawns after a few days. Since an anomaly has enough ore in it to feed several Rorquals for a couple of days and there are multiple Ore Anoms per fully upgraded system you only need to fully mine one out if you have enough Rorquals mining a single system that you literally run out of other stuff to mine before one despawns. Since the majority of players aren't massive multiboxers and don't play 23/7 this is going to be fairly common. Certainly common enough that the distribution of ore flooding onto the market isn't going to exactly match the composition of Null Sec Ore Anoms. jizzah wrote: I can think of 2 different means of dealing with a bloom in an item. The first way is by creating a sink of sorts. I believe someone mentioned and was (pretty unfairly) shot down ammo drops from npc's. Release some faction ammo BPCs that drop from spawns, make the mineral cost of producing said ammo the means of equalising the market surplus. A much better way of 'balancing' an irregularity in supply would be to tweak the spawn rates of the asteroids. Look at market, see there's too much of one mineral and not enough of another, adjust the anom spawn, see how the market adjusts. Then tweak again accordingly. As I said before the anom needs to be fully mined before another will spawn, so cherry-picking the best roids, then leaving it isn't an option. Baby steps. With either example, miners are happy as they're still seeing a decent return for their investment, industry is happy as the minerals are available without a surplus of one and not enough of another, so production of ships continues unabashed and I'm happy due to the increase of capsuleers in game, waiting to die. The only thing I can say with any real certainty is if the mining nerf goes ahead, more than a few accounts will go back into hibernation until such a time as the wheel turns full circle and miners get noticed again. In any case, it will be a real shame to see this revitalised eve return to pre-ascension numbers. Your first solution here is basically power-creep. It also relies largely on whatever CCP introduce adding enough of a new mineral sink (as in, not one that just replaces an already existing one) to absorb all of the minerals coming into the game. This is if not outright impractical then economically difficult, because players need to be able to afford to buy the new thing and everyone only has so much disposable income, which is generally rationed between available options. So if you introduce some new hot item consumption of other goods is likely to drop at least slightly in response to the shift in consumption. Not impossible by any means, but certainly somewhat impractical, especially since whatever CCP might introduce would A. take time to design and balance, and B. need to be attractive enough that everyone goes out and builds/buys it in large enough sustained quantities to make up for the increased mineral production. As for spawn rates, this assumes that anoms actually need to be fully mined to respawn (they don't) and that the problem here is bottleneck minerals and not an overall glut of ore, which is pretty demonstrably not the case or Mex would be going through the roof instead of leveling off and apparently dropping in the last month. Also, this is just my personal bet here, but I think CCP will take a few hundred Rorqual pilots who weren't particularly loyal subscribers over the number of High Sec mining and industry accounts they'd lose if the price of minerals drops enough that people without Rorquals can't really afford PLEX...
Denngarr B'tarn Cripple Creek Serrice Council. 8	Posted - 2017.03.01 04:52:53 - [568] - Quote Quote: Excavator Drones: 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. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread. Ok, just heard about this tonight. Not even remotely the right method! Currently, and in the foreseeable future, Excavator drones are costing in at 1.6-1.9 bill per. That's making the Rorqual an 11-14 billion ISK asset to drop in field. WHY would I put this out in the field if I'm looking at dropping to 100mil per hour? Seriously? It's already a little difficult to do it at 200 million. I'd rather drop 3 hulks with a porpoise and pull the same amount. At that point, I'm only risking 1 billion in assets. Even with PLEX, I'm 3 billion over that. 4 vs 11. This is NOT alternative math. Quote: PANIC Module: We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid (including ice). I've posted a bit more explanation of why we're leaning towards this solution in a reply here. We're definitely interested in hearing what other options you folks can think of to reach the same goals, but please read that post first for background. Leave the panic module alone. It did nothing to you. Besides, a Griffin could negate it, so you'd have to seriously add bonuses to sensor strength to offset. Quote: Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. Distance is nice, but no where even close to the changes you're suggesting. Speed = ISK/hr. That's the buff for a mining unit, not distance. Size increase would be nice. I'm down with that.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 8	Posted - 2017.03.01 06:50:23 - [569] - Quote Thanks for clearing up the orca point-seems I was misinformed if that's the case. Cade Windstalker wrote: As for spawn rates, this assumes that anoms actually need to be fully mined to respawn (they don't) and that the problem here is bottleneck minerals and not an overall glut of ore, which is pretty demonstrably not the case or Mex would be going through the roof instead of leveling off and apparently dropping in the last month. Going to end my involvement at this point as you seem to have absolutely no idea on nullsec mining and what exactly is happening out here. Good luck with the remainder of your arguments which are well put but inaccutate at best, delusional at worst.
Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2017.03.01 07:36:56 - [570] - Quote There are few facts, I notice are missing. Ore price do no matter itself, and if any Ore should be looked at, it is Spodumain and Crockite that are overmined in nullsec by rorqual's. So mineral price should be what we speak about, tritanium and pyerite mainly. For tritanium and pyerite, price have foll down by 1/3 from last summer, that is around 33%. If this tendency keep up, by time next summer we will have mineral's price at half to what it should be in balanced economy. New players, very often get there first steps ingame as miners, and they mine those Ore, which price is tied to those base minerals. That so this rorqual change, is against new players, and is unhealthy for playerbase. Price of new mining drones, is factor of two things, how much those who find blueprints charge for them, and how hard it is to gather material, on example of 1 excavator: - 50x Elite drone AI You need to run 50 times anomaly Drone Patrol, which in difference to Havens in any other space, is really hard, and pays very bad. - 75x Drone Cordinatory Unit Thing drop from Commander spown's, you need 7-8 lucky Faction spowns to get that much, lucky as it will not always drop, and those faction spowns do not give anything good besides those drone materials. Keep in mind, every rorqual pilot want to have 5 of them. So to all wishing for price drop of excavator drone's, and other related to them, it will not happen, it will rather go up as stockpiles made by years will burn out Price of rorqual itself, this investment refer to, did those players ever read agreement they accepted to play this game? "Game experience may change", so they gamble by putting so big isk in clearly over-performing ship, and now they require empathy, hell no, noone of them shared there income with community and especially new players, and there investment made up for them few times atleast! Also those who benefit most of rorqual's are two maybe three super capital block's, and those even as benefit most, for fact of there nullsec standby fleets, are fraction of players affected by changes, from my old figures on numbers, like 2-3%, and those few gain such advantage over everyone else. This is sick. That were about facts, now for my view on solution. As advance from exhumels is required, it is too big step forward, deployed rorqual should have effective yield of about 150% what hulk have. No other command ship is stuck at grid while boosting, then why on earth rorqual should be? Industry core should have 5 second cycle, or do not immobilize rorqual at all. Excavator drones, should require much less material to build them, 1/10 of what it is now. Panic module should stay same as it is, but to use it, rorqual could not have aggression timer on.

Witchy Bife Exanimo Inc Care for Kids Empire 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 10:31:26 - [571] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Other misc mining changes: Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus. Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Spreading out the asteroids in the Asteroid Cluster ore anoms a bit to help the balance between shorter range drone mining and longer range exhumer mining. We are investigating the option of increasing the visual size of nullsec ore asteroids to help improve the feel of the ore anom environments (they've been a bit sad looking since the veld got removed) but we are not sure about some technical details of that potential change atm so no promises. These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks! i checked SISI today , yeah you increased the Mining Range from Hulks now , but the Maximum Target Range is Still at 35KM . even with Max skills you cant reach the Full Mining Range , since the Maximum Target range from the ship is limited. so CCP please Adjust the Range from the Ships too
Leila Pegasus Sneaked In Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 11:46:26 - [572] - Quote edit: nevermind mixed 15 with 30 gilas up just ignor

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14754	Posted - 2017.03.01 12:43:07 - [573] - Quote Querns wrote: It'd be interesting to see the actual data used to determine the health of the "mineral economy." We already know that CCP has no metrics for drone mining. If they did, it'd show up in the Monthly Economic Reports. Speaking as someone with intimate knowledge of the mining output of my alliance's region, I can guarantee you that it is still broken. CCP Quant has said as much in months past. So what is left to measure? It could be any number of potential things, but what I suspect it is (and please, prove me wrong here,) is that the Jita price of minerals (and potentially other major market hubs) was the deciding factor. To be brief, looking at Jita is not particularly representative of the state of mining as a whole. I can certainly go into more detail, but it'd be pointless to do so without confirmation that my hypothesis is true. For what it's worth, I had been expecting another rorqual nerf, and am expecting more to come. However, the nerfs should be for the right reasons, and not spurious ones. One of the wonders of working with EVE's codebase is that many bits of functionality are actually implemented multiple times in separate ways. The EVE server actually records mining events in three ways that I have found so far (there very well may be more) and although one of them doesn't record drone mining, the other two do. For instance, this is why sov industry indexes are getting the data from drone mining. This did indeed cause some confusion immediately after release. We plan to get around to fixing the "info events" mining records that the monthly public report uses and honestly hoped that we would have found time to fix it earlier but other tasks have managed to take priority from it so far. Since CCP Quant's time is so valuable and the fix to the info events logs has been perpetually "around the corner" we haven't rewritten the newsletter counter to use one of the other log sources. TL:DR is that we do indeed have data for drone mining, as well as data for ore/mineral stockpiles and industry jobs. Aleverette wrote: Now I have a question after all these buff/nerf charades EVE have been through. What was the purpose of you buffing Rorqual? Were you trying to make it a powerful solo mining ship so players with only one or two accounts could be involved in industrial activities? Or just simply wanted to give current Rorqual pilots a new toy to play with? If the answer is the second one, go ahead and change the number whatever you like. But if the answer is the first one, then I sincerely suggest you should reconsider how to fit Rorqual into the universe instead of giving it a big ass invincibility and a set of gamebreaking drones. EVE is a complicated system (at least more complicated than most of other MMO) , thus, providing a new set of game mechanics in depth is necessary in order to increase gameplay variety. You rush too much. So IGÇÖll start with the disclaimer that EVE we donGÇÖt try and define every use that players will have for a tool we give them. We tend to build tools with at least one or two core uses and expect players to find more. The core role we designed the new Rorqual for was quite clearly stated in the dev blog announcing it. It was built to be a mining foreman ship, providing a number of valuable benefits to a group of mining ships. Each of these roles may or may not be considered "enough" to justify the ship by themselves but the goal is that together they represent more than the sum of their parts. Direct mining ability is one of these features but so is support for other miners and defense for the fleet. So the shorter version of the answer is that although we have no problem with people solo mining in Rorquals (as long as their yields aren't harming the overall economy), the core "victory condition" for the mining foreman ship designs would be for mining fleets to want at least one mining foreman ship as part of the mix and for the Rorqual to be an interesting and viable option for that boosting/defending/mining combined role. Cade Windstalker wrote: Seriously, if CCP could see this massive shift coming do you really think their magical foresight would somehow stop short of seeing the rage in this thread? This is less rage than I expected tbh. I donGÇÖt know exactly how much itGÇÖll help to say this, but let me state the following as directly as I can: We donGÇÖt make balance choices in an attempt to GÇ£bait and switchGÇ¥ people with injectors. We here at CCP are not evil geniuses playing 12 dimensional chess. WeGÇÖre approaching ship design and balancing in exactly the same way that we did before the introduction of skill injectors, with the goal of creating a fun set of tools and choices for players to interact with. When we developed the original design for the Ascension Rorqual changes we stated our goals honestly in the dev blog. We wanted to create a distinct GÇ£mining foremanGÇ¥ role that players would enjoy playing and that would have a clear progression with three ships that are all viable in different situations and at different price points. One of the big areas of uncertainty when making a design like that one is the question of how strong you need to make aspects of a ship in order for players to consider it worth the risk. We had an extra wrinkle with the Rorqual since it was a pre-existing ship that had developed a stigma around it. We knew there would be inertia involved in player behavior that might cause the ship to remain underused if it ended up GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥. We also knew that we didnGÇÖt have complete information about what that GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥ level was going to be, since we can only estimate the player behavior around changes like this. We knew ahead of time that weGÇÖd very likely need to make multiple changes to the balance of the Rorqual post-patch, just like with every other major balance change. At the end of the day we made our best guess about where that GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥ level was going to be and then tuned the Rorqual a little higher in order to overcome the player behavior inertia. In hindsight we overestimated how good the... Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Aleverette Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2017.03.01 13:16:23 - [574] - Quote I am still extremely looking forward to a solo "mining supercarrier" as you brought to us that idea about one and half years ago Hopefully you can give us that dream.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 4009	Posted - 2017.03.01 14:10:25 - [575] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Henry Plantgenet wrote: CCP can you make mining drones more intelligent and have them stop when the asteroid is empty? Like when they're actually empty and not just when the cycle is ended and a lot of overkill has happened? The inventory operation actually doesnGÇÖt happen until the drones get all the way back to your ship so they donGÇÖt know until that point that the asteroid is going to be empty. The good news is that the faster excavator cycle times will significantly reduce that waste. CCP Fozzie, there is a way around this. It would work for both mining drones and lasers. When a cycle ends, the amount of ore in the asteroid is checked. The length of the next cycle is then adjusted so that the asteroid is exactly mined out on that next cycle. One issue: The code that adjusts the last cycle length must make an assumption on how fast the asteroid is being mined. The easiest thing to do is assume that just your ship is mining the asteroid. Example: if my drones are doing 1000 cu m/minute, and the roid has 600 cu m left, the last cycle is set to 36 seconds (irrelevant of who else is mining the same roid.) Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 77	Posted - 2017.03.01 14:11:23 - [576] - Quote Any chance we could just go ahead and remove the limit of the Rorq being stuck on grid for 5 minutes as the 30 interceptors are closing in - immune to our defensive bubbles, and to our own defense fleet - landing on grid and being able to warp off with impunity as our own ships try to catch and kill the ceptor pilots - the rorqual still 2 minutes away from being able to warp - with 25 points of disruption locking it down. Will you be addressing the interceptor menace in a later patch? If so - I'll dock the rorqual up and leave it til then.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 346	Posted - 2017.03.01 14:23:35 - [577] - Quote @ccp fozzie please just change the industrial core and panic moduals to have the same EW capacitor usage as Network sensor array and Triage modual, since the industrial core has the same effect as a triage modual, it should have the same penalty to e-war. this alone should resolve the issue with jump hic's without crippling the rorquals other options.
Cade Windstalker 960	Posted - 2017.03.01 14:57:31 - [578] - Quote jizzah wrote: Going to end my involvement at this point as you seem to have absolutely no idea on nullsec mining and what exactly is happening out here. Good luck with the remainder of your arguments which are well put but inaccutate at best, delusional at worst. I won't claim to have universal knowledge of everything that goes on in Null, but I'd like to think that through the people I know I have a broader view than most, and I can assure you that no where near everyone is simply mining out entire ore anoms before moving on. Certainly plenty of people are, but plenty of others aren't mining for long enough for this to happen, which means they're cherry picking minerals that are worth more. To quote one of my acquaintances on coms a few weeks ago: "I can't believe I'm actually mining Spud" because he needed Mex, couldn't buy any on his local market, and was producing something that needed more than he had on hand. This is someone with 2 or 3 Rorquals, but he doesn't run them close to all day because he has a job. Normally he'd be Carrier ratting but Rorq mining was a better deal for him after Ascension, and he's not the only person I know in that kind of situation. If you have any specific corrections you'd like to make to my assertions here feel free, always happy to learn more and get more perspectives into the mix Denngarr B'tarn wrote: Ok, just heard about this tonight. Not even remotely the right method! Currently, and in the foreseeable future, Excavator drones are costing in at 1.6-1.9 bill per. That's making the Rorqual an 11-14 billion ISK asset to drop in field. WHY would I put this out in the field if I'm looking at dropping to 100mil per hour? Seriously? It's already a little difficult to do it at 200 million. I'd rather drop 3 hulks with a porpoise and pull the same amount. At that point, I'm only risking 1 billion in assets. Even with PLEX, I'm 3 billion over that. 4 vs 11. This is NOT alternative math. Excavator drones are already down to 1.2b Sell in Jita as we speak, and the supply of the drones is showing signs of outpacing demand. With the drop in demand these changes create we're likely to see a further reduction in prices. Denngarr B'tarn wrote: Leave the panic module alone. It did nothing to you. Besides, a Griffin could negate it, so you'd have to seriously add bonuses to sensor strength to offset. The siege module makes you immune to ECM... Denngarr B'tarn wrote: Distance is nice, but no where even close to the changes you're suggesting. Speed = ISK/hr. That's the buff for a mining unit, not distance. Size increase would be nice. I'm down with that. The distance increase is to make it easier to boost a group of Exhumers in a large belt and to help offset the wider spacing on asteroids. Also you do realize 'size' means physical model size, not the amount of ore in them, right? CCP Fozzie wrote: This is less rage than I expected tbh. Appreciate the candor and the info-rich post. Out of curiosity is CCP going to take a look at Ore Anom spawns in Null? I think one good point that has come out of all this is that instantly respawning ore and combat anoms are a little ridiculous and make it very very easy to pack a lot of people into a small area. I know you've already said you're considering another pass on ore and mineral compositions in these anoms, any chance this spawning behavior could be adjusted as well? Doesn't have to be at the same time as combat anoms, since any tweaks to those should probably accompany larger changes to null PvE, like whatever group content you hinted at on the o7 show.
Soldarius O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore 1584	Posted - 2017.03.01 15:19:32 - [579] - Quote Querns wrote: Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT. I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals. If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. Pretty much this. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Shee Mail Roids are Us 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 15:44:44 - [580] - Quote Fozzie, do you really think rorq mining will be balanced when the yield in ISK/hr is approximately 150mil/hr in average considering that Carrier worth 3 bil can make more than that and is not tied to a grid for 5 minutes at a time? Hell i can rat that money in my Vindicator, a 1.5bil ship. As others said, this game is about risk vs reward. Do you risk extraordinary expensive ships? Well the reward should be high. Now that you are taking the reward from us, you should also lower the risk. And cutting excavators in price by 80% is NOT the way to go for several reasons. If you are not psychically challenged person you should never lose you excavators, because you will safely deposit them into the depot when neuts jump in the system. So excavators should not be considered as part of the risk, because you should never lose them. So that makes properly fit rorqual a what, 5-7bil ship? Now if we consider that 3bil ratting carrier can make 200-250 mil/hr, then logically our 5-7bil rorq should make at least a little bit more than that. And here comes the twist - the risk is actually MUCH higher, because not only you are risking 5-7bil ship, but you can't also move that ship for 5 minutes at a time. But yet you propose to have rather low reward and keep the risk very hight. Yes of course, here comes yours argument that carriers can't be multiboxed easily but rorqs can so you can't compare them etc. etc... Well if thats a problem, fix it, dont just nerf the ship to the ground. Make excavators like fighters, make them require attention! As you said yourself Fozzie, at the beginning you had to find out what's "just barely enough" and then do a little bit more to get things moving, to make us change our minds. Well now you got exact opposite. Hundreds of people invested thousands of billions into rorquals and they WILL keep using it even when it's just barely suboptimal, simply because they already invested so much money in it. So now you have to nerf it more than "barely suboptimal" to "recover market" and stuff. And at that point rorqual will be again very underwhelming ship as it was before the buff. And you should ask yourself, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO FIX and IS NERFING YIELD THE BEST WAY TO FIX IT? Because if delve is mining 23/7 and getting absurd amount of ore, where is the problem? Is yield a problem and lowering yield is the perfect solution what will harm nothing but this problematic behavior? If there are people multiboxing 10 rorqs and can clear a site in a matter of few cycles, where is the problem? Is yield a problem and lowering yield is the perfect solution what will harm nothing but this problematic behavior? So tell me Fozzie, what is the problem exactly? What are you trying to fix? You want our feedback yet you don't tell us why the change is needed. You only give us your fuzzy talk about "healthy marketz and stuffz". Stop being fuzzy Fozzie.

Julie Hawke 30plus Fidelas Constans 3	Posted - 2017.03.01 16:36:16 - [581] - Quote I rarely post in forums....its usually not worth the effort However I have been a Rorqual pilot for over 5 years and like many others I waited patiently for CCP to fix it so that it did not have to sit in a POS and do nothing but boost Fozzie and many others went on record saying we know the Rorqual is broken its gonna be great some day .....fast forward to 2016. You gave us a fantastically expensive loot pinata to siege rocks with....fine Then Fozzie said wait...this is far too good.. so he took some back....hence the first change. Now Fozzie says....we dont want you flying fleets of Rorquals so we are going to hammer it again. Now its a Capital Boosting ship again....on grid with siege ....only 1 will be needed for that so 100's of rorqual pilots might as well look for other jobs. Corps will only need 1 or 2 and now they can be corp assets. (Excavators are not even worth commenting on) I am not angry or raging....i got past that when i realized that its my own fault for actually believing....I drank the Cool aid and it has surely killed me.... So Fozzie i want to thank you for fixing my Rorqual....i just hope the next owner enjoys it.
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 179	Posted - 2017.03.01 17:00:07 - [582] - Quote Julie Hawke wrote: I rarely post in forums....its usually not worth the effort However I have been a Rorqual pilot for over 5 years and like many others I waited patiently for CCP to fix it so that it did not have to sit in a POS and do nothing but boost Fozzie and many others went on record saying we know the Rorqual is broken its gonna be great some day .....fast forward to 2016. You gave us a fantastically expensive loot pinata to siege rocks with....fine Then Fozzie said wait...this is far too good.. so he took some back....hence the first change. Now Fozzie says....we dont want you flying fleets of Rorquals so we are going to hammer it again. Now its a Capital Boosting ship again....on grid with siege ....only 1 will be needed for that so 100's of rorqual pilots might as well look for other jobs. Corps will only need 1 or 2 and now they can be corp assets. (Excavators are not even worth commenting on) I am not angry or raging....i got past that when i realized that its my own fault for actually believing....I drank the Cool aid and it has surely killed me.... So Fozzie i want to thank you for fixing my Rorqual....i just hope the next owner enjoys it. I bought excavators, and now I'm rolling in filthy mountains of Isk. I regret nothing. The coming nerf will hurt my isk/hour sure, but when I do the isk/hour/effort it's not even that significant. Nowhere else can I pull in 100m an hour, touching the keyboard every ten minutes, while I fold my laundry.
Julie Hawke 30plus Fidelas Constans 4	Posted - 2017.03.01 17:28:20 - [583] - Quote FearlessLittleToaster[/quote wrote: I bought excavators, and now I'm rolling in filthy mountains of Isk. I regret nothing. The coming nerf will hurt my isk/hour sure, but when I do the isk/hour/effort it's not even that significant. Nowhere else can I pull in 100m an hour, touching the keyboard every ten minutes, while I fold my laundry. Good for you ....luv to see goons getting ahead in EVE Of course you realize this wont be the last Rorqual nerf....or did you drink the cool aid too?
HarlyQ harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 127	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:23:28 - [584] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking.
Gonzala Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:24:33 - [585] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking.
syrokos harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:26:39 - [586] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. hey ccp delay the maluk release an ore titan and super
Nori Galathil harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:27:50 - [587] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. oh oh please come one ccp love ORE titan make it munch on rocks
jitahor harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:30:39 - [588] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. I think this would be a great addition to the game as long as CCP doesn't go around nerfing things because they are ********. Like the rorqual again carrot stick RIP idiots good game design.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:32:00 - [589] - Quote We need an ORE Titan because we need more dreadbomb targets in Delve. The ones we currently have are dying too fast.
Nelson Galathil Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:33:27 - [590] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. This sounds awesome I wonder if ccp will make more dumb game design decisions though like they did with the rorqual. That whole thing was stupid.

Alekto Toralen harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:34:47 - [591] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. come on ccp lets do this give me my ore titan already lets go also I want it to EAT a rock and compress it all in one go.
Tal'Rashas Urteil harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:37:12 - [592] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. Can we get turrets instead of drones this seems like a more sensible thing than drones on a titan.
Hank Aivo harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:44:52 - [593] - Quote Ted McManfist wrote: I still want an ORE titan. Not joking. Ok so lets do a titan AOE DD and it eats all the ore in a belt but only gives you 75% of the ore!
JonasML Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:47:05 - [594] - Quote So let me see, superfluous code that records the same crap 3 times. That we know of. No words, just facepalm. From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 GÇÿExcavatorGÇÖ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up. So I guess that "art" nerfing the Hulk wasn't enough? Hulk range increased but not the targeting range... ok seriously? Do you guys not test ANYTHING before you release it? Was the office like, "hey guys, this might be a problem", and someone else was like, "oh don't worry they won't notice it let's just throw it on the test server". Let me guess, nobody at CCP mines. Hrm, that actually explains a lot. Whoever decided that it was brilliant to offer something "super" so people would use it and then knock the **** out of it has seriously underestimated the possible repercussions. I point again to Blizzard's little legal problem. If you guys lack the foresight to see the player backlash, you need to be removed from any position of authority over game changing mechanics. Clearly the Monoclegate cleanup didn't quite catch everyone it needed to.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2017.03.01 18:57:11 - [595] - Quote If you're upset about your rorqual being nerfed, that's somewhat reasonable. It is frustrating to see an investment lose value and/or income potential. But if you are so upset that you fail to appreciate it will remain the best mining vessel by a massive margin, to the point where multiboxed rorqual fleets will still be common after the March patch... well, your crying isn't helping the conversation and you should stop posting.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 8	Posted - 2017.03.01 19:20:18 - [596] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: This is less rage than I expected tbh. As you said earlier in your post, it's a 14 year old game. One thing we've all gradually come to learn during our individual times is there absolutely zero point in complaining here. Posts get deleted, conflicts muddly the topic and threads get locked. What you shouldn't take from the 'tame' aspect of the thread is everyone's hunky f**king dory about what you're doing.
JonasML Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.03.01 19:22:40 - [597] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: If you're upset about your rorqual being nerfed, that's somewhat reasonable. It is frustrating to see an investment lose value and/or income potential. But if you are so upset that you fail to appreciate it will remain the best mining vessel by a massive margin, to the point where multiboxed rorqual fleets will still be common after the March patch... well, your crying isn't helping the conversation and you should stop posting. It is not simply that it's being nerfed, it's why and how it's being handled. It's the second nerf in about 6 months since the change was first made, with possibly another nerf coming. We're told "oh it's for the market", but the market can look after itself, it has survived a hell of a lot of years of scams, price gouging, deliberate supply limitation, and all forms of economic warfare, it will survive the Rorqual... funny how this was the same argument used when the drone regions were released but it never had this much response. Plus we're told "well we supersized that ** just so you guys would use it", which is the definition of "bait and switch" Fozzie. And, on top of that, not only to the mining, but to one of the modules used for defense when there are alternatives that could also be tested (oh look a test server) and feedback taken before changes made. Though one of my biggest rage points has the be the amount of ** on this thread from people who have no knowledge of nullsec mining, rorqs or otherwise.
JonasML Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.03.01 19:23:45 - [598] - Quote Side note, let's nerf skill injectors, that solves the huge number of people getting into Rorquals, mineral market saved!
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 6703	Posted - 2017.03.01 21:49:47 - [599] - Quote JonasML wrote: Hulk range increased but not the targeting range... ok seriously? Do you guys not test ANYTHING before you release it? Was the office like, "hey guys, this might be a problem", and someone else was like, "oh don't worry they won't notice it let's just throw it on the test server". Let me guess, nobody at CCP mines. Hrm, that actually explains a lot. I think I mentioned it. I seem to recall being told by a dev that an Information Warfare boost was the answer.
Mr Bignose Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde 7	Posted - 2017.03.01 21:58:52 - [600] - Quote So, I just happened to notice that this gas haven I'm running is full of veldspar. :thinking:

Alex Andromedon Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.01 21:59:19 - [601] - Quote Maybe instead of nerfing the rorq right now wait for excavator prices to drop and release moon mining with lasers, (rumors have it that the new moon mining platforms would basically hurl parts of the moon into mining anoms/belts). That would give people with barges/exhumer skills something to mine for a lot of profit that the rorqual simply can't mine giving a reason to mine in exhumers. The income should be less than rorquals but still reasonable. (I'd suggest ~80-100mil/hour). This would also allow individuals to create T2 products without buying off of the market and indy people could use this for even greater profits.
Cade Windstalker 964	Posted - 2017.03.01 22:06:53 - [602] - Quote jizzah wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: This is less rage than I expected tbh. As you said earlier in your post, it's a 14 year old game. One thing we've all gradually come to learn during our individual times is there absolutely zero point in complaining here. Posts get deleted, conflicts muddly the topic and threads get locked. What you shouldn't take from the 'tame' aspect of the thread is everyone's hunky f*king dory about what you're doing. That's not what he said... He's just saying that, compared to other major nerf threads, this one is getting a lot fewer posts and a lot less rage than some others. The Marauder thread for example ran to over 100 pages before the changes were deployed. That one, by the way, was also a solid example of CCP taking and listening to feedback. People didn't like the first set of changes, so CCP tweaked them based on feedback and then even more people* didn't like those and wanted the first set back, so they swapped back to the first set with some tweaks. Which, by the way, also disproves your theory that CCP doesn't listen to feedback. CCP listens to feedback, but if you want to make an argument you need to provide more to back it up than harsh words. CCP Greyscale made an excellent post on how to give constructive feedback several years ago, should really be required reading around here IMO. My takeaway from 8 or so years on the FaID and then UFaCFC forums has been that people are more likely to speak out when they're against something than in favor of it, by several orders of magnitude. That's why the "good change" posts tend to be a few words and then the posters disappear from the thread while the angry people keep circle-jerking around in a loop about how bad the changes are, generally without producing any concrete numbers to back up their arguments, which is why CCP rarely heeds them.
Yodik Dwarfed ORE 30	Posted - 2017.03.01 22:53:30 - [603] - Quote counter measure: make supercarriers and titans ability to jump on cyno, only if cyno ship have lock on other capital ship, not sub cap and not miasmos. -Æ -+-Ä-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-+-+-+-Å-é-+-+-¦ -ü-+-é-â-¦-å-+-+ - -¦-¦-ç-¦-¦ Prospect.
Laendra Universalis Imperium The Bastion 85	Posted - 2017.03.01 23:09:45 - [604] - Quote I could be wrong, but I'm not sure the cost of a fit rorqual and mining drones justifies having it over a couple of barges after this nerf. If CCP reduced the cost of the setup, then, yeah, sure. But until we have a non-faction option for capital mining drones (T1 and T2), I don't see how it's really going to make ISK-sense post-patch to have more than one in a belt.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 6703	Posted - 2017.03.01 23:22:36 - [605] - Quote Laendra wrote: I could be wrong, but I'm not sure the cost of a fit rorqual and mining drones justifies having it over a couple of barges after this nerf. If CCP reduced the cost of the setup, then, yeah, sure. But until we have a non-faction option for capital mining drones (T1 and T2), I don't see how it's really going to make ISK-sense post-patch to have more than one in a belt. You are not wrong. There is no point to the Rorqual ... well, to quote CCP Fozzie: CCP Fozzie wrote: So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger. Then he buffed and nerfed twice.
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 182	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:01:22 - [606] - Quote Laendra wrote: I could be wrong, but I'm not sure the cost of a fit rorqual and mining drones justifies having it over a couple of barges after this nerf. If CCP reduced the cost of the setup, then, yeah, sure. But until we have a non-faction option for capital mining drones (T1 and T2), I don't see how it's really going to make ISK-sense post-patch to have more than one in a belt. I think it has to do with overall wealth level. I'm freakin space rich (Not Aryth rich, but I can make Isk easily enough) and for me the Rorq represents the best balance of effort/time/investment currently available due to the minimal attention it requires. On the other hand if it represented the majority of my assets and the only way I could make enough Isk to buy a replacement... then yeah a couple barges would be a smarter option. A lot smarter.
Cade Windstalker 966	Posted - 2017.03.02 00:25:20 - [607] - Quote FearlessLittleToaster wrote: Laendra wrote: I could be wrong, but I'm not sure the cost of a fit rorqual and mining drones justifies having it over a couple of barges after this nerf. If CCP reduced the cost of the setup, then, yeah, sure. But until we have a non-faction option for capital mining drones (T1 and T2), I don't see how it's really going to make ISK-sense post-patch to have more than one in a belt. I think it has to do with overall wealth level. I'm freakin space rich (Not Aryth rich, but I can make Isk easily enough) and for me the Rorq represents the best balance of effort/time/investment currently available due to the minimal attention it requires. On the other hand if it represented the majority of my assets and the only way I could make enough Isk to buy a replacement... then yeah a couple barges would be a smarter option. A lot smarter. At the risk of agreeing with a Goon, this guy pretty much gets it. To add on a little. If you're building your Rorquals the cost of minerals is right around the payout of Platinum insurance, so if you lose one the only actual cost is the modules and the cost of insurance. The drones are what's really expensive, and those are coming down in price. So while a smaller group or less affluent player might only find it worthwhile to put a Rorqual in the belt for boosting it's absolutely worthwhile to do so for most players who can afford a Rorqual in the first place, especially if having it there makes it possible to get the sub-caps out with minimal losses.
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 34	Posted - 2017.03.02 01:40:44 - [608] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km). Are these strips types that popular? Currently in Jita the price tag for a ORE strip miners is around 206 mil isk. (pretty much the cost of an exhumer hull, give or take). Whilst in terms of yield, Modulated Strip Miner II will cost just 4mil, plus tech2 crystal (for a pittance) will have a yield of 787.5 (iirc) vs the base ORE strip at 700m-¦/3min. I have made use of the range gains of the Covetor/Hulk in a specific set of circumstances. So I have some appreciation for longer reach. But as a preference, the range of the ORE units does not provide incentive to switch when compared to pure yield gains.
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 25	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:10:14 - [609] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The inventory operation actually doesnGÇÖt happen until the drones get all the way back to your ship so they donGÇÖt know until that point that the asteroid is going to be empty. The good news is that the faster excavator cycle times will significantly reduce that waste. TBH, that wasn't really a problem at all for rorq pilots. I feel like it'l do more harm than good, in that it will really multiply the impacts of your nerfs. after a bit o thought, i can see why you're needing to do it, it's far too popular for its own good. however, the cycle time change, without an adjoining speed buff, will, i feel, cause much more of a nerf than you intend. it's really ahrd to predict with solid numbers, however
Denngarr B'tarn Cripple Creek Serrice Council. 8	Posted - 2017.03.02 02:41:20 - [610] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Excavator drones are already down to 1.2b Sell in Jita as we speak, and the supply of the drones is showing signs of outpacing demand. With the drop in demand these changes create we're likely to see a further reduction in prices. I would bet this is artificial deflation again. The Excavation market has already had numerous hits to it. If they want to nerf the output, they need to make them cheaper to build. Even at 1.2, that's still 9 billion in assets doing 100MM per hour. Not a good balance. Cade Windstalker wrote: The distance increase is to make it easier to boost a group of Exhumers in a large belt and to help offset the wider spacing on asteroids. Also you do realize 'size' means physical model size, not the amount of ore in them, right? Yes, I knew it was model size. When you have Spod rocks with that much ore in them, and based on the size of the ore, they should look like Veld. As for the distance, it's easy to move Hulks around in the fleet. The Rorq has such high range on boosting (107km with WC 4), I never worry about our fleet. I can get drones out to them no issues, so while it's nice to move less: I don't find it a worthwhile trade. Now, to reiterate, it's NOT making sense to cut the yields in half after already dropping them by 25% from initial. Historically, I have seen CCP nerf a lot and buff very infrequently. This means that the changes you make are not going to get any better in coming months/years. I believe such a huge slash is going to go very, very poorly. a) No point in Excavators at all. Risk will far outweigh rewards. At least tune up drone damage another 50% so defending vs. small gang is much more likely. b) Yes, the prices are going down on minerals. They're back to the point they were at around 2013. That's not a bad thing. It puts more buildables in reach of the newer players and high-sec soloists. They're the ones you want to encourage out further. Beating the Rorqual up is going to negatively affect market again in the opposite direction, diluting the value of ISK. c) If this is the determined route of CCP devs, at least modify the Excavator prints to include far less of the rogue drone parts to at least avoid the market manipulation already going on. If I'm only pushing a bill out the drone holds, then it's much more likely that I'll use it vs. shoving out 6 bil and praying. I'd rather go back to 300MM/hr, but I don't want to see this ship completely killed of it's usefulness. Boosting is great for the fleet, but hulks/skiffs do not protect a capital well.

Wolff VonStrat Article IV Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.03.02 03:34:10 - [611] - Quote A badly thought out knee jerk reaction to a not real problem is what the mining Nerf is. The changes to the PANIC module are at least aimed at addressing a real problem, hamfisted but at least an attempt. Mining Nerf - Leave it alone, continue to watch and IF in another 6-12 months it still seems like an actual problem (really the mineral market is not as strong as it was is your justification) then start to test how best to alter that. PANIC module - Yup people re using the Rorq to do things you never intended them to do, no real surprise there, just look at this player base. I can agree this is something that needs looking at but the current, must have a lock on an asteroid seems bad and clumsy. Much easier options have been suggested on here, PANIC disallows entosis is an easy one, disables EWAR, points etc. Problem fixed, the Rorq now still has some protection it can use anywhere but it's offensive exploits are (currently) closed. Your welcome.
Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2017.03.02 03:47:28 - [612] - Quote Denngarr B'tarn wrote: b) Yes, the prices are going down on minerals. They're back to the point they were at around 2013. That's not a bad thing. It puts more buildables in reach of the newer players and high-sec soloists. They're the ones you want to encourage out further. Beating the Rorqual up is going to negatively affect market again in the opposite direction, diluting the value of ISK. 4 years ago.... it is 2017 did you notice? For your comparison PLEX were 350? back then? now it is 1100? Do not pick on things you want to see and pass everything else. Also how do putting wealth and favoring so much, few alliances in nullsec, help new players? It does not, it actually is against new players, no matter how much you try, 300mil/hours in your pocket, is 3mil/hour less in pocket of hundred new players! Stop being blind egoist.
Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2017.03.02 03:59:47 - [613] - Quote Wolff VonStrat wrote: Mining Nerf - Leave it alone, continue to watch and IF in another 6-12 months it still seems like an actual problem (really the mineral market is not as strong as it was is your justification) then start to test how best to alter that. In 6 months.... 20k players in sunday evening... ccp will not sell game as for how much income spiked down... devs in ccp will abandon eve, as they are so awesome that they will not work for pennys... when they will notice that everything else they touched haven't worked out, it will be too late for eve, and only solution will be to close servers... This is history of many awesome games out there, screwed by bad decisions, and self confidence. Games having no competition to them at there time, now just look at all other sci-fi titles coming out.
Cade Windstalker 966	Posted - 2017.03.02 04:49:51 - [614] - Quote Denngarr B'tarn wrote: I would bet this is artificial deflation again. The Excavation market has already had numerous hits to it. If they want to nerf the output, they need to make them cheaper to build. Even at 1.2, that's still 9 billion in assets doing 100MM per hour. Not a good balance. 90% of the price of Excavators is player farmed raw materials. These materials had very little value prior to Excavators and the only thing driving their value right now is demand for Excavators. If the demand for Excavators goes down the price will follow, econ 101 in action. We're already seeing this, the price of these drones has been falling more or less since release, and these nerfs will only drop it further as people get out of Rorqual mining and sell off their ships and drones. Denngarr B'tarn wrote: Now, to reiterate, it's NOT making sense to cut the yields in half after already dropping them by 25% from initial. Historically, I have seen CCP nerf a lot and buff very infrequently. This means that the changes you make are not going to get any better in coming months/years. I believe such a huge slash is going to go very, very poorly. a) No point in Excavators at all. Risk will far outweigh rewards. At least tune up drone damage another 50% so defending vs. small gang is much more likely. b) Yes, the prices are going down on minerals. They're back to the point they were at around 2013. That's not a bad thing. It puts more buildables in reach of the newer players and high-sec soloists. They're the ones you want to encourage out further. Beating the Rorqual up is going to negatively affect market again in the opposite direction, diluting the value of ISK. c) If this is the determined route of CCP devs, at least modify the Excavator prints to include far less of the rogue drone parts to at least avoid the market manipulation already going on. If I'm only pushing a bill out the drone holds, then it's much more likely that I'll use it vs. shoving out 6 bil and praying. I'd rather go back to 300MM/hr, but I don't want to see this ship completely killed of it's usefulness. Boosting is great for the fleet, but hulks/skiffs do not protect a capital well. You seem to be somewhat miss informed here. This is a 25% drop in yield (they're cutting the current yield per cycle in half, but cutting the cycle time by 1/3rd, so the total nerf is 25% base yield plus the hard to factor effect of increased travel time. Also, again, this only holds at current Excavator prices. The price will drop as demand drops, which will happen when all the fair-weather Rorquals go back to Carriers and Supers. Yes, mineral prices falling is a bad thing, because the main reason the price has gone up is due to inflation. This means that for anyone mining not in a Rorqual the buying power they generate per hour is much lower than before the market got flooded. Since a huge majority of items outside of ship hulls aren't tied directly to mineral prices miners are nothing but hurt by a crash in mineral prices. There's also no market manipulation going on, the price of the Excavators is only a little over the cost of parts, and the cost of parts is largely being set by supply and demand at this point. Raven Ship wrote: In 6 months.... 20k players in sunday evening... ccp will not sell game as for how much income spiked down... devs in ccp will abandon eve, as they are so awesome that they will not work for pennys... when they will notice that everything else they touched haven't worked out, it will be too late for eve, and only solution will be to close servers... This is history of many awesome games out there, screwed by bad decisions, and self confidence. Games having no competition to them at there time, now just look at all other sci-fi titles coming out. If I had 5mil for every time I've seen someone predict that Eve would be dead in six months I could PLEX my account for the next decade.
Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2017.03.02 05:11:42 - [615] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: If I had 5mil for every time I've seen someone predict that Eve would be dead in six months I could PLEX my account for the next decade. Where is that part about dead in 6months? Nowhere. What I give is example of what happened many times already, games like Vanguard, Planetside, AnarchyOnline, and there been many forum spammers like you in those titles too, where are they now? Not in those games... so get lost from me.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14768	Posted - 2017.03.02 10:48:01 - [616] - Quote JonasML wrote: From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 GÇÿExcavatorGÇÖ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up. 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). Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 92	Posted - 2017.03.02 11:19:16 - [617] - Quote Raven Ship wrote: What I give is example of what happened many times already, games like Vanguard, Planetside, AnarchyOnline, and there also been many forum spammers in those titles, like you , where are they now? Not in those games... so get lost from me. But none of those are even remotely relevant - unless you are simply another casual gamer. Until a game comes along that can even approach EVE in content - it will have no rival(s)! Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 166	Posted - 2017.03.02 11:56:42 - [618] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: JonasML wrote: From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 GÇÿExcavatorGÇÖ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up. 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.
JonasML Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.03.02 11:57:05 - [619] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Denngarr B'tarn wrote: I would bet this is artificial deflation again. The Excavation market has already had numerous hits to it. If they want to nerf the output, they need to make them cheaper to build. Even at 1.2, that's still 9 billion in assets doing 100MM per hour. Not a good balance. 90% of the price of Excavators is player farmed raw materials. These materials had very little value prior to Excavators and the only thing driving their value right now is demand for Excavators. If the demand for Excavators goes down the price will follow, econ 101 in action. We're already seeing this, the price of these drones has been falling more or less since release, and these nerfs will only drop it further as people get out of Rorqual mining and sell off their ships and drones. The price of excavator components is being kept high by drone region alliances. The components are bought through alliance buy-orders out there and they then control the release to empire. It's not the first time it's been done nor will it be the last. Once again you display your ignorance of nullsec. To the CAS guy who was worried that there will be nothing for new players to do... CAS has nullsec, and CAS pilots do use rorqs out there. There's also Providence region. There's plenty of options for nullsec for new players. The reduction in price for minerals allows new players to get into industry easier, things like making their own ships and ammo. For direct isk there's always missions. Exploration makes some nice isk too. The difference between highsec and nullsec is huge, and requires that the risk:reward be appropriate. If all I have to do is park some hulks in highsec to mine veld to make as much as someone out in nullsec, then what's the point of nullsec? Dear Fozzie, for Christmas this year I would like the devs to remove their heads from their asses. We still have lots of time left before December. If you think that a ship that costs ~2.5b in minerals, plus another 1/2b in T1/T2 fittings, then loaded up with ~9b in drones and giving it a mining income 1.5 times the income of the next best mining ship (cost 300m fitted), you need to be drug tested because you are on some wacky ****. Where is my risk:reward for that kind of investment, especially as I am operating in nullsec where I can be hotdropped at any time? I know the price of the drones is being kept up artificially but this change is going to see less rorqs out there and it has nothing to do with the the PANIC changes. The only ones fielding them will be the guys with 4+ accounts who are the problem with the declining mineral value. Fozzie I noticed you had no comment about the "bait and switch" when you quoted me. What is the dev blog for the asian server, I want to see what their reaction is to this, maybe I can get in on the class action suit.
tapny ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.02 12:16:27 - [620] - Quote WTS rorqual

Raven Ship Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2017.03.02 12:33:12 - [621] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Raven Ship wrote: What I give is example of what happened many times already, games like Vanguard, Planetside, AnarchyOnline, and there also been many forum spammers in those titles, like you , where are they now? Not in those games... so get lost from me. But none of those are even remotely relevant - unless you are simply another casual gamer. Until a game comes along that can even approach EVE in content - it will have no rival(s)! You are goon, and goons are known for not knowing anything. Right now there are two games draining sci-fi players from eve, third is to come. And I'm not sure would it be ok with forum rules to name them. Awareness aren't sin or any bad thing, stop being goon.
Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 129	Posted - 2017.03.02 13:15:01 - [622] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: JonasML wrote: From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 GÇÿExcavatorGÇÖ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up. 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). Fozzie stating the obvious.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 417	Posted - 2017.03.02 13:21:23 - [623] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: ItGÇÖs also possible that the next change might need to be another nerf Why dont you nerf belts instead? Why do we have infinite ore in the first place?
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 418	Posted - 2017.03.02 14:23:45 - [624] - Quote Pesadel0 wrote: And i dindt read a good reason from the devs telling us why the mineral crash would be a bad thing , i mean isnt the market self regulated like the drone prices are ?Maybe i'am being dense here but if people out mine the rourquals eventually will make less cash ... The problems are: 1. There are players in hisec. 2. Dirt-cheap minerals mean dirt-cheap ships, and a lot of risk-reward equations in PVP get busted.
Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 418	Posted - 2017.03.02 14:45:18 - [625] - Quote JonasML wrote: The price of excavator components is being kept high by drone region alliances. The components are bought through alliance buy-orders out there and they then control the release to empire. It's not the first time it's been done nor will it be the last. Once again you display your ignorance of nullsec. Ask Aryth to control the price of Bhaalgorns. Even in drone lands players are not slaves. You cannot force them to use alliance buy orders, especially for such lightweight items. Courier contracts would take an enormous amount of work to inspect, and wormhole connections just cannot be controlled unless you are the Bob himself. And please, tell us more about ignorance - it's so funny.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2017.03.02 14:45:36 - [626] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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). Don't worry, I'll keep multiboxing them to prove you right These new numbers seem to be having the right behavioral impact locally. Smaller scale players are dropping rorquals fast (-ore supply, +isk supply as they return to ratting). Multiboxers and those using it for fleetboosts are holding steady or buying more to compensate for the nerf. It may hit a decent equillibrium. If a single rorqual earns less income per hour than a carrier, but is more relaxed and easier to multibox, I expect that will be healthy for the game long-term. Ore and mineral prices are volatile, but right now that looks like where we'll land after the March patch.
Cade Windstalker 973	Posted - 2017.03.02 14:57:50 - [627] - Quote Pesadel0 wrote: That is exactlly what jizzah is saying this thread is getting less rage because people dont care , and that is a bad thing mate not good .And i dindt read a good reason from the devs telling us why the mineral crash would be a bad thing , i mean isnt the market self regulated like the drone prices are ?Maybe i'am being dense here but if people out mine the rourquals eventually will make less cash ... Lets see if I can explain this whole mineral price crash thing to you... So, miners are primary producers, they make goods and their income is directly tied to the value of those goods, as opposed to belt ratters, incursion runners, L4 Mission runners, and everyone else who works for a more or less fixed income in raw ISK provided by game mechanics. For example, no matter what happens to the rest of the Eve economy my Carrier ratter friend out in Null is going to keep making 55m wallet ticks. This is not the case for miners. Also a lot of other people, but miners more than anyone else because their income is directly tied to a single thing, the overall price of minerals. This means that if the overall price of minerals in the game drops by 50% then the income of a miner drops by 50% as well. Now, this is likely to cause a lot of goods to drop by about 50% because those goods are directly tied to the price of minerals, so it may look like the buying power of the miners remains the same. This only applies to goods that are pegged to the price of minerals though, and there are a lot of goods that aren't, PLEX being the biggest one. This means that the ability for someone mining to PLEX their account goes down as the price of minerals falls. The reason this isn't just a return to some year or other's mineral prices is because the rise in mineral prices over the last 8 years or so has been largely driven by inflation in the Eve economy, so the buying power of an hour of mining has remained more or less constant over that time. So, why won't this just cause an eventual drop in Rorqual mining? Because of two things. The first, and I would argue more important one, is that Rorquals are way more Multi-box friendly than ratting Carriers, Dreads, Supers, or Titans. This means that if I'm an old-bie player with 12 accounts I can put a Rorqual 'toon on all of them and have all of them bringing in several hundred million at once in raw minerals. In comparison you can successfully multi-box maybe 3 or 4 Supers before the micromanagement required starts to put more of a dent in your income per ship than it's worth. On top of this we have a weird quirk of Null Sec Corp economics. Most Null corps of the size that could protect a Rorqual allow you to purchase ships with raw minerals plus a relatively small amount of ISK for time and other costs. This means that even if the price of minerals crashes quite a bit it may still be worthwhile for someone looking to buy a Capital, Super, or Titan to mine rather than rat for it because these ships cost a fair bit more than mineral price normally. This creates a multiplier on the value of mining time for these players that isn't reflected in the price of ore on the market. This same sort of multiplier applies to a lot of high end industrial work that derives a large chunk of its profit from the difficulty and skill intensive nature of high end manufacturing, rather than the cost of the raw inputs. For example someone showed me their in-corp price for a Super right now is at around 17-18B, with 12b in mats required, which means there's a roughly 50% profit on each Super built and sold, and that's just in-corp prices, not public market. TLDR: People will keep Rorqual mining long after they've nuked the mineral market because of multi-boxing and because of Ships for Minerals programs.
Cade Windstalker 973	Posted - 2017.03.02 14:59:15 - [628] - Quote JonasML wrote: The price of excavator components is being kept high by drone region alliances. The components are bought through alliance buy-orders out there and they then control the release to empire. It's not the first time it's been done nor will it be the last. Once again you display your ignorance of nullsec. I can find literally no evidence of this in the current market data beyond paranoid forum theories, which are to evidence what twinkies are to nutrition. Ignoring for a moment the difficulty of leveraging alliance level control of individually farmed assets, about half of the drone regions isn't even under the control of Russians, and a fairly good chunk of the whole mess on both the Russian and non-Russian halves is being rented out, and I know for a fact no one is doing export checks on Excavator mats. On top of that Null isn't even the only source of these pieces, I found a small cache of Elite Drone AIs just sitting around in a trade hub last week from back when the things were worth a few hundred thousand each at most and I farmed those in High Sec. Beyond that there's the raw economic data, which has shown a slow and steady slide in prices of both the materials and the drones themselves, which we would only expect if supply were out pacing demand. This means that even if some group is trying to restrict supply of these components they're failing to do so, which would incentivize them to sell their stocks now rather than wait for the price to drop even further, since there's no reason to expect a group which hasn't managed to capture the supply of a good to be able to force the price higher if it's already sliding and shows no signs of recovering. JonasML wrote: Fozzie I noticed you had no comment about the "bait and switch" when you quoted me. He did, in fact, comment on this. Re-read the rest of his comment. Iminent Penance wrote: 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. Skia Aumer wrote: Why dont you nerf belts instead? Why do we have infinite ore in the first place? Because this game would have gotten really boring like 10 years ago if New Eden contained a finite amount of minerals to mine?
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2017.03.02 15:25:46 - [629] - Quote Another random thought: The PANIC nerf might feel like a minor nerf to instant anom respawn in practice. Some (not all, probably not most) players may just decide to stop mining and do something else when a belt gets close to the end rather than risk the time on grid without being able to PANIC. Not most of the time, not large multibox fleets, but some players some of the time. And then other players might be reluctant to cycle the belt for the same reason. The net effect could be another smaller behavioral shift that lowers mineral supply. Which again, in concert with everything else, could help stabilize the market.
Cade Windstalker 977	Posted - 2017.03.02 15:31:35 - [630] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Another random thought: The PANIC nerf might feel like a minor nerf to instant anom respawn in practice. Some (not all, probably not most) players may just decide to stop mining and do something else when a belt gets close to the end rather than risk the time on grid without being able to PANIC. Not most of the time, not large multibox fleets, but some players some of the time. And then other players might be reluctant to cycle the belt for the same reason. The net effect could be another smaller behavioral shift that lowers mineral supply. Which again, in concert with everything else, could help stabilize the market. I doubt this will be enough of a factor to matter. The absolute maximum time you can be stuck and unable to PANIC is 5 minutes, and that assumes that you're not paying any attention to the amount of ore left in the last rock on field. In practice though you can pretty easily time it so the last flight of drones gets back just before the cycle ends. The big thing here though is that someone would basically need to be on-grid with you to take advantage of this tiny window of vulnerability intentionally, which either means you're mining with a neutral in system or you're getting AWOX'd, and in either case your first mistake occurred long before the ore in your anom ran out.

Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 419	Posted - 2017.03.02 15:32:56 - [631] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: 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). Don't worry, I'll keep multiboxing them to prove you right These new numbers seem to be having the right behavioral impact locally. Smaller scale players are dropping rorquals fast (-ore supply, +isk supply as they return to ratting). Multiboxers and those using it for fleetboosts are holding steady or buying more to compensate for the nerf. It may hit a decent equillibrium. If a single rorqual earns less income per hour than a carrier, but is more relaxed and easier to multibox, I expect that will be healthy for the game long-term. Ore and mineral prices are volatile, but right now that looks like where we'll land after the March patch. These are the words of truth. Fozzie's vision of "mining foreman" can never be further from the harsh reality. The world of mining is governed by min-maxers. If they were multiboxing 20 exhumers, they will multibox the ** out of any new toys CCP gives them. Even if Rorq yields 10% more ore than exhumer, there will be 20 multiboxing Roqs. If it means additional risk, they'll manage it. For them, mining 10% less than theoretically possible means losing in EVE. If the risk turns out to be too high, they'd rather quit the game than downgrade. Now I'm not saying that it's good or bad. But if the goal was to create "mining foremen" then CCP should've taken a very different approach. There should be diminishing returns**. It could be considerable increase of effort. Or it could be resource depletion. We've seen both methods earlier: the former for carrier ratting, and the later for ice mining - and they work... well, to some extent. CCP could go inventive and show us something new. But nerfing yield is just a band-aid and in the long run it gives nothing.
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 310	Posted - 2017.03.02 15:42:51 - [632] - Quote JonasML wrote: The price of excavator components is being kept high by drone region alliances. The components are bought through alliance buy-orders out there and they then control the release to empire. It's not the first time it's been done nor will it be the last. Once again you display your ignorance of nullsec. What did Goons say when they had OTEC? Take our moons if you dont like it. Follow your own advice. Take their space!
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3128	Posted - 2017.03.02 16:13:09 - [633] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: ItGÇÖs also possible that the next change might need to be another nerf Why dont you nerf belts instead? Why do we have infinite ore in the first place? If the ore wasn't infinite, it would of been mined out by now after years of game play and your only source of mineral would be refining NPC drops. The price of everything would rapidly skyrocket as replacing them would be next to impossible. Everybody would have to gun-mine for minerals and you ebtter do it with drones/T1 lasers if you ever want to make progress because building ammo to shoot at more rats would become counter productive fast.
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 310	Posted - 2017.03.02 16:40:49 - [634] - Quote The complaints about the Rorqual nerfs are very inconsistent when you think about it. With Rorqual nerfs the ISK/h goes down because of lower yield. Without Rorqual nerfs the ISK/h goes down aswell because the mineral oversupply crashes the prices. Nerfing the Rorqual is the better option because it makes mining in exhumers and barges viable again, which means there will be a lot less power creep for miners and industrialists. (Skilling for a mining barge takes a lot less time than skilling for a Rorqual.)
Vivianne Athonille HC - Porkrinds 31	Posted - 2017.03.02 17:31:15 - [635] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Skia Aumer wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: ItGÇÖs also possible that the next change might need to be another nerf Why dont you nerf belts instead? Why do we have infinite ore in the first place? If the ore wasn't infinite, it would of been mined out by now after years of game play and your only source of mineral would be refining NPC drops. The price of everything would rapidly skyrocket as replacing them would be next to impossible. Everybody would have to gun-mine for minerals and you ebtter do it with drones/T1 lasers if you ever want to make progress because building ammo to shoot at more rats would become counter productive fast. Wow, I didn't take this statement the same way you and others did. Yes, belts respawn after downtime. I took it as an attack on being able to endlessly roll ore anomalies in null. It's a quality of life thing for the Rorqual to be able to mine massive amounts of ore per hour when there is a limited amount of ore per system, per day. Personally I loved the idea of being able to clean out quickly and then move on the other things in-game. It seems the problem is when you can mine at that high rate 23/7 in a system or two, not the high rate itself.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.02 17:51:04 - [636] - Quote Algarion Getz wrote: Nerfing the Rorqual is the better option because it makes mining in exhumers and barges viable again, which means there will be a lot less power creep for miners and industrialists. (Skilling for a mining barge takes a lot less time than skilling for a Rorqual.) That's compatible to basing you complaint on supercarrier ratting making more money than gilas. Of course an end-of-line ship's going to have greater capabilities than something you can train up to in a few months. That's how it should be.
ultimatefox02 Core Industry. Blades of Grass 0	Posted - 2017.03.02 18:00:28 - [637] - Quote Quote: This is less rage than I expected tbh. WHAT, you wait we RAGE to understand, we dont want yours nerf , we dont want you do S H I T whit our game play, you do ALPHA clone to have more new players for free, and nerf to lost OLD PLAYERS PAYING yours game, i have 4 account and for the first time after 10 years playing EVE , i stop my AUTOMATIC payement, you want a game whit no money GO HEAD BODY , and FLY SAFE and look this Post , i dont see many people verry happy about this nerf,me the first. is the last time you Broke my game play , you nerf my FALCON , my DRAKE , my missile , and lot more , many ship i stop flying , because you do S H I T and now is MY RORQUAL and MY HID no body , you do that , is the last time you play whit my game play.
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 167	Posted - 2017.03.02 18:10:09 - [638] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: 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. Cade Winstalker wrote: 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. No? The rorqual is a ... what's the word... ah right CAPITAL. "capital dps doesnt need this kind of reduction because its different" The only difference is its "PVE" which nobody gives a **** about. It is a capital. It is a step up from subcapital mining. Go figure it's balanced around that. "without a compelling reason there's no need for change" EXACTLY! YOU GET IT! There is NO reason to nerf something then using shallow flimsy logic, good for you cade! Or, Are you only meaning that for pvp? Which would be deliciously hilarious irony. What i suggested for cap changes is EXACTLY what they did to "ore yield" over the past 6 months. FOZZIE even said "its still the best" So... a carrier doing 2k dps would still be "the best" and a super/titan doing 2500 would still be "the best". Surely, even you, you have to see why this double standard is ridiculous. I know I know. "Muh minerals" and...well..ignoring the fact that the game has untold trillions pumped into it by inflated dps capitals. Like it or not, the argument for the rorqual nerf could EASILY go down that "slippery slope" of a... "very limited statement" and turn OTHER capitals into... welll "still the best"
Cade Windstalker 979	Posted - 2017.03.02 18:24:28 - [639] - Quote jizzah wrote: That's compatible to basing you complaint on supercarrier ratting making more money than gilas. Of course an end-of-line ship's going to have greater capabilities than something you can train up to in a few months. That's how it should be. Yes, no one here is disputing that (literally, for once. I've seen zero posts saying the Rorqual should not be able to mine at all or should mine less than a Hulk.), but the scale of the advantage relative to the cost is subject to game balance considerations. Always has been, always will be. Skia Aumer wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Don't worry, I'll keep multiboxing them to prove you right These new numbers seem to be having the right behavioral impact locally. Smaller scale players are dropping rorquals fast (-ore supply, +isk supply as they return to ratting). Multiboxers and those using it for fleetboosts are holding steady or buying more to compensate for the nerf. It may hit a decent equillibrium. If a single rorqual earns less income per hour than a carrier, but is more relaxed and easier to multibox, I expect that will be healthy for the game long-term. Ore and mineral prices are volatile, but right now that looks like where we'll land after the March patch. These are the words of truth. Fozzie's vision of "mining foreman" can never be further from the harsh reality. The world of mining is governed by min-maxers. If they were multiboxing 20 exhumers, they will multibox the ** out of any new toys CCP gives them. Even if Rorq yields 10% more ore than exhumer, there will be 20 multiboxing Roqs. If it means additional risk, they'll manage it. For them, mining 10% less than theoretically possible means losing in EVE. If the risk turns out to be too high, they'd rather quit the game than downgrade. Now I'm not saying that it's good or bad. But if the goal was to create "mining foremen" then CCP should've taken a very different approach. There should be diminishing returns**. It could be considerable increase of effort. Or it could be resource depletion. We've seen both methods earlier: the former for carrier ratting, and the later for ice mining - and they work... well, to some extent. CCP could go inventive and show us something new. But nerfing yield is just a band-aid and in the long run it gives nothing. Miners are min-maxers, but they have to min-max cost and risk vs returns. The less a Rorqual brings in as a mining ship the more viable it becomes to run it primarily or entirely as a booster and use it to boost a fleet of Hulks (or some other Exhumer, but probably Hulks). It's also a mistake to think that the options here are just to mine with a Rorqual or mine with an Exhumer. Quite a few pilots in this thread are going back to Carrier, Super, or Titan ratting after these nerfs, not back to a smaller mining ship or a different mining setup. For that reason I think the idea that this nerf changes nothing is incorrect, we're already seeing the effects on the market and anecdotally as people move away from Rorqual mining and try to sell off their assets ahead of a potential value drop. Whether or not this nerf will be enough to get the mineral market back to a healthy state though is another matter entirely. For that we'll have to wait and see.
Cade Windstalker 979	Posted - 2017.03.02 18:31:21 - [640] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: No? The rorqual is a ... what's the word... ah right CAPITAL. "capital dps doesnt need this kind of reduction because its different" The only difference is its "PVE" which nobody gives a **** about. It is a capital. It is a step up from subcapital mining. Go figure it's balanced around that. "without a compelling reason there's no need for change" EXACTLY! YOU GET IT! There is NO reason to nerf something then using shallow flimsy logic, good for you cade! Or, Are you only meaning that for pvp? Which would be deliciously hilarious irony. What i suggested for cap changes is EXACTLY what they did to "ore yield" over the past 6 months. FOZZIE even said "its still the best" So... a carrier doing 2k dps would still be "the best" and a super/titan doing 2500 would still be "the best". Surely, even you, you have to see why this double standard is ridiculous. I know I know. "Muh minerals" and...well..ignoring the fact that the game has untold trillions pumped into it by inflated dps capitals. Like it or not, the argument for the rorqual nerf could EASILY go down that "slippery slope" of a... "very limited statement" and turn OTHER capitals into... welll "still the best" Just because it's a capital does not mean that the Rorqual's mining amount is in any way equivalent or comparable to the amount of DPS that a combat capital can put out. If you were talking about the Rorquals DPS, or tank, or any of its actual combat stats then you might have something, but you're erroneously saying that the mining yield of the Rorqual is comparable to the DPS of a Carrier or Dreadnaught, which is just ridiculous. There is a very compelling reason to nerf the Rorqual, it's clearly visible if you look at the prices of Ore and Minerals in the game right now, or the massive drop we saw in the last economic report in liquid ISK generation and the increase in mining volume. You don't like the nerfs, that's fine, but that doesn't mean there's no reason for them. The general level of ISK entering and leaving the game is actually fairly stable with a very slight upward trend (AKA inflation) and that's economically healthy. The currently crashing mineral market is not, and there's 20 pages of discussion in this thread if you want to read about why that is. There's no double standard here, because DPS is not in any way comparable to mining yield. The only thing that's ridiculous here is your flimsy and anger-driven argument...

Skia Aumer Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 420	Posted - 2017.03.02 19:19:05 - [641] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: It's also a mistake to think that the options here are just to mine with a Rorqual or mine with an Exhumer. Quite a few pilots in this thread are going back to Carrier, Super, or Titan ratting after these nerfs, not back to a smaller mining ship or a different mining setup. For that reason I think the idea that this nerf changes nothing is incorrect, we're already seeing the effects on the market and anecdotally as people move away from Rorqual mining and try to sell off their assets ahead of a potential value drop. Whether or not this nerf will be enough to get the mineral market back to a healthy state though is another matter entirely. For that we'll have to wait and see. I agree that the nerf will help mineral market a lot. But my point was about the proposed role of "mining foreman". It never happens with this approach. People would either mine with multiboxing Rorqs, or dont use them at all. We lived without those foremen since forever, and the sky will not fall this time either. But it's a missed opportunity, as I still believe that it could be implemented if CCP were a bit more inventive. I mean carrier rebalance was great! Rorqual rebalance is a great failure instead.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.02 19:25:40 - [642] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Yes, no one here is disputing that (literally, for once. I've seen zero posts saying the Rorqual should not be able to mine at all or should mine less than a Hulk.), but the scale of the advantage relative to the cost is subject to game balance considerations. Always has been, always will be. You've show to have very little understanding on arguments being made on this thread. Perhaps you should read, then post a reply as twice now you've misunderstood and misquoted on me alone, never mind the dozens of others. Regardless, as I said before (and I'm kicking myself now for responding to you) but I'm done trying to argue with someone as blinkered on a topic you seem to have no real grasp on. I'm getting the impression you feel you can sway the general trend of the thread with the sheer volume of nonsense you've posted. If so, congratulations. you've won eve (forum).
Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 129	Posted - 2017.03.02 19:37:12 - [643] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Pesadel0 wrote: That is exactlly what jizzah is saying this thread is getting less rage because people dont care , and that is a bad thing mate not good .And i dindt read a good reason from the devs telling us why the mineral crash would be a bad thing , i mean isnt the market self regulated like the drone prices are ?Maybe i'am being dense here but if people out mine the rourquals eventually will make less cash ... Lets see if I can explain this whole mineral price crash thing to you... So, miners are primary producers, they make goods and their income is directly tied to the value of those goods, as opposed to belt ratters, incursion runners, L4 Mission runners, and everyone else who works for a more or less fixed income in raw ISK provided by game mechanics. For example, no matter what happens to the rest of the Eve economy my Carrier ratter friend out in Null is going to keep making 55m wallet ticks. This is not the case for miners. Also a lot of other people, but miners more than anyone else because their income is directly tied to a single thing, the overall price of minerals. This means that if the overall price of minerals in the game drops by 50% then the income of a miner drops by 50% as well. Now, this is likely to cause a lot of goods to drop by about 50% because those goods are directly tied to the price of minerals, so it may look like the buying power of the miners remains the same. This only applies to goods that are pegged to the price of minerals though, and there are a lot of goods that aren't, PLEX being the biggest one. This means that the ability for someone mining to PLEX their account goes down as the price of minerals falls. The reason this isn't just a return to some year or other's mineral prices is because the rise in mineral prices over the last 8 years or so has been largely driven by inflation in the Eve economy, so the buying power of an hour of mining has remained more or less constant over that time. So, why won't this just cause an eventual drop in Rorqual mining? Because of two things. The first, and I would argue more important one, is that Rorquals are way more Multi-box friendly than ratting Carriers, Dreads, Supers, or Titans. This means that if I'm an old-bie player with 12 accounts I can put a Rorqual 'toon on all of them and have all of them bringing in several hundred million at once in raw minerals. In comparison you can successfully multi-box maybe 3 or 4 Supers before the micromanagement required starts to put more of a dent in your income per ship than it's worth. On top of this we have a weird quirk of Null Sec Corp economics. Most Null corps of the size that could protect a Rorqual allow you to purchase ships with raw minerals plus a relatively small amount of ISK for time and other costs. This means that even if the price of minerals crashes quite a bit it may still be worthwhile for someone looking to buy a Capital, Super, or Titan to mine rather than rat for it because these ships cost a fair bit more than mineral price normally. This creates a multiplier on the value of mining time for these players that isn't reflected in the price of ore on the market. This same sort of multiplier applies to a lot of high end industrial work that derives a large chunk of its profit from the difficulty and skill intensive nature of high end manufacturing, rather than the cost of the raw inputs. For example someone showed me their in-corp price for a Super right now is at around 17-18B, with 12b in mats required, which means there's a roughly 50% profit on each Super built and sold, and that's just in-corp prices, not public market. TLDR: People will keep Rorqual mining long after they've nuked the mineral market because of multi-boxing and because of Ships for Minerals programs. So no data to back up your claims then , you suppose what will happen .
Cade Windstalker 980	Posted - 2017.03.02 20:15:57 - [644] - Quote Skia Aumer wrote: I agree that the nerf will help mineral market a lot. But my point was about the proposed role of "mining foreman". It never happens with this approach. People would either mine with multiboxing Rorqs, or dont use them at all. We lived without those foremen since forever, and the sky will not fall this time either. But it's a missed opportunity, as I still believe that it could be implemented if CCP were a bit more inventive. I mean carrier rebalance was great! Rorqual rebalance is a great failure instead. I'm not sure this is going to be true, largely because of the large ISK value represented in the uninsurable 'Excavator' mining drones. The cost of a Rorqual loss, at market prices and after insurance, is something like 1.5B ISK at the current 3B per hull price, plus about .2-.3B in fittings. The cost of the drones at current prices is around 6-7.5 B on their own. So in a Mining Foreman role the Rorqual represents a much smaller risk than it does if you use one to mine directly, but it still provides 10% more yield to all the ships it's supporting over the next best available alternative to a sieged Rorqual. The cost swing between 10 accounts in Rorquals with 'Excavators' and 9 Accounts in Hulks and 1 in a Rorqual without Excavators is something like 90 Billion sitting in the belt vs about 4.7 billion sitting in the belt. That's a capital costs and risk increase of 19 times for a yield increase of about 3.4 times, and it's going to take you about 75 hours (assuming roughly 120m an hour per Rorq) to make up your costs with the Rorquals where as with the single Rorqual and Hulks it takes you about 12.8 hours of mining to make up your costs. By my calculation this means that it takes 102 hours of Rorqual mining at the new Hulk mining levels (assuming roughly 3.4 Hulks yields per Rorqual) for the Rorqual fleet to mine more than the Hulk fleet. If you're ganked during that time the Hulk fleet is the better option, hands down. It should be noted though that this uses the current prices for the Rorqual and associated drones, and doesn't factor in the Hulk's ability to mine Mercoxit, which the Rorquals can not mine. A lowering in the price of Excavators would lower the time to profitability of the Rorqual fleet, but Mercoxit would likely help the Hulks. Similarly if the value mined per hour goes down this favors the cheaper Hulk fleet as well. jizzah wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Yes, no one here is disputing that (literally, for once. I've seen zero posts saying the Rorqual should not be able to mine at all or should mine less than a Hulk.), but the scale of the advantage relative to the cost is subject to game balance considerations. Always has been, always will be. You've show to have very little understanding on arguments being made on this thread. Perhaps you should read, then post a reply as twice now you've misunderstood and misquoted on me alone, never mind the dozens of others. Regardless, as I said before (and I'm kicking myself now for responding to you) but I'm done trying to argue with someone as blinkered on a topic you seem to have no real grasp on. I'm getting the impression you feel you can sway the general trend of the thread with the sheer volume of nonsense you've posted. If so, congratulations. you've won eve (forum). I'm not sure what you think I'm not grasping here. You're certainly making no effort to correct me, which is both bad form and poor communication on your part. I think the miscommunication may be happening due to your attempt to use simile in place of an actual explanation or argument. Your comparison of the Gila and the Carrier is both ridiculous and not applicable to the current issue. The Rorqual isn't getting nerfed because it mines more than a Hulk, it's getting nerfed because it mines too much period and there's plenty of room between where it's at right now and the mining level of a Hulk to adjust within and still leave the ship useful and powerful without wrecking the mineral market the way it's doing now. As for why I'm here, because I really dislike when people argue badly or mistake appeals to emotion for evidence against something. If I'm arguing in favor of a change what I say doesn't really matter and I know this. I could just as easily run around being nothing but a sarcastic *** in this thread and it would have about as much effect on CCP's decision making as my attempts to guess at CCP's reasoning and explain my guesses you people like you. Similarly yelling about how you don't like something is only marginally more likely to affect its outcome than my evidence in support of it is. Barring a mass player outcry simply yelling about how a change is bad isn't an argument against that change. To argue against a change you need to collect evidence and present it in a coherent and logical format. Simply saying 'clearly CCP/Cade/you people have no idea about mining/industry/Null' isn't evidence, and neither is claiming that your tiny little slice of experience contradicts CCP's reasoning. Partly because that's nothing but hearsay, partly because any individual's experience is a tiny fraction of the whole and is not statistically significant, and partly because even we players have better sources of information and reference than personal experience. Personal experience can be a guide certainly, but nothing more. It's almost never definitive and without supporting evidence it makes for a poor argument. Everything I've referenced here, the economic reports, the ISK levels in the game, the mineral price changes over time, and even the immediately available supply and demand information from buy and sell orders, is all publicly available to players. If you or anyone else is so very convinced that CCP is in the wrong here or anywhere else then go out, do your homework, and put together a convincing argument for your case.
Cade Windstalker 980	Posted - 2017.03.02 20:22:39 - [645] - Quote Pesadel0 wrote: So no data to back up your claims then , you suppose what will happen . I have some basic data in the form of what a Rorqual mines per hour, what a Carrier, Super, or Titan gets ratting, and the cost of a Super or Titan in ISK vs the cost in minerals within a Corp or Alliance. If you really need sources for any or all of the above just ask here, but I won't be able to dig them up until later tonight. I also have anecdotal evidence from various friends in different and sometimes opposed Null groups telling me how many Rorquals you can multi-box vs Carriers or Supers. This I can't provide a source for beyond those in this thread that have said similar things. Beyond that yes, there is some supposition here, since I'm trying to predict future behavior, but so far we've seen quite a significant dip in the price of minerals and no significant change in behavior from Rorqual miners, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that this will continue, and some quick math on the payout of Super Carrier ratting vs multi-boxing Rorquals can give us a value breakpoint for a given number of Rorqual accounts between ratting and Rorqual Mining. Overall though I'd say that I'm not assuming very much here beyond that people will continue to behave in the way that got us to this point in the first place, and that a few people in Eve can use a spreadsheet to calculate income over time, neither of which are particularly far reaching assumptions.
Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 129	Posted - 2017.03.02 21:25:02 - [646] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Pesadel0 wrote: So no data to back up your claims then , you suppose what will happen . I have some basic data in the form of what a Rorqual mines per hour, what a Carrier, Super, or Titan gets ratting, and the cost of a Super or Titan in ISK vs the cost in minerals within a Corp or Alliance. If you really need sources for any or all of the above just ask here, but I won't be able to dig them up until later tonight. I also have anecdotal evidence from various friends in different and sometimes opposed Null groups telling me how many Rorquals you can multi-box vs Carriers or Supers. This I can't provide a source for beyond those in this thread that have said similar things. Beyond that yes, there is some supposition here, since I'm trying to predict future behavior, but so far we've seen quite a significant dip in the price of minerals and no significant change in behavior from Rorqual miners, so it's fairly reasonable to assume that this will continue, and some quick math on the payout of Super Carrier ratting vs multi-boxing Rorquals can give us a value breakpoint for a given number of Rorqual accounts between ratting and Rorqual Mining. Overall though I'd say that I'm not assuming very much here beyond that people will continue to behave in the way that got us to this point in the first place, and that a few people in Eve can use a spreadsheet to calculate income over time, neither of which are particularly far reaching assumptions. EDIT: oh, if you want data on mineral price vs inflation then just look at the MPI over the last 8 years vs the price of PLEX and the amount of liquid ISK in the economy. That data is in the QER though I think those only go back to around 2012 or so, after that you need to extrapolate from things like the price of PLEX. What i was trying to get at (my reply was eaten by the forum) , is that we dont have the data Fonzie and the rest of the devs have so i think people would understand this nerfs to rourquals better if they knew why it is getting nerfed .
Cade Windstalker 980	Posted - 2017.03.02 21:56:12 - [647] - Quote Pesadel0 wrote: What i was trying to get at (my reply was eaten by the forum) , is that we dont have the data Fonzie and the rest of the devs have so i think people would understand this nerfs to rourquals better if they knew why it is getting nerfed . We've already got that in general terms from Fozzie himself (emphasis mine): CCP Fozzie wrote: ... These changes revolve around the Rorqual and mining in general. We've been keeping a close eye on the mineral economy since Ascension and we feel that we need to make another fairly significant intervention in order to help keep this area of the EVE economy healthy. ... Excavator Drones: 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. ... As much as I'd like to see more detailed numbers I'd also be generally against CCP releasing them, especially for something as economically important as mineral mining. The best Fozzie could possibly give us without dropping a motherload of economic data would be some unlabeled and obfuscated graphs, and even that would be risky since if you can construct enough context you can get a lot out of a graph. Even the data we the players have access to paints a pretty obvious picture though. Supply of minerals is up, prices are down, and the Rorqual is replacing every other mining ship in Null and Wormholes. Anecdotally we also know that quite a few people who have not previously considered mining to be worth their time are taking up the profession, which has compounded the supply issue.
Aleverette Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2017.03.03 00:34:16 - [648] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Even the data we the players have access to paints a pretty obvious picture though. Supply of minerals is up, prices are down, and the Rorqual is replacing every other mining ship in Null and Wormholes. Anecdotally we also know that quite a few people who have not previously considered mining to be worth their time are taking up the profession, which has compounded the supply issue. Present Rorqual spanning comes from bad design concept and we players are simply using what can benefit ourselves the most. If Fozzie and his team really have tones loads of economy data to analyse, combining with everything they know in the past decade, then they shouldn't give us that ridiculous drones at the first place back in Ascension release.
Cade Windstalker 981	Posted - 2017.03.03 02:14:17 - [649] - Quote Aleverette wrote: Present Rorqual spanning comes from bad design concept and we players are simply using what can benefit ourselves the most. If Fozzie and his team really have tones loads of economy data to analyse, combining with everything they know in the past decade, then they shouldn't have given us that ridiculous drones back in Ascension release. They do, but that data is valid under the conditions it was collected. The one thing that's remained constant in the ~10 years I've played Eve now is the general disdain miners are held with by combat pilots, and that mining is generally seen as a boring and unrewarding profession. Given that I don't think it's unreasonable for Fozzie and co to have assumed that the primary user base of the new Rorqual would be people who were already mining, as opposed to the then occupants of Carriers, Supers, and Titans ratting around the back end of Null. Also if you look at the feedback thread for the original Rorqual changes you'll note that the ratio of "Why would anyone ever put a Rorqual on grid!?!?!" posts to "OMG this is OP!" posts significantly favors the former. Aleverette wrote: To Fozzie: Simply changing numbers won't help at all, Rorqual fleet will still roam after the patch. The problem is that you gave Rorqual exceeded amount of utilities that almost everybody living in nullsec have to buy one. My suggestion remains unchanged, divide it into two ships: 1)A fleet booster/mining carrier combo that can use panic, best suited for solo/small mining fleet or pvpppppp which are played actively, drawback cannot compress ore. 2)A fleet booster/drone miner/compression combo but no panic, very good utility flagship to large mining fleet. Couple of points on this. I don't think it's a terrible back-pocket solution for Fozzie and co, but I think we're a few more iterations away from anything this drastic. For a start this kind of split would be a lot of work, both for the art department and in terms of balance. On top of that the problem with the Rorqual isn't that it mines well, and boosts well, it's that the only part people are really using is the mining. Ore Compression has basically been a non-issue ever since that was added to Citadels.
Sgt Ocker What Corp is it 1310	Posted - 2017.03.03 11:15:47 - [650] - 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: 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. 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 kill Keep nerfing mining drone amount, they wil once again find themselves being a worst option. Also on faction mining drones - you really do need to look at build requirements, even at current prices and limited supply there is still not a lot of profit in building them. Demand isn't driving the prices of the drones, build cost is. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Atum' Ra Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx 105	Posted - 2017.03.03 11:26:34 - [651] - Quote PANIC nerf is a good nerf. Everything else - isn't good at all... such stational platform like rorqual must generate more isk per hour
FairyDrakonchik MyLittleDragon Kids With Guns Alliance 7	Posted - 2017.03.03 13:05:08 - [652] - Quote rorq mines too much and now nerfs again - and again if that wasnt enough - nice but still have some questions - when CCP give new drones they dont know that people will massively mine in it? and drone components wont grow that much? by the way - i am not a miner and now sure that wont be it
Tobias Frank 28	Posted - 2017.03.03 13:12:10 - [653] - Quote Atum' Ra wrote: PANIC nerf is a good nerf. Everything else - isn't good at all... such stational platform like rorqual must generate more isk per hour Hey! Your Rorqual is generating zero isk per hour regardless of nerfs/buffs.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Sherwood Hisec Industrial Technologies 334	Posted - 2017.03.03 14:42:30 - [654] - Quote Keep up the great work CCP... thank you for watching over us all. no sarcasm here. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 #NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Cade Windstalker 984	Posted - 2017.03.03 15:21:09 - [655] - Quote 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 kill Keep 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. Sgt Ocker wrote: Also on faction mining drones - you really do need to look at build requirements, even at current prices and limited supply there is still not a lot of profit in building them. Demand isn't driving the prices of the drones, build cost is. Look at the cost history on the components though, the four biggest drivers of cost on the Excavators are all dropped components that weren't worth very much prior to Ascension. The whole reason they're expensive right now is because demand has pushed the prices up on those components. Prices will drop as supply increases and demand drops. Sgt Ocker wrote: A simple elegant fix - disallow use of offensive modules (entosis, scrams, webs, etc) unless an asteroid is locked. The Rorqual is primarily a mining machine with the ability to boost and defend other miners. Its use outside mining while interesting (and fun) isn't intended to be so strong, so simply limit where it can use its abilities solves most issues. You're still going to get players complain about the Rorqual being too strong but they will mostly be those trying to killl one unprepared. 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. Overall I think the PANIC restrictions end up being better overall and cause fewer issues. If CCP really needs to they can add an offensive module restriction while PANIC is active on top of the new changes.
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 167	Posted - 2017.03.03 15:41:18 - [656] - Quote Look at cost history on the minerals though. They have risen from years of supreme isk deflation and the components to build excavators are extremely hefty. If you nerf anything needing rare drops, "supply and demand" is irrelevant when some omnipotent beings "decide" demand by influencing primary use viability. Arguing "Ships that die dont show those that live" is the most simplistic logic in the game. It's like arguing theoretical fallacies that, since nobody can "disprove" make them automatically true. Titans dont die frequently by this ass-backwards logic, nerf titans /s Cade Windstalker wrote: Couple of issues with this. First off, just hard limiting the Rorqual like this isn't really in the spirit of Eve. Sure. Show me how good missile boats are at mining again? Oh wait they're specialized for fighting? Oh.... AND that's "different" since it isnt a mining ship? Right. Typical ignorance at this point. Cade Windstalker wrote: On top of this Battle Rorquals have a long and storied tradition in this game, LOL DOCK UP IN POS AND BUFF BECAUSE THEY SUCK ELSEWHERE. BRILLIANT TRADITION. Do you just come here to argue what you've never tried nor even been influenced by? Stop. This is ridiculous Cade Windstalker wrote: 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. Better nerf mining amirite? 10bil in a ship should be easier to kill... typical entitled pvper mentality "IT SHOULD BE EASY TO KILL" Reminds me of the whine threads where people go on "roams" and actually cry about not being able to win fights or catch ratters. The game is built around effort in pvp, not handouts. Pick your targets and engage accordingly like inner hell, don't throw a few frigates at a capital then moan for nerfs when it fails (or as you put it... "call it op because its creating "problems".... ignoring that the only problems are that they can actually DEFEND themselves) Cade Windstalker wrote: If you just disallow offensive module activation while PANIC is active then you create the current Entosis situation. You're right. This situation is something that has nothing to do with PANIC and is a flawed design because of how it can be abused. Nothing to do with PANIC being relevant to the flawed system. Cade Windstalker wrote: 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. You ever hear of the rorqual using its warp scrambler to fight off the 50 man t3 gang? Me neither.
Jacques Arkaral Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.03.03 15:48:33 - [657] - Quote 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!
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 167	Posted - 2017.03.03 16:01:03 - [658] - Quote Jacques Arkaral wrote: Cade Windstalker lays out a sound case as to the economics. Anyone can claim "SUPPLY N DEMAND ***" over and over and over, but that doesnt change the fact that demand is being artificially smacked around by a god-hand deciding what the supply should yield in "risk vs reward" which is a favored term.... for any other aspect in the entire game Minerals have inflated because of the deflation of isk by the MASSIVE volumes magically pumped in by ratting and wormhole escalations (ladder being nerfed eventually). But let's all ignore that because nobody is using buzzwords to pretend to be smart eh? Jacques Arkaral wrote: 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! As someone who was** going to do a rorqual fleet and only uses them as boosting backups, but still mines with a fleet of exhumers because of the cost vs benefit of mining with the excavators... you are the prime example of the flawed logic of the nerfs. Imagine if they nerfed carriers to be worth maybe 2-3 ratting ishtars. Well, you'd see massive armadas of afk ratting drone boats instead, and the carrier pilots would EXPLODE. Same concept. Just because people choose to mass multibox cheaper ships in larger scale when bigger ships get nerfed doesn't mean the nerfs are balanced. It just means there is either an ulterior motif (Fozzie you can deny this all you want, but pushing people to 40 exhumer alts instead of 10 rorquals can only be for plex numbers nothing more), OR there is an extremely negative bias towards "pve"
Cpt Buckshot i420 Inc 25	Posted - 2017.03.03 16:03:21 - [659] - Quote 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
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 168	Posted - 2017.03.03 16:07:56 - [660] - Quote Cpt Buckshot wrote: 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 The deflation of isk makes the grind for new players harder. Deflating minerals would help newer players get into ships earlier. But helping new players is NOT the goal of these nerfs. The old vets will just go back to boosting a 40 man exhumer fleet at the same cost of 2 rorquals using the new buffs, nothing will change except new players will need to grind multiple accounts to compete just like old days

Rina Cotte Negative or Positive 0	Posted - 2017.03.03 17:09:52 - [661] - Quote I'm sorry about just put darn mining lasers on rorqual and as extra option mining drones. I'm tried of seeing people spend 12b for a good fit for rorqual only to slow it because of the DRONES COSTS are crazy. We need to get the price down on them my far. The market for them is so LIMITED anyone can walk in and drive these prices up. RORUAL - 4B FIT 5 MINING DRONES - 7.5B I mind losing a rorqual as it can insure! But losing the damn 1 . 5 B per drones is just crazy. CCP needs to fine a way now to correct this and fasted. Or people will not be using the rorqual much longer period. I say just put mining lasers on it with option of mining drones as a extra income feature. LET'S GET THIS DONE! I want to mine with it but can't if it's going to risk me 12b per fit in t2 industrial mode! If this dose not change then I will just fly a T2 battle ship and go back to hunting for half the cost and still make 30m + HOUR!
Flashmala Rogue Clones Yulai Federation 58	Posted - 2017.03.03 17:17:14 - [662] - Quote Sooo.... simply jam Rorqual, break target lock, PANIC unusable and generally of no value now. Sorry, I didn't take the time to search the forum to see if this point has been made yet. Age does not diminish the extreme disappointment of having a scoop of ice cream fall from the cone.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.03 17:41:01 - [663] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: JonasML wrote: From the original dev post for Rorquals...."Whether these modes are running or not, the ability to field 5 GÇÿExcavatorGÇÖ Mining Superdrones will make the Rorqual the greatest mining vessel in the history of New Eden." Well that's not only gone out the window, it's slipped off the ledge and fallen to it's splattery death 15 stories below. Take pictures now before the messy fallout get's swept up. 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). Really? so CCP sees nothing wrong with barely triple the yield for something that costs 20+ times as much? All this change does, is make it so the major alliances that already could defend their mining fleets, will continue to be able to afk mine, and it's the little guys that will get screwed out mining. Not to mention, makes HS mining be safe and profitable again.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.03 17:44:32 - [664] - Quote 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 kill Keep 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.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:27:33 - [665] - Quote you know everyone has been dancing around the issue here, ccp has seen a drop in this plex price since the ror got deployed to there current state. CCP must be worried that the plex price is going to drop if the ror keep mining the way they are so they are hitting us with a nurf bat yet again. SO here my question to ccp, then why did you make this ship useful in the first place. Why did CCP give us this massive mining capability and then just say stick it. SO CCP where do you what the ROR mining at a 80 90 or 95% nurf so you can keep your life style, and your plex price high? CCP if you have not figured out all most everyone disagrees with this but, your open to the buble change but screw the players that think that the mining change is bad.
Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:34:14 - [666] - Quote 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 kill Keep 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. Iminent Penance wrote: Anyone can claim "SUPPLY N DEMAND ***" over and over and over, but that doesnt change the fact that demand is being artificially smacked around by a god-hand deciding what the supply should yield in "risk vs reward" which is a favored term.... for any other aspect in the entire game Minerals have inflated because of the deflation of isk by the MASSIVE volumes magically pumped in by ratting and wormhole escalations (ladder being nerfed eventually). But let's all ignore that because nobody is using buzzwords to pretend to be smart eh? That same "god hand" made the original Rorqual changes in the first place. By this logic does that mean CCP should never have buffed the Rorqual in the first place? Also no, ISK in Eve has been undergoing inflation for years before either of these came close to their current volumes. The reason for this is simply because CCP has tuned the Sinks and Faucets in the game to be very slightly ISK positive over time. If they wanted to they could tune the faucets higher and start taking ISK back out of the game if they wanted. Cpt Buckshot wrote:** 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 We've seen how a 'true Rorqual pilot' would 'fix' things, in this thread, and it largely amounts to a lot of questionable economics and even more 'don't nerf my ship!' which is about what CCP gets every time they nerf something that deserves it, a small minority of users angrily complaining about more nerfs and declaring that there had to be another way. I've even seen people suggest that everything else should be buffed up to the level of their absurd OP ship. Another guy in this thread said that CCP should create more mineral sinks to soak up the excess minerals created by Rorquals...
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:34:51 - [667] - Quote ISD Max Trix wrote: Currently Cleaning, Please Hold. the thought police at it again.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:39:11 - [668] - Quote Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact.
Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:41:07 - [669] - Quote oresome eyes wrote: you know everyone has been dancing around the issue here, ccp has seen a drop in this plex price since the ror got deployed to there current state. CCP must be worried that the plex price is going to drop if the ror keep mining the way they are so they are hitting us with a nurf bat yet again. SO here my question to ccp, then why did you make this ship useful in the first place. Why did CCP give us this massive mining capability and then just say stick it. SO CCP where do you what the ROR mining at a 80 90 or 95% nurf so you can keep your life style, and your plex price high? CCP if you have not figured out all most everyone disagrees with this but, your open to the buble change but screw the players that think that the mining change is bad. This is factually incorrect. PLEX prices have at best dipped a little since the Rorqual was introduced in November of last year, which was in the middle of the yearly winter hump. PLEX prices have gone up every winter for the last four years before settling back down again, and then continuing their steady year over year march upwards in price.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:42:50 - [670] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: oresome eyes wrote: you know everyone has been dancing around the issue here, ccp has seen a drop in this plex price since the ror got deployed to there current state. CCP must be worried that the plex price is going to drop if the ror keep mining the way they are so they are hitting us with a nurf bat yet again. SO here my question to ccp, then why did you make this ship useful in the first place. Why did CCP give us this massive mining capability and then just say stick it. SO CCP where do you what the ROR mining at a 80 90 or 95% nurf so you can keep your life style, and your plex price high? CCP if you have not figured out all most everyone disagrees with this but, your open to the buble change but screw the players that think that the mining change is bad. This is factually incorrect. PLEX prices have at best dipped a little since the Rorqual was introduced in November of last year, which was in the middle of the yearly winter hump. PLEX prices have gone up every winter for the last four years before settling back down again, and then continuing their steady year over year march upwards in price. the actual price data shows something different.

Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:43:54 - [671] - Quote oresome eyes wrote: Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact. I posted those graphs back on page 15. The TLDR is basically: The Rorqual was released in November, since then everything that's not a bottleneck is down, and bottlenecks started slipping in the last month.
Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:45:25 - [672] - Quote oresome eyes wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: This is factually incorrect. PLEX prices have at best dipped a little since the Rorqual was introduced in November of last year, which was in the middle of the yearly winter hump. PLEX prices have gone up every winter for the last four years before settling back down again, and then continuing their steady year over year march upwards in price. the actual price data shows something different. It really really doesn't. Eve MarketData: https://eve-marketdata.com/price_check.php?type_id=29668 Eve Markets: http://www.eve-markets.net/detail?typeid=29668#history This is the normal February-ish slump after the winter bubble. It's not even a particularly bad one percentage wise.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3880	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:49:04 - [673] - Quote oresome eyes wrote: Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact. Any ore going direct into projects is ore not being bought from the markets instead. It doesn't matter if it makes the markets or not as to if it affects the markets. Looking at Hek for example (since I'm in range of that market), the average volume traded on Tritanium has dropped between 25% & 50%, and the price has dropped about 33%.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 18:57:41 - [674] - Quote after this march deployment the rorquals will be hit will nearly 60% nerfbat, the 32% in the first round now another 20%, just so CCP can stem this non threat to a market. the the worry by some that they will lose in the metrial market. I know from the start of eve that ccp has ALWAYS dislike the indy people from time to time they would give us a bone but over all it has been mess the miners and indy people. SO the people actual remember then the meteral market for a pace of trit was less than 1 isk. what the pvp people dont understand is the less expense ship are content will sure fallow. So if you like trit around 10 isk a unit then just remove the rorquals from the game so we go back to skifs and hulks, it will solve two issue, ccp will get there money for subs and plex price will go back up, but be warned ALL price will go up.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:02:44 - [675] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: oresome eyes wrote: Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact. Any ore going direct into projects is ore not being bought from the markets instead. It doesn't matter if it makes the markets or not as to if it affects the markets. Looking at Hek for example (since I'm in range of that market), the average volume traded on Tritanium has dropped between 25% & 50%, and the price has dropped about 33%. SO 0.0 alliance are more independent then relaying on the trade hub market for minerals. we can actual do are self. OMG what a shock, what a thought. NO importing. High sec has ALWAYS been for people that dont that to risk, NOT for making good money and being safe that is what an alliance is for.
Leila Pegasus Sneaked In Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:04:58 - [676] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: oresome eyes wrote: Cade Windstalker, can you please point out IN the past data on mineral price that the rorqual are have effect on the market. because i have a feeling that the minerals are going to 0.0 alliance projects and not making into the market. or if they are making into the market it is very minimal impact. Any ore going direct into projects is ore not being bought from the markets instead. It doesn't matter if it makes the markets or not as to if it affects the markets. Looking at Hek for example (since I'm in range of that market), the average volume traded on Tritanium has dropped between 25% & 50%, and the price has dropped about 33%. and if u look on the mex prices u will notice that they have hardly changed at all. This is to a good part beucase trit pyrit and so on is now firstly comeing from high sec mining and beeing dumped on the market. Secondly form null sec aswell since the quickest way to get the mex u need for your production simply is to flip the belt u mine in. That leaves u with a shitload of trit that is basicly waste for u just because u cant build anything with it without the mexallon that u used for your previous build already. Long storry short if it where the mining yeld all mins would crash no its only those "Wastematerials". CCP did a good jop on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottelneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something simular for mexallon. To the panic change it will not change to much combat rorqual will just be used in asteroidbelts change neutralized. But it provides wounderfull potentall to **** the rorqual wich is effective mining because he cleared the last roid. The requirement to have a asteroid locked is a pretty weak attempt on the problem also a rorqual only survives if its beeing safed dosent matter how u turn it. If u tackle one and neut him he goes panic then u kill him if he doesent get reinforcments. WH gourps like inner hell or Achtung Partizanen are proving it times and times again that. Well i dont know realy its so blentend obvious a hasty attempt to hotfix something that was brocken now for years but only got visual thourgh the rorqual mining changes. Edit: But why do i even botter writing since i am sure ccp will just push that nonsense through headfirst without even reading this thread
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3880	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:21:48 - [677] - Quote Leila Pegasus wrote: Long story short if it where the mining yield all mins would crash no its only those "Waste-materials". CCP did a good job on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottleneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something similar for mexallon. Except for the 'small' design philosophy that all the regions are meant to be interdependent on each others resources. CCP stepping away from that philosophy over the recent years is what is causing a lot of issues. Though I guess that's a debate for another thread, not this one. However pointing at a bottleneck mineral and claiming 'It's not changing price, the market is fine' is very disingenuous, and shows you don't get how market forces work, since if it actually was a real bottleneck it would be climbing in price, not dropping. Which means so much is being produced that even that is entering over supply.
Leila Pegasus Sneaked In Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:28:18 - [678] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Leila Pegasus wrote: Long story short if it where the mining yield all mins would crash no its only those "Waste-materials". CCP did a good job on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottleneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something similar for mexallon. Except for the 'small' design philosophy that all the regions are meant to be interdependent on each others resources. CCP stepping away from that philosophy over the recent years is what is causing a lot of issues. Though I guess that's a debate for another thread, not this one. However pointing at a bottleneck mineral and claiming 'It's not changing price, the market is fine' is very disingenuous, and shows you don't get how market forces work, since if it actually was a real bottleneck it would be climbing in price, not dropping. Which means so much is being produced that even that is entering over supply. I know how market forces work but u cant deny that mexallon is nearly not changing anything in price compared to for ex trit. it does not rise that much since the amount of mined mexallon also increases therefor keeps the movement down.
Denngarr B'tarn Cripple Creek Serrice Council. 8	Posted - 2017.03.03 19:28:31 - [679] - Quote JonasML wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Denngarr B'tarn wrote: I would bet this is artificial deflation again. The Excavation market has already had numerous hits to it. If they want to nerf the output, they need to make them cheaper to build. Even at 1.2, that's still 9 billion in assets doing 100MM per hour. Not a good balance. 90% of the price of Excavators is player farmed raw materials. These materials had very little value prior to Excavators and the only thing driving their value right now is demand for Excavators. If the demand for Excavators goes down the price will follow, econ 101 in action. We're already seeing this, the price of these drones has been falling more or less since release, and these nerfs will only drop it further as people get out of Rorqual mining and sell off their ships and drones. The price of excavator components is being kept high by drone region alliances. The components are bought through alliance buy-orders out there and they then control the release to empire. It's not the first time it's been done nor will it be the last. Once again you display your ignorance of nullsec. To the CAS guy who was worried that there will be nothing for new players to do... CAS has nullsec, and CAS pilots do use rorqs out there. There's also Providence region. There's plenty of options for nullsec for new players. The reduction in price for minerals allows new players to get into industry easier, things like making their own ships and ammo. For direct isk there's always missions. Exploration makes some nice isk too. The difference between highsec and nullsec is huge, and requires that the risk:reward be appropriate. If all I have to do is park some hulks in highsec to mine veld to make as much as someone out in nullsec, then what's the point of nullsec? Dear Fozzie, for Christmas this year I would like the devs to remove their heads from their asses. We still have lots of time left before December. If you think that a ship that costs ~2.5b in minerals, plus another 1/2b in T1/T2 fittings, then loaded up with ~9b in drones and giving it a mining income 1.5 times the income of the next best mining ship (cost 300m fitted), you need to be drug tested because you are on some wacky ****. Where is my risk:reward for that kind of investment, especially as I am operating in nullsec where I can be hotdropped at any time? I know the price of the drones is being kept up artificially but this change is going to see less rorqs out there and it has nothing to do with the the PANIC changes. The only ones fielding them will be the guys with 4+ accounts who are the problem with the declining mineral value. Fozzie I noticed you had no comment about the "bait and switch" when you quoted me. What is the dev blog for the asian server, I want to see what their reaction is to this, maybe I can get in on the class action suit. Thank you, JonasML. That is precisely what I was attempting to say. Risk vs. Reward, which is what it all comes down to when we undock. Now, I disagree with Cade Windstalker on a few points. Not only have I seen huge swings in the Elite Drone AI market indicating large buy/sell orders to drive prices up; but I also witnessed the large drive up on the Drone Coronary Units which do drop in Drone Lands quite a bit (I had a very nice collection for a while.) Market manipulation is part of the game, but it's going to directly affect what is fielded and what is not. Also, the prices of minerals going down is a good thing overall. Yes, in the short term it will drive down the prices of PLEX, but it increase the buy power of an ISK, which is also Econ 101. Ships, be they faction, T1, or T2 all require some amount of minerals, which is going to affect prices of ships and mods everywhere. Overall, I'd like to see the mineral market pushed way down for a while to give those newer members (who are missioning for money) the chance to get a leg-up. I will certainly concede the point with respect to the timer reduction to 60s as not being part of my calculation, but it's still more of a hit than I think it warranted right now by the whole process. I believe we need the higher yields to justify keeping the Rorqual on grid - else it just goes and ruins all the work you guys did in the first place to make the Rorqual a valid player to begin with.
Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 20:35:22 - [680] - Quote oresome eyes wrote: after this march deployment the rorquals will be hit will nearly 60% nerfbat, the 32% in the first round now another 20%, just so CCP can stem this non threat to a market. the the worry by some that they will lose in the metrial market. I know from the start of eve that ccp has ALWAYS dislike the indy people from time to time they would give us a bone but over all it has been mess the miners and indy people. Depends which indy people you mean here as to whether or not this change is good or bad. If you own a Rorqual it's probably bad. If you mine and you don't it's definitely good. If you're purely on the construction side of things it's probably bad, because the drop in mineral prices cut your costs, but on the flip side a 10% profit margin goes further when the thing you're selling is worth more. If you mine to PLEX your account this change is good. oresome eyes wrote: SO the people actual remember then the meteral market for a pace of trit was less than 1 isk. what the pvp people dont understand is the less expense ship are content will sure fallow. So if you like trit around 10 isk a unit then just remove the rorquals from the game so we go back to skifs and hulks, it will solve two issue, ccp will get there money for subs and plex price will go back up, but be warned ALL price will go up. Back then the price of everything was lower though, and there was a lot less ISK in the economy. Also not everything follows the mineral price, so if mineral prices tank then the buying power of miners actually drops since their income goes down but things like faction modules and PLEX don't follow since those aren't directly tied to the mineral market and have other things that impact their supply and demand. oresome eyes wrote: SO 0.0 alliance are more independent then relaying on the trade hub market for minerals. we can actual do are self. OMG what a shock, what a thought. NO importing. High sec has ALWAYS been for people that dont that to risk, NOT for making good money and being safe that is what an alliance is for. And you're still going to be able to do that post-patch, just not at the same absurd rate.

Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 20:50:03 - [681] - Quote Leila Pegasus wrote: and if u look on the mex prices u will notice that they have hardly changed at all. This is to a good part beucase trit pyrit and so on is now firstly comeing from high sec mining and beeing dumped on the market. Secondly form null sec aswell since the quickest way to get the mex u need for your production simply is to flip the belt u mine in. That leaves u with a shitload of trit that is basicly waste for u just because u cant build anything with it without the mexallon that u used for your previous build already. Long storry short if it where the mining yeld all mins would crash no its only those "Wastematerials". CCP did a good jop on the first round of rebalancing the null ores so the trit pyrite bottelneck is a lot less than it was used to be but they would need to do a second round now to do something simular for mexallon. To the panic change it will not change to much combat rorqual will just be used in asteroidbelts change neutralized. But it provides wounderfull potentall to ** the rorqual wich is effective mining because he cleared the last roid. The requirement to have a asteroid locked is a pretty weak attempt on the problem also a rorqual only survives if its beeing safed dosent matter how u turn it. If u tackle one and neut him he goes panic then u kill him if he doesent get reinforcments. WH gourps like inner hell or Achtung Partizanen are proving it times and times again that. Well i dont know realy its so blentend obvious a hasty attempt to hotfix something that was brocken now for years but only got visual thourgh the rorqual mining changes. Edit: But why do i even botter writing since i am sure ccp will just push that nonsense through headfirst without even reading this thread This isn't really accurate. Mex prices went up initially as people hit this bottleneck, but they stabilized around the middle of January and have been on a slight downward trend since then, which has accelerated in the last few weeks. The likely explanation here is that the market is hitting mineral saturation, otherwise we would be seeing the price of Mex and other bottlenecks continue to go up as supply of non-bottlenecks increased and people struggled to use the surplus. Also if you'd read through the responses from Fozzie you'd know that CCP has kept reading this thread and has responded. The simple fact here is that the mineral imbalance argument doesn't hold up. It doesn't hold up with player-visible data and CCP who can actually see the amount mined and consumed in the game aren't buying it either. They did note that they'll probably be doing another balance pass on the mineral composition of Anoms though, so that's nice Denngarr B'tarn wrote:** Thank you, JonasML. That is precisely what I was attempting to say. Risk vs. Reward, which is what it all comes down to when we undock. Now, I disagree with Cade Windstalker on a few points. Not only have I seen huge swings in the Elite Drone AI market indicating large buy/sell orders to drive prices up; but I also witnessed the large drive up on the Drone Coronary Units which do drop in Drone Lands quite a bit (I had a very nice collection for a while.) Market manipulation is part of the game, but it's going to directly affect what is fielded and what is not. Also, the prices of minerals going down is a good thing overall. Yes, in the short term it will drive down the prices of PLEX, but it increase the buy power of an ISK, which is also Econ 101. Ships, be they faction, T1, or T2 all require some amount of minerals, which is going to affect prices of ships and mods everywhere. Overall, I'd like to see the mineral market pushed way down for a while to give those newer members (who are missioning for money) the chance to get a leg-up. I will certainly concede the point with respect to the timer reduction to 60s as not being part of my calculation, but it's still more of a hit than I think it warranted right now by the whole process. I believe we need the higher yields to justify keeping the Rorqual on grid - else it just goes and ruins all the work you guys did in the first place to make the Rorqual a valid player to begin with. There's certainly some manipulation going on with the components for the Excavators but prices have been dropping steadily more or less since release, and it's almost impossible to maintain any kind of monopoly on components that are this widely sourced. I disagree with you that a mineral crash is a good thing though. First off, it's not going to do anything to the price of PLEX. That's more firmly tied to general income levels and what people can afford to pay for PLEX vs the amount being put on the market by players. Second not everything is tied to mineral prices. T2, Faction, and Deadspace items are basically completely independent from the price of minerals, and since this mineral boom hasn't touched the Mercoxit market the price of T2 is actually going to increase relative to T1 (T2 stays about where it is, T1 goes down, if that wasn't clear). What this means is that the buying power of miners actually decreases, and anyone mining without a Rorqual is left at a serious disadvantage. As to the Rorqual, the other thing that could happen to make the Rorqual more viable to keep on grid is simply a reduction in the price of fielding one, which will happen if demand for them goes down significantly, which is exactly what this nerf seems to be doing. We'll probably also see the price of Excavators continue to fall as well.
Julie Hawke 30plus Fidelas Constans 4	Posted - 2017.03.03 21:43:01 - [682] - Quote Cade Windstalker How is it you know about everything in EVE? Your an expert on: Eve Economics Industry Mining - in all space Politics PVP and on and on and on And your walls of text ALWAYS support a CCP position (2500 posts since 2009....) Again, most of the hardcore Rorqual pilots who waited years for their ship to finally mean something are getting shafted and we still dont understand why But then again CCP made a ton of money on skill injectors, new skills and resubbed rorqual accounts. For a ship nerfed twice in 4 months. Go ahead tell me its for the good of the game and that your sorry my game experience has suffered and that I need to just suck it up and live with it.
Prometheus Centuri Interstellar Deshipping Inc. 0	Posted - 2017.03.03 21:46:42 - [683] - Quote Doomchinchilla wrote: WTF I hate CCP now. We're so used to CCP doing something great and then doing something mental to ruin that great thing so nothing new... The 1st nerf was fair and necessary but now I don't see why I would, in any way, use the rorqual. I'll just cheaply carrier rat while alligned and make liquid isk fast. Hassle-free straight to wallet. A single excavator drone is 1.5 bil. So if and enemy comes in and kills 2 drones, it means I've lost a carrier already let alone the rorqual its self. More killmails, more unnecessary efficiency loss at a greater risk (with panic nerf also) to get nerfed mining... No thanks, I'll pass.
Stragak 35	Posted - 2017.03.03 21:54:56 - [684] - Quote Anyone interested in buying Rorquals? Contact me... Ratting with one is now more profitable then Mining with corps mates. "Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio -á-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.03 22:15:05 - [685] - Quote Julie Hawke wrote: Cade Windstalker How is it you know about everything in EVE? Your an expert on: Eve Economics Industry Mining - in all space Politics PVP and on and on and on And your walls of text ALWAYS support a CCP position (2500 posts since 2009....) Again, most of the hardcore Rorqual pilots who waited years for their ship to finally mean something are getting shafted and we still dont understand why But then again CCP made a ton of money on skill injectors, new skills and resubbed rorqual accounts. For a ship nerfed twice in 4 months. Go ahead tell me its for the good of the game and that your sorry my game experience has suffered and that I need to just suck it up and live with it. I'm flattered. No, no wait, that's the sarcasm bouncing off my forehead, my bad. Seriously though, I'm not an expert on anything, I've gone for breadth of experience not depth. The only things I have that other people seem to lack are a general understanding on how a lot of the wider pieces fit together and the ability to separate an evidence based argument from an appeal to emotion. Also no, I haven't always supported CCP. I was pretty against the Serpentis ships keeping their web bonus at the current strength, though I have to admit that hasn't caused anything like the problems I thought it might. Most of the time though if I don't have a constructive argument for or against something I just stay out of it. Most of the time if I don't like something I either look into the numbers and end up proving myself wrong, and thus don't post, or I can't form a coherent argument against what's being proposed and thus don't post. There are enough incoherent arguments on these forums already without me adding mine to the pile. Was kind of surprised that it's been 2.5k posts already though. Time flies! Anyways as to the hardcore Rorqual pilots, or at least the hardcore miners, sitting in a POS doesn't really count as piloting, you really do have my sympathies. It seems like the problem isn't so much you guys as all the combat and ratting pilots who took a look at the numbers and jumped on the Rorqual train. All the High Sec miners who can't really PLEX right now have my sympathies too though, and I'd personally pick their side over someone who can fly a Rorqual and still make a PLEX in <10 hours any day.
oresome eyes Ephesians Copying and Research 5	Posted - 2017.03.03 22:15:37 - [686] - Quote 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
Julie Hawke 30plus Fidelas Constans 6	Posted - 2017.03.03 22:41:36 - [687] - Quote 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.
chez1962 30plus Fidelas Constans 18	Posted - 2017.03.03 22:55:33 - [688] - Quote 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 Iff this is realy true , and i have no reason that its not , CCP should be deeply ashamed.
Cade Windstalker 987	Posted - 2017.03.04 00:34:18 - [689] - Quote 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.
Gisiona TrielGisre Pyromaniacs Anonymous Brotherhood of Spacers 0	Posted - 2017.03.04 00:46:17 - [690] - Quote 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-¦t 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? if this change goes throu as is, and CCP does not release a statement that this is the last nerf only directed to the Rorqual, I will stop paying for the game and only play with a alpha account. CCP-¦s statements about the market just don-¦t add up with the raw data of the client. It as much as contradicts the data entirly. I-¦m ok with the Panic module change as this does not change too much on the Rorqual gameplay for the average Rorqual miner. Another option for saving the mineral market is to limit theore in space, as it has been done with the Ice-belts. turn all belts to anoms that have a respawn timer, Nullsec and Highsec. adjust the timer as neccessary. It gives CCP way better control on the mineral input into the EVE universe and hurts those that mine with multiple rorqs/orcas/propoises (afkable miningplatforms, if in save enough space/allainces) the most while not impacting smaller scale mining Operation of smaller entities.

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-¦t 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-¦t 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-¦t 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-¦t 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 kill Keep 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 kill Keep 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.

Gadzooki Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2017.03.06 19:41:21 - [721] - Quote 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.[/quote] 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?
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 168	Posted - 2017.03.06 20:20:23 - [722] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: 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. I know you are trying to be an edgy dimwit. But travel time is a factor unless the rorqual literally teleports to 0 on rocks instantly and never ever moves. Seriously. You don't know nullsec. You don't know industry. But you can PRETEND to know if you at least tried to think before spouting your baseless arguments. To humor you. Calculate the travel time during an hour with the new cycle durations going 350m/s (VERY generous speed) at 4000m average. Its MUCH closer to a 50% nerf JUST with these changes according to "math" as you like to flaunt. I only lump it down to 35% because people like you wouldnt even bother to think or test anything the moment you hear something out of a range you can immediately agree with. Put in the most minimal effort for your pretentious rambling to have SOME credibility.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.06 20:40:53 - [723] - 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.
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 168	Posted - 2017.03.06 20:49:08 - [724] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. 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
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.06 21:08:39 - [725] - 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.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2017.03.06 22:17:34 - [726] - Quote Those larger rock sizes would be an absolutely massive additional nerf to rorqual yield AND an increase in mining risk. If the drones wind up several KM away from the rorqual mid-cycle, that will dramatically increase time spent "returning" between cycles due to their slow speed (even with a T2 core and nav comps), and it will also increase the opportunity for hunters to shoot/boosh the drones if they can get the drop on a mining operation. If rocks this size goes live, it will be way, way, way worse than the nerfs originally posted in this thread.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 24	Posted - 2017.03.06 22:39:55 - [727] - Quote Here's a rough chart of how bad the nerf could be, depending on the average distance from your rorqual your drone is (which will depend on exactly how big the rocks are, and how close your rorqual is to the edge of the rock): http://i.imgur.com/ymLlHZO.png
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.06 23:39:23 - [728] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: 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. Even at the 10x cost of the multiplier, you're still way below what the price diff is between a rorq and a hulk especially if you're looking at a viable survivable fit for the expected attacker.
Dolly Varden Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.06 23:44:13 - [729] - Quote 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.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 25	Posted - 2017.03.07 00:43:07 - [730] - Quote This is what it will be like to mine the largest Spodumain rock in a colossal anom after March 14th: http://i.imgur.com/C884F6T.png Huge nerf for mining the big spod rocks - although many/most rocks are quite a bit smaller.

Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.07 00:50:41 - [731] - 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.
Cade Windstalker 1009	Posted - 2017.03.07 02:41:19 - [732] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: I know you are trying to be an edgy dimwit. But travel time is a factor unless the rorqual literally teleports to 0 on rocks instantly and never ever moves. Seriously. You don't know nullsec. You don't know industry. But you can PRETEND to know if you at least tried to think before spouting your baseless arguments. ... You literally said "BEFORE travel time issues" so either your math is bad or your phrasing is bad. Either way the issue isn't on my end... Also your math is still questionable because with 4k one way travel and 350m/s travel time I'm getting 68% of pre-patch yield, which is a far cry from a 55% reduction, and still comes out to 51% of yield at release. Nasar Vyron wrote: 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 did, in fact intern, it also says "Game Design and Dev" on my degree. I decided not to get into it because I don't want to have to put up with crap like this for a living, and because I wanted more stable employment. That said, I'm not saying that you should listen to anything I say because I have any kind of game dev experience, I only even bring it up in the sense of "this is how game dev works" and that's just knowledge anyone could get by reading Gamasutra. My general approach to anything I post on here is if you think I'm wrong then please, prove it. Preferably with numbers or some other reproducible example, because in any of these threads you can argue personal experience and intangibles until your bovine of choice comes home. Nasar Vyron wrote: ... 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. ... 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. Two reasons for this. One, optimal to optimal is a better comparison, because actual to actual is going to vary from person to person, sometimes heavily. Besides it's what CCP are actually changing, they're adjusting the hard value that the drones mine. Two, from CCP's own words, they don't like dictating what's optimal and how things are supposed to be used. If they went out and said "we got these numbers moving this often and with this ping and ect" then they've now essentially dictated how they want the ship used. They'd also be inviting a lot of hanging up over fiddly bits when what they're actually doing is saying "here are our numbers, anyone have any glaring errors or things we might have missed?" Unfortunately about half the time the only thing offered up is "OMG nerf!" I think CCP realize it's a nerf guys... Soko99 wrote: Even at the 10x cost of the multiplier, you're still way below what the price diff is between a rorq and a hulk especially if you're looking at a viable survivable fit for the expected attacker. Yes, but 10 is by no means a hard and fast rule, it's just the example I was able to produce from existing numbers. Also most of the cost of the Rorqual is in the drones, not the hull and those are only as expensive as they are due to player demand and a few enterprising individuals playing "how high can we push the market" when they first came out. The Hull of a Rorqual is worth about 2.2b in minerals, another b for a generous fitting, and if you go by prices for those components when the Rorq was announced about 1.2-1.5b for a full flight of drones, which puts it around 5b and pretty darned close to 10x cost for a nicely fitted Hulk plus implants. The real point here though is that, generally speaking, cost scales exponentially while benefit scales linearly. A ship that can mine multiples of what a Hulk can while being better in almost every way should cost quite a few times what a Hulk does. As with anything in Eve the more you can get out of each individual pilot the better off you are.
Cade Windstalker 1009	Posted - 2017.03.07 02:49:00 - [733] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: This is what it will be like to mine the largest Spodumain rock in a colossal anom after March 14th: http://i.imgur.com/C884F6T.png Huge nerf for mining the big spod rocks - although many/most rocks are quite a bit smaller. See, if you want to bring something to CCP's attention this is the way to do it. Go out, test something, show your numbers. This is fantastic, more of this please. Anyone got the rough ISK/Hour numbers with this change compared to Super Ratting and how long it would take you to earn a Super through mining vs ratting? I'm figuring there's probably a ratio here that's a healthy target, but given how easy Rorquals are to multibox I'm seriously wondering how low that'd have to go in actual terms. Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. Heh, more welcomed reception is an understatement. The problem here wasn't self sufficiency, the problem is that Null mineral mining suddenly started wrecking other areas of the game, and there are in fact other areas of the game besides Null where people play and have fun. Null hit the point of mineral self sufficiency and then boiled over, and the next thing CCP knew they had bits of Ore stuck to the ceiling in Jita... The original goal for the Rorqual, if you look at Fozzie's own comments and the original Rorqual thread, was mainly to convince people to get the things out of POS shields. The vast majority of the feedback in the original changes thread was "OMG CCP you are never going to get this thing out of my POS shield. Selling Rorqual if you go through with this!" so CCP made a big big carrot to get people to go out and use and lose Rorquals. Unfortunately they made it so big that all the Carrier Ratters went for it, and the next thing you know there's Ore everywhere...
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 168	Posted - 2017.03.07 02:59:56 - [734] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. 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
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2017.03.07 03:45:13 - [735] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Anyone got the rough ISK/Hour numbers with this change compared to Super Ratting and how long it would take you to earn a Super through mining vs ratting? Right now, a perfect rorqual mines enough ore to build a supercarrier in roughly 40 hours (that's quite rough math, but it's a close approximation, and I'll show my work if anyone gets significantly different numbers). No need to even think about isk per hour, because it's ore, and ore builds supers (technically you eat 1-2 billion in build fees and need the BPCs, though). Post-nerf and pre-asteroid resizing, it would be more like 53 hours of mining to have enough ore for a super. If asteroids are resized this way, but it'll be 20%+ slower on the big spod rocks, and maybe no slower on rocks that didn't get a huge size increase (at a guess, I'd say 20% of the rocks in the asteroid field will be larger enough to significantly reduce yield?). For simplicity's sake, let's say it slows mining down by an average of 10%, which would put you around 58 hours to build a super. (Worth mentioning that this is accounting for super mineral requirements being reduced with the introduction of ECs and EC rigs) I'm less certain of a fair value for expecting income from supercarrier ratting, but I'd guess something like 350 million per hour would be a fair guess, and perhaps even on the low end. If somebody is more confident of numbers here, I'm all ears. Super prices have been volatile, but 20 billion for a hull isn't a crazy number to throw out. Build price is much lower, public keepstar supers are often more expensive, but that's in the ballpark. That would be 57 hours of super ratting to have the isk to buy a carrier (and cover the producer's BPC/build costs + profit). If you're just looking at how much you can sell the ore for, super ratting will probably earn 2-3x as much isk as rorqual mining produces value in ore. But it's trivial to multibox 2-3 rorquals, so... it'll be kinda balanced?
Cptcarter Industrial Player Killers Army of New Eden 3	Posted - 2017.03.07 05:11:10 - [736] - Quote Wrong and your high...Rorq does not mine 1 super in 40hrs..damn so so wrong. Please provide me with proof of you mining a super in 40hrs with one Rorq. Max, max a rorq could mine 250m isk /hr of ore and that is high, that means it would take you 70hr to 80 hrs to build a super.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2017.03.07 05:15:51 - [737] - Quote Cptcarter wrote: Wrong and your high...Rorq does not mine 1 super in 40hrs..damn so so wrong. Please provide me with proof of you mining a super in 40hrs with one Rorq. Max, max a rorq could mine 250m isk /hr of ore and that is high, that means it would take you 70hr to 80 hrs to build a super. SPOILER ALERT: As I made extremely clear, you use the ore to build the super, you do not sell the ore for isk with which to purchase a super. A supercarrier only takes something like 11-12 billion isk worth of ore to build these days (prices are volatile bla bla bla, but it's around there)
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.07 06:07:51 - [738] - 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.
Br4inz Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.03.07 07:29:34 - [739] - Quote Please let Orca's also use Excavator's, this will provide content in High sec as gankers can kill the excavators and create a killmail.
Huydo Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 74	Posted - 2017.03.07 11:17:49 - [740] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png ~46mio/h So i tested it on the test server now. And with almost the same fitting (only tank is different ) i got less than 50mio per hour on mining. Rorq content is official DEAD now. As no one will want to risk a 15b ship in a Belt for less than 50mio per hour.

Rachel Syne Killing with pink power 1	Posted - 2017.03.07 14:09:33 - [741] - Quote Does this change affect ice rocks too?Because if not people can just switch to ice
Cade Windstalker 1016	Posted - 2017.03.07 14:26:31 - [742] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Cptcarter wrote: Wrong and your high...Rorq does not mine 1 super in 40hrs..damn so so wrong. Please provide me with proof of you mining a super in 40hrs with one Rorq. Max, max a rorq could mine 250m isk /hr of ore and that is high, that means it would take you 70hr to 80 hrs to build a super. SPOILER ALERT: As I made extremely clear in the prior post, the time estimation was for using the ore to build the super, not selling the ore for isk with which to purchase a super. A supercarrier only takes something like 11-12 billion isk worth of ore to build these days (prices are volatile bla bla bla, but it's around there) Which is what I was after, because that's part of what drove smart players toward Rorquals and away from ratting. If a player is just going to use their ISK to buy ships anyway then I may as well go for the most time efficient option to acquire those ships. Most major alliances and even a few indy corps doing public contracts offer discounts for Bring Your Own Minerals, which puts a pretty significant multiplier on the Rorqual's value per time spent. Rachel Syne wrote: Does this change affect ice rocks too?Because if not people can just switch to ice It does not, but that would require you to have access to an ice belt, and would result in significant downtime between Ice Belt spawns. Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. In fairness here we are talking about one of the lower end rocks and the largest cases of those rocks. So not every rock is going to have 60 seconds of travel to it. Also not every drone is going to end up out at that 15km point, some will end up right next to your ship. That said, as much as I like the idea of ore belts no longer looking like feeble strings of marbles, I think it might be worth buffing the speed on the Excavators just a little to compensate for what is basically intended as a cosmetic change. Bumping the max speed by 25% would leave them still quite slow but reduce the frustration factor a little and make them slightly harder to 'boosh'.
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 275	Posted - 2017.03.07 14:57:09 - [743] - Quote Huydo wrote: http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png ~46mio/h So i tested it on the test server now. And with almost the same fitting (only tank is different ) i got less than 50mio per hour on mining. Rorq content is official DEAD now. As no one will want to risk a 15b ship in a Belt for less than 50mio per hour. Wow, that's good news. Now remove the siege timer and the PANIC module and the Rorqual will finally be where it should have been in the first place. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 27	Posted - 2017.03.07 15:13:14 - [744] - Quote Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf?
Rachel Syne Killing with pink power 1	Posted - 2017.03.07 17:33:26 - [745] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: Huydo wrote: http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png ~46mio/h So i tested it on the test server now. And with almost the same fitting (only tank is different ) i got less than 50mio per hour on mining. Rorq content is official DEAD now. As no one will want to risk a 15b ship in a Belt for less than 50mio per hour. Wow, that's good news. Now remove the siege timer and the PANIC module and the Rorqual will finally be where it should have been in the first place. Thats spod though what is the isk/h for other smaller rocks i suspect it might be close to what it was before.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14786	Posted - 2017.03.07 17:35:22 - [746] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Philip Shazih Echelon Research Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:10:53 - [747] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. Is there a reason why you first say you want to make them awesome support ships, then make them the best miner in the game so everyone buys them and then nerf the ** out of them? Or did you guys just ** up with the initial yield and didnt think we'd all be having 10 rorqs per anom?
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:17:06 - [748] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. Thanks for the confirmation! (for what its worth, the new anoms ARE way prettier )
Cade Windstalker 1017	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:17:40 - [749] - Quote Note what I was talking about with the over-supply in this graph from the February MER. After the Rorqual changes the value mined shoots up to almost double before the Rorqual, and value destroyed only scoots up slightly in response. Philip Shazih wrote: Is there a reason why you first say you want to make them awesome support ships, then make them the best miner in the game so everyone buys them and then nerf the ** out of them? Or did you guys just up with the initial yield and didnt think we'd all be having 10 rorqs per anom? Fozzie already answer that back here in this post: Quote:** 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.
Tobias Frank 28	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:40:40 - [750] - Quote Lets be honest, the inital Rorqual redesign was a complete failure, the whole dronemining concept is just ridiculous, inculding the pricing for the excavators. You are just leaving a ton of dissapointed players who spent huge amounts of time and money to train into and obtain certain ships and equipment. Really frustraiting and not funny.

Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:43:35 - [751] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Note what I was talking about with the over-supply in this graph from the February MER. After the Rorqual changes the value mined shoots up to almost double before the Rorqual, and value destroyed only scoots up slightly in response. The mining line in that graph doesn't include rorqual mining, because drone mining amounts aren't reported in the tools used for the MER. The increase is only from more people using mining lasers. Think about that: the graph you linked includes 0 ore mined by rorquals. Zero. None. CCP does have that data though, imagine what it must look like...
Fonac Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 117	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:50:34 - [752] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. hmm. Are you sure you're happy with the results you're getting? Getting ~50 mil an hour, munching on a spodu rock seems incredibly low.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 29	Posted - 2017.03.07 18:53:30 - [753] - Quote Fonac wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. hmm. Are you sure you're happy with the results you're getting? Getting ~50 mil an hour, munching on a spodu rock seems incredibly low. Most rocks in the anom are close to the same size as before, and on those rocks, the only income reduction will likely be the expected 25% yield nerf. Only a few of the rocks are so big that yield will take a hit like that. Also, mineral prices could easily rise after these prices, as demand remains high (caps + supers online) and supply plummets as people mine less and produce less ore when they do mine.
Arehm Bukandara Rowan Trade Guild 2	Posted - 2017.03.07 19:32:55 - [754] - Quote TBH, these changes are really great. Good job, Fozzie!
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 156	Posted - 2017.03.07 20:48:51 - [755] - Quote Arehm Bukandara wrote: TBH, these changes are really great. Good job, Fozzie! Troll
Rina Cotte Negative or Positive 1	Posted - 2017.03.07 20:51:48 - [756] - Quote I know this maybe off topic! I'm color blind and trying to get into PI. But as you know the colors I see are very limited. Can we add a feature for this type of game play for the community?>
Arehm Bukandara Rowan Trade Guild 2	Posted - 2017.03.07 21:46:41 - [757] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Fonac wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. hmm. Are you sure you're happy with the results you're getting? Getting ~50 mil an hour, munching on a spodu rock seems incredibly low. Most rocks in the anom are close to the same size as before, and on those rocks, the only income reduction will likely be the expected 25% yield nerf. Only a few of the rocks are so big that yield will take a hit like that. Also, mineral prices could easily rise after these prices, as demand remains high (caps + supers online) and supply plummets as people mine less and produce less ore when they do mine. This is why these changes are great
Cade Windstalker 1020	Posted - 2017.03.07 21:58:23 - [758] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Note what I was talking about with the over-supply in this graph from the February MER. After the Rorqual changes the value mined shoots up to almost double before the Rorqual, and value destroyed only scoots up slightly in response. The mining line in that graph doesn't include rorqual mining, because drone mining amounts aren't reported in the tools used for the MER. The increase is only from more people using mining lasers. Think about that: the graph you linked includes 0 ore mined by rorquals. Zero. None. CCP does have that data though, imagine what it must look like... I believe this is not correct, considering this is what the graph looked like when January's report was released and now there's suddenly a distinct spike right after that convenient note about drone mining metrics being bugged. CCP Fozzie or someone else will have to confirm if my suspicion about the report being fixed is correct.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 32	Posted - 2017.03.07 22:26:35 - [759] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Note what I was talking about with the over-supply in this graph from the February MER. After the Rorqual changes the value mined shoots up to almost double before the Rorqual, and value destroyed only scoots up slightly in response. The mining line in that graph doesn't include rorqual mining, because drone mining amounts aren't reported in the tools used for the MER. The increase is only from more people using mining lasers. Think about that: the graph you linked includes 0 ore mined by rorquals. Zero. None. CCP does have that data though, imagine what it must look like... I believe this is not correct, considering this is what the graph looked like when January's report was released and now there's suddenly a distinct spike right after that convenient note about drone mining metrics being bugged. CCP Fozzie or someone else will have to confirm if my suspicion about the report being fixed is correct. All you have to do is look at the Delve numbers. I guarantee you GSF isn't producing 20 trillion+++ but only mining 1-2 trillion. Drone mining is bugged, it's not included in the graph, it says so in the graph itself. You still see a spike, IMO, because more people are doing mining of all kinds since all of the mechanics got changed and it's fresh. Also because people like me bring a few barges with their rorqual(s), since it's very little extra effort/SP required for more isk/hour.
Gisele Serebriakova Norman's Meat Market 1	Posted - 2017.03.07 22:39:39 - [760] - Quote Fonac wrote: Getting ~50 mil an hour, munching on a spodu rock seems incredibly low. This is not too relevant. You mine because you have 3-7 accounts already doing other things; PI, manufacturing/research slots, hauling etc. Those activities produce huge amounts of ISK but are limited in the sense that the only way you can do more of it is to create another account. At some point it's better to just start mining then get 11 more production slots from an efficiency perspective. Either that or it's just a game and I like to drink.

Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.08 00:28:15 - [761] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: In fairness here we are talking about one of the lower end rocks and the largest cases of those rocks. So not every rock is going to have 60 seconds of travel to it. Also not every drone is going to end up out at that 15km point, some will end up right next to your ship. That said, as much as I like the idea of ore belts no longer looking like feeble strings of marbles, I think it might be worth buffing the speed on the Excavators just a little to compensate for what is basically intended as a cosmetic change. Bumping the max speed by 25% would leave them still quite slow but reduce the frustration factor a little and make them slightly harder to 'boosh'. This shows me how little you know of what you're talking about. Ark and Bistot are still the highest value (lowest amounts in belts too) and spod and crokite are the same price.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 156	Posted - 2017.03.08 00:31:54 - [762] - Quote Soko99 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: In fairness here we are talking about one of the lower end rocks and the largest cases of those rocks. So not every rock is going to have 60 seconds of travel to it. Also not every drone is going to end up out at that 15km point, some will end up right next to your ship. That said, as much as I like the idea of ore belts no longer looking like feeble strings of marbles, I think it might be worth buffing the speed on the Excavators just a little to compensate for what is basically intended as a cosmetic change. Bumping the max speed by 25% would leave them still quite slow but reduce the frustration factor a little and make them slightly harder to 'boosh'. This shows me how little you know of what you're talking about. Ark and Bistot are still the highest value (lowest amounts in belts too) and spod and crokite are the same price. It depends on refining capabilities. Pretty sure Spoud is best for refining based on output
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.08 00:32:04 - [763] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. So can you confirm how you expect people to use rorqs? I know you said earlier that you guys made the yield purposefully high to get people to use it. But I really don't know how you guys could have made such a HUGE mistake as to require it to be nerfed by 25% and then another 55% of that. So either, you guys changed your idea of what you want the rorq to be. OR you guys did it as a cash grab for all those that paid for injectors. In either case. I believe it's a shady practice.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.08 00:35:24 - [764] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: Soko99 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: In fairness here we are talking about one of the lower end rocks and the largest cases of those rocks. So not every rock is going to have 60 seconds of travel to it. Also not every drone is going to end up out at that 15km point, some will end up right next to your ship. That said, as much as I like the idea of ore belts no longer looking like feeble strings of marbles, I think it might be worth buffing the speed on the Excavators just a little to compensate for what is basically intended as a cosmetic change. Bumping the max speed by 25% would leave them still quite slow but reduce the frustration factor a little and make them slightly harder to 'boosh'. This shows me how little you know of what you're talking about. Ark and Bistot are still the highest value (lowest amounts in belts too) and spod and crokite are the same price. It depends on refining capabilities. Pretty sure Spoud is best for refining based on output I'm using compressed as it's the way rorquals mine..
HarlyQ harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 128	Posted - 2017.03.08 01:48:23 - [765] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch. If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf? The impact on drone mining is expected and we did our internal practical yield testing with the new asteroid sizes to make sure that the resulting m3/hour were something we'd be happy with. On another quick note, we've added an increase to lock ranges for the Covetor and Exhumers. +5km for the Covetor, Skiff, and Mackinaw, and +10km for the Hulk. So it is official you guys are morons. When you do this type of dumb game mechanics bullshit it really ruins the game how about you guys bring back the one person that knew what he was doing the economist. He would have yold you guys back in December that you guys are dumb for breaking the rorqual so bad then nerfing it to **. Also ** bigger rocks with 15km drone orbits you guys are stupid. Just come out and say you guys dont like the multi boxing rorquals. Also dont worry ill figure out how to beat your dumb bullshit rocksize. God this is stupid.
Cade Windstalker 1022	Posted - 2017.03.08 03:21:27 - [766] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: All you have to do is look at the Delve numbers. I guarantee you GSF isn't producing 20 trillion+++ but only mining 1-2 trillion. Drone mining is bugged, it's not included in the graph, it says so in the graph itself. You still see a spike, IMO, because more people are doing mining of all kinds since all of the mechanics got changed and it's fresh. Also because people like me bring a few barges with their rorqual(s), since it's very little extra effort/SP required for more isk/hour. Check the same months from last month's report vs this month's. I mean there's a spike on the graph when you compare the same months on last month's report and this month's. The bit on the graph that says drone mining is bugged is pointing to a single point where there's a dip in the actual value as opposed to the moving average. I'm pretty sure this month's MER is including drone mining correctly, considering last month's shows January about half a trillion lower than this month. The "Produced" value counts final end product value, not the value of the minerals going into it. The "Produced" value is way higher than mined and destroyed as well, not just in Delve but for those graphs for the entire game. Soko99 wrote: This shows me how little you know of what you're talking about. Ark and Bistot are still the highest value (lowest amounts in belts too) and spod and crokite are the same price. Spod is only even with Crokite because there's a Mex shortage and the price of other minerals has dropped. Normally Spod is below the ABCs in value and is likely to return to that value after the Rorqual influx drops off. My core point remains though, not every rock is going to be that big, the less common ores will tend to have smaller rocks, and even then not every drone will be on the far side of the rock when they return. Soko99 wrote: So can you confirm how you expect people to use rorqs? I know you said earlier that you guys made the yield purposefully high to get people to use it. But I really don't know how you guys could have made such a HUGE mistake as to require it to be nerfed by 25% and then another 55% of that. So either, you guys changed your idea of what you want the rorq to be. OR you guys did it as a cash grab for all those that paid for injectors. In either case. I believe it's a shady practice. My personal theory is they didn't expect people to drop Carrier/Super/Titan ratting to multibox Rorquals, because historically people have railed against mining as being boring and low value. Unfortunately people took a look at the Rorqual, realized they could multibox a bunch of them as opposed to running 1-2 Supers, and immediately went out and bought Rorquals. If you check the original feedback thread for the original Rorqual changes the vast majority of the feedback is "OMG no one will ever take one of these out into a belt!" and that was with the old yield and when the drones were estimated at around 500m each. Given that it's hardly surprising CCP high-balled things.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 34	Posted - 2017.03.08 03:47:10 - [767] - Quote HarlyQ wrote: Also dont worry ill figure out how to beat your dumb bullshit rocksize. God this is stupid. Add a vindicator to a rorqual sitting on a big rock, web the ** out of your drones so they get stuck between you and the rock can start/end cycles without moving. You might also need another web on each drone from the rorq, but actually I think that would work. :D Cade Windstalker wrote:** I'm pretty sure this month's MER is including drone mining correctly, considering last month's shows January about half a trillion lower than this month. According to the MER, Delve was responsible for 1,658 billion isk worth of mining in February. Could that be true if drone mining data was included? Let's assume the average rorqual mines 150 million isk worth of ore per hour (mine earn more, but some have worse skills). That would mean 11,053 hours worth of rorqual mining in February in Delve, or 394 rorqual-hours per day. I live in Delve, so I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are Rorquals mining in Delve 23 hours a day. We have complete time zone coverage and lots of active miners, so that implies that there are an average of 17 rorquals mining in Delve at any given time on any given day in February. Less than one per system. 17 average rorquals mining each hour x 23 hours in the day x 28 days in February x 150 million isk per hour = 1.6 trillion. And that would mean literally no ore was mined by exhumers/barges, but there are tons of them out there too (I've seen it!!) As is hopefully clear, that's a laughably low estimate. There are regularly more than 10 rorquals in one anom in the systems that I mine in. There are 25,000 pilots in GSF. If you fly around delve I'd guess you would find an average more like 10x that high, which would, unsurprisingly, match both the economic production data and the hypothesis that drone mining data isn't included in the MER. Basically, which do you think is true: there are on average ~15 rorquals mining at any given time in the 89 GSF (+allied) systems Delve (MER includes drone data), or more like 100 to 150 rorquals mining at any given time in Delve (MER does not include drone data).
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 34	Posted - 2017.03.08 03:51:10 - [768] - Quote If only 1.6 tirllion isk worth of ore was mined in Delve, I mined close to 4% of all ore mined in Delve in February. I doubt that very, very much.
Chriss Kross Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.03.08 04:44:12 - [769] - Quote I have to believe that the nerf is not going to fix the problem. The real issue is the Mexallon bottleneck, the corp my main is in is flipping the belt at least once a day to build supers, yet a lot of our ore is shipped out because all we need is the mex, if it does not have mex then it really is not useful, thus flooding market with ore we do not need. Nerfing the yield by 25%, adding in more travel time for the drones, increasing the rock size to make the drones orbits bigger to further bloat the travel time, and further increasing distance between rocks will not prevent us from killing the belts and sending ore out. Fix mexallon so that we can get meet our goals and then we might not repeatedly mine out belts. Hell we might even have time to go and do other things in game than to try to get enough mexallon to keep our supers flowing out in a reasonable time frame. Do I think the nerf can be avoided? nope, its going to happen I just think in another month or two we will see another nerf of some sort to mining and especially the rorqual because the problem is still not fixed. I suppose that if you nerf the rorq down to the point where the hulk can out yield it then people will stop using it again but I do not really call that a fix to the problem.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 77	Posted - 2017.03.08 05:13:21 - [770] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Spod is only even with Crokite because there's a Mex shortage and the price of other minerals has dropped. Normally Spod is below the ABCs in value and is likely to return to that value after the Rorqual influx drops off. Speculation is just that.. so don't present it as fact.

Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 156	Posted - 2017.03.08 05:15:31 - [771] - Quote Soko99 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Spod is only even with Crokite because there's a Mex shortage and the price of other minerals has dropped. Normally Spod is below the ABCs in value and is likely to return to that value after the Rorqual influx drops off. Speculation is just that.. so don't present it as fact. I mean many scientific facts start as speculation soooo
Cade Windstalker 1025	Posted - 2017.03.08 15:16:28 - [772] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: According to the MER, Delve was responsible for 1,658 billion isk worth of mining in February. Could that be true if drone mining data was included? I'm just going to quote this because I think you make a fairly convincing argument for drone data not being included in the per-region numbers. That said, how else do you explain the discrepancy on the large graph between the February MER and the January one? It's very possible that CCP fixed the numbers for the big graph but either forgot or didn't have time to fix the numbers for the smaller one. Considering we were recently informed those numbers were broken, and no previous graphs that I've checked have any kind of shift like this I can't think of another reasonable explanation. Further supporting this data-split idea, if you sum up all the regional mining totals you get 21.694 trillion, which when added up and divided by 28 gives an average mining total per day of .77t ISK, which is about where the average was hovering on that graph from January, and well below the displayed average of about 1.7-1.8t per day. Soko99 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Spod is only even with Crokite because there's a Mex shortage and the price of other minerals has dropped. Normally Spod is below the ABCs in value and is likely to return to that value after the Rorqual influx drops off. Speculation is just that.. so don't present it as fact. What part of "likely" is presenting that as a fact? Also you keep nit-picking instead of addressing the core point of what I'm saying, which is a bit rude and missing the point entirely. Chriss Kross wrote: I have to believe that the nerf is not going to fix the problem. The real issue is the Mexallon bottleneck, the corp my main is in is flipping the belt at least once a day to build supers, yet a lot of our ore is shipped out because all we need is the mex, if it does not have mex then it really is not useful, thus flooding market with ore we do not need. Nerfing the yield by 25%, adding in more travel time for the drones, increasing the rock size to make the drones orbits bigger to further bloat the travel time, and further increasing distance between rocks will not prevent us from killing the belts and sending ore out. Fix mexallon so that we can get meet our goals and then we might not repeatedly mine out belts. Hell we might even have time to go and do other things in game than to try to get enough mexallon to keep our supers flowing out in a reasonable time frame. Do I think the nerf can be avoided? nope, its going to happen I just think in another month or two we will see another nerf of some sort to mining and especially the rorqual because the problem is still not fixed. I suppose that if you nerf the rorq down to the point where the hulk can out yield it then people will stop using it again but I do not really call that a fix to the problem. Take a look at the value mined from the latest MER vs the value destroyed and you'll see why this doesn't work. It's not just the bottleneck, though that is part of what's crashing some minerals harder than others, it's that the overall supply of minerals into the market is out pacing what the game can use. That's why Mex prices have leveled off and are actually down from last month instead of continuing to shoot higher. It also assumes that absolutely everyone mining with a Rorqual is doing so 23/7 and clearing out entire ore anoms, which I can tell you anecdotally is not the case. Plenty of people are mining with a relatively small number of Rorquals and swapping anoms when the rock they want is out since the Anom will just despawn in 3 days and they won't have to cycle back around to it before then.
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 92	Posted - 2017.03.08 15:18:50 - [773] - Quote For those asking for the Mex' 'bottleneck' to also be solved in Null..... This would also heavily impact the majority of High Sec mining! For that's therefore where the additional Mex comes from. It doesn't have to - but it does. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Cade Windstalker 1025	Posted - 2017.03.08 15:39:13 - [774] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: For those asking for the Mex' 'bottleneck' to also be solved in Null..... This would also heavily impact the majority of High Sec mining! For that's therefore where the additional Mex comes from. It doesn't have to - but it does. This is just bunk. The total volume of Mex coming out of High Sec isn't great enough to plug the bottleneck, and besides the two best High Sec rocks for Mex also produce a fair amount of Tri and Pyrite or Trit and Isogen respectively.
ISD Chanisa Nemes ISD Community Communications Liaisons 87	Posted - 2017.03.08 16:02:04 - [775] - Quote Removed some off-topic posts ISD Chanisa Nemes Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 156	Posted - 2017.03.08 18:15:33 - [776] - Quote ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote: Removed some off-topic posts [img]http://i.giphy.com/26FmPR9KSqjRCuJUI.gif[/img] Dear lord the GIF
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3173	Posted - 2017.03.08 18:38:55 - [777] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: For those asking for the Mex' 'bottleneck' to also be solved in Null..... This would also heavily impact the majority of High Sec mining! For that's therefore where the additional Mex comes from. It doesn't have to - but it does. I'd be interested in knowing if our industry genius did import the missing Mex because that should technically also crush the HS market who still need it's MEX to produce stuff.
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 92	Posted - 2017.03.08 20:37:11 - [778] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Marcus Tedric wrote: For those asking for the Mex' 'bottleneck' to also be solved in Null..... This would also heavily impact the majority of High Sec mining! For that's therefore where the additional Mex comes from. It doesn't have to - but it does. I'd be interested in knowing if our industry genius did import the missing Mex because that should technically also crush the HS market who still need it's MEX to produce stuff. Well - I've imported Mex to sell in Delve! Let alone for my own use - it's simply more efficient that way. HS needs Mex too - but that's why all the Miners in HS mine Plag' - and therefore generate extra Mex'. If NS stopped needing Mex', either as Compressed Plag', or even the refined material itself, then HS mining would once more suffer. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
ISD Chanisa Nemes ISD Community Communications Liaisons 90	Posted - 2017.03.08 21:18:20 - [779] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote: Removed some off-topic posts Dear lord the GIF I've found that I get a +5 to forum moderation when I post a gif along with my rule statements ISD Chanisa Nemes Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Cade Windstalker 1025	Posted - 2017.03.08 22:47:23 - [780] - Quote ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote: I've found that I get a +5 to forum moderation when I post a gif along with my rule statements Your gif game is amazing xD Please send help, can't stop laughing every time I see that gif Marcus Tedric wrote: Well - I've imported Mex to sell in Delve! Let alone for my own use - it's simply more efficient that way. HS needs Mex too - but that's why all the Miners in HS mine Plag' - and therefore generate extra Mex'. If NS stopped needing Mex', either as Compressed Plag', or even the refined material itself, then HS mining would once more suffer. People in High Sec will mine whatever is most profitable, and the crash in the value of other minerals is hurting High Sec more than the small bump in Mex is helping them. Case and point, the value of Compressed Viscous Pyroxeres is actually dropping compared to pre-Rorqual changes. Same goes for the other qualities, as well as uncompressed ore. It enjoyed a very brief uptick in value when the Mex bottleneck was first starting to hit but before the general mineral crash started and now it's lost more value than its gained.

Tommy Robotic The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.08 22:59:24 - [781] - Quote This is obviously getting over-tuned to fix their mistake and is not intended to be a long term solution. ISK is getting devalued which directly effects CCP's bottom line. Those that can fly supers are going to go back to super ratting and those that can't weren't rorqual mining. The little guys that were rorq mining for an hour or two a day are going to be the ones that pay the heaviest price for investing in a decent nullsec income activity.
HarlyQ harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation 128	Posted - 2017.03.09 07:21:24 - [782] - Quote ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote: Brigadine Ferathine wrote: ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote: Removed some off-topic posts [img]http://i.giphy.com/26FmPR9KSqjRCuJUI.gif[/img] Dear lord the GIF I've found that I get a +5 to forum moderation when I post a gif along with my rule statements All you need now is a pubbie wave and we are back on reddit.
Huydo Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 74	Posted - 2017.03.09 10:34:40 - [783] - Quote So Rorq Conten is dead now. FC what do? http://i.imgur.com/NQm6McI.png
Slumberg Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 9	Posted - 2017.03.09 14:15:06 - [784] - Quote Thumbs down to the aesthetic change of larger asteroids. With their current size it's easy to lose Excavators to booshers, but if you're paying attention it's preventable. With this change there will be no counter gameplay to that. There have been plenty rushing to sell off rorqs since the announcemnt, and most of them point to the rock size change above anything else. I guess that will help buoy mineral prices, but there's got to be a better way than having 5-10b worth of totally defenseless drones ambling around an asteroid 15km from you.
Cade Windstalker 1028	Posted - 2017.03.09 16:29:34 - [785] - Quote Tommy Robotic wrote: This is obviously getting over-tuned to fix their mistake and is not intended to be a long term solution. ISK is getting devalued which directly effects CCP's bottom line. Those that can fly supers are going to go back to super ratting and those that can't weren't rorqual mining. The little guys that were rorq mining for an hour or two a day are going to be the ones that pay the heaviest price for investing in a decent nullsec income activity. Small correction here, ISK is fine and is actually increasing in value as the ISK supply constricts due to people swapping from Carrier ratting and other ISK printing activities to mining. What's dropping in value is ore and minerals. Slumberg wrote: Thumbs down to the aesthetic change of larger asteroids. With their current size it's easy to lose Excavators to booshers, but if you're paying attention it's preventable. With this change there will be no counter gameplay to that. There have been plenty rushing to sell off rorqs since the announcemnt, and most of them point to the rock size change above anything else. I guess that will help buoy mineral prices, but there's got to be a better way than having 5-10b worth of totally defenseless drones ambling around an asteroid 15km from you. Couple points here. First off, if the sell off continues it's not gonna be even 5b in drones pretty soon. Second, the larger rocks make it harder to run off with a full flight all at once, and make it more likely that you're going to bump a rock trying to do so, so there's some trade off here. It's not all nerf. Plus it gets less worthwhile to run around yoinking drones if they're no longer worth 1.5b each. Lastly the Rorqual sell off started well before the rock size changes were decided as going in on this patch, it's mostly the drop in value and people wanting to 'cash out' their investment while they can.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 79	Posted - 2017.03.10 00:44:17 - [786] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Small correction here, ISK is fine and is actually increasing in value as the ISK supply constricts due to people swapping from Carrier ratting and other ISK printing activities to mining. What's dropping in value is ore and minerals. So.. then what's the problem with minerals dropping? If it's not decreasing the value of isk, why was it such a big problem that low end minerals are just that. low end and cheap? Cade Windstalker wrote: Couple points here. First off, if the sell off continues it's not gonna be even 5b in drones pretty soon. Second, the larger rocks make it harder to run off with a full flight all at once, and make it more likely that you're going to bump a rock trying to do so, so there's some trade off here. It's not all nerf. Plus it gets less worthwhile to run around yoinking drones if they're no longer worth 1.5b each. Lastly the Rorqual sell off started well before the rock size changes were decided as going in on this patch, it's mostly the drop in value and people wanting to 'cash out' their investment while they can. So because they're now less than 5bil for a flight, thus might not be worth stealing, so it's ok to introduce a mechanic that's not counterable and is completely unnecessary? interesting logic. Your last point. yeah.. values are dropping because people don't want ot be stuck with something they paid 10bil for only to have it turn into 3bil overnight because of a dumb game change mechanic by CCP. A reasonable expectation
Huydo Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 74	Posted - 2017.03.10 09:49:01 - [787] - Quote I had some time yesterday. And this is what i get from my rorq on TQ now ( mined exactly 60min ) http://i.imgur.com/uQ00uDc.png And this is on SISI ( 60 min of mining again ) http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png
Sisi Collins School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 11:37:10 - [788] - Quote Huydo wrote: I had some time yesterday. And this is what i get from my rorq on TQ now ( mined exactly 60min ) http://i.imgur.com/uQ00uDc.png And this is on SISI ( 60 min of mining again ) http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf.
Sisi Collins School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 11:45:10 - [789] - Quote Sisi Collins wrote: Huydo wrote: I had some time yesterday. And this is what i get from my rorq on TQ now ( mined exactly 60min ) http://i.imgur.com/uQ00uDc.png And this is on SISI ( 60 min of mining again ) http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3179	Posted - 2017.03.10 13:52:44 - [790] - Quote Tommy Robotic wrote: This is obviously getting over-tuned to fix their mistake and is not intended to be a long term solution. ISK is getting devalued which directly effects CCP's bottom line. Those that can fly supers are going to go back to super ratting and those that can't weren't rorqual mining. The little guys that were rorq mining for an hour or two a day are going to be the ones that pay the heaviest price for investing in a decent nullsec income activity. But I though the narrative was that carrier/super ratting was dead because of fighter sig and rat aggro change. Can someone tell me what the narrative is supposed to be now?

Saveritas Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc. 6	Posted - 2017.03.10 13:56:08 - [791] - Quote Basically, in one patch, they try to lower the immense amounts of bounties claimed (By making carrier ratting less attractive, you'll lose more fighters and make less isk/hour) and fight the immense increase of ore harvested, because one look at the economic reports should tell you; things have been spiraling out of control lately. I don't believe this to be the correct way of going about it, but it's the CCP way.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 13:59:55 - [792] - Quote Prepare for pointless 600 word dissertation heralding the necessity of the overnerf using: unsubstantiated guesswork based on 'maths' inaccurate representation of best-case values while plain ignoring information that would have a significant impact on said values sketchy understanding of markets no understanding of nullsec production blinkered statements regarding anom mining cherry-picking values and statements from the few (trolls included) who seem to support the changes: and vague statements regarding the very mechanics we're bemoaning the unfairness of, based on what 'my friends told me' rather than any actual experience.
Trevize Demerzel 82	Posted - 2017.03.10 14:59:01 - [793] - Quote aside from the mining nerfs..... I feel compelled to specifically call out AGAIN, that changing the Rorq such that it must have a Rock locked to use the PANIC module will NOT accomplish the desired result. One of the most common uses of an attack jump HIC Rorq is to jump into a mining belt to get other Rorqs! What's in said mining belt? Rocks! DUH. -
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 15:10:41 - [794] - Quote Sisi Collins wrote: try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf. It shouldn't matter about the isk value of the item, we should be comparing quantities there, and from the look of things, the quantity's pretty severely diminished. These values are of course subjective, but if the pilot set everything bar the actual quality of the ore right (distance from roid and similar quantity in roid being the 2 that spring to mind) these values are pretty distressing.
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 183	Posted - 2017.03.10 15:48:22 - [795] - Quote Can you change the restrictions to the PANIC module from having an asteroid locked to being in proximity of an asteroid? (within 30km of?) I'm just asking this for the rare situation where a rorqual chooses not to have an industrial core fitted but still mines with drones and if you then jam it out (in industrial core jams are useless) The rorqual won't be able to PANIC in the belt.
Cade Windstalker 1057	Posted - 2017.03.10 15:58:56 - [796] - Quote Soko99 wrote: So.. then what's the problem with minerals dropping? If it's not decreasing the value of isk, why was it such a big problem that low end minerals are just that. low end and cheap? Because it's wrecking the ability of anyone in High Sec or anyone without a Rorqual or a fleet of Exhumbers to make a living from mining. Also, based on the numbers we players can see from CCP, it looks like the total volume of ore is currently vastly exceeding the amount being used. That sort of over-supply isn't good for the economy or for the long-term viability of mining as a profession. Soko99 wrote: So because they're now less than 5bil for a flight, thus might not be worth stealing, so it's ok to introduce a mechanic that's not counterable and is completely unnecessary? interesting logic. Your last point. yeah.. values are dropping because people don't want ot be stuck with something they paid 10bil for only to have it turn into 3bil overnight because of a dumb game change mechanic by CCP. A reasonable expectation You can absolutely counter the mechanic, either scram your own drones to make them boosh-proof or keep an eye on local and recall your drones when someone shows up. Between a combination of the two you should still be able to get your drones within range of a normal T2 scram even if they start 15km away before a CD can land on grid and start booshing. As for the value of these drones anything in Eve is pretty much always "early adopter beware" because the price always drops over time. Sisi Collins wrote: Huydo wrote: I had some time yesterday. And this is what i get from my rorq on TQ now ( mined exactly 60min ) http://i.imgur.com/uQ00uDc.png And this is on SISI ( 60 min of mining again ) http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf. CCP announced a 25% nerf to ideal yields, they flat out say in the first post on this thread that the change is to ideal yield. jizzah wrote: Prepare for pointless 600 word dissertation heralding the necessity of the overnerf using: unsubstantiated guesswork based on 'maths' inaccurate representation of best-case values while plain ignoring information that would have a significant impact on said values sketchy understanding of markets no understanding of nullsec production blinkered statements regarding anom mining cherry-picking values and statements from the few (trolls included) who seem to support the changes: and vague statements regarding the very mechanics we're bemoaning the unfairness of, based on what 'my friends told me' rather than any actual experience. You forgot passive aggressive ranting in place of an actual debate and misconstruing of arguments and evidence you disagree with in place of evidence. Also apparent abuse of the list function instead of adding new bullet points. Wow
Sisi Collins School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 16:03:34 - [797] - Quote jizzah wrote: Sisi Collins wrote: try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf. It shouldn't matter about the isk value of the item, we should be comparing quantities there, and from the look of things, the quantity's pretty severely diminished. These values are of course subjective, but if the pilot set everything bar the actual quality of the ore right (distance from roid and similar quantity in roid being the 2 that spring to mind) these values are pretty distressing. If going in ore volume mined per hour, on SISI it's 4 times less than on TQ now for spodumain. These figures are not distressing, they are horrible and shocked. And why Devs are not explaining what logic they used to make 10B capital industrial ship mines less than 300mil T2 barge hulk : ) I'm really want to hear CCP response to that.
Sisi Collins School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 16:09:34 - [798] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Sisi Collins wrote: Huydo wrote: I had some time yesterday. And this is what i get from my rorq on TQ now ( mined exactly 60min ) http://i.imgur.com/uQ00uDc.png And this is on SISI ( 60 min of mining again ) http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf. CCP announced a 25% nerf to ideal yields, they flat out say in the first post on this thread that the change is to ideal yield. ] Ideal? Please go to SISI and just sit on spodumain rock at 0 for 1hour mining and than to TQ in same conditions. IT will not be ~25%. What ever you will say it will not be a 25%, it will not be even 30-40%, you will get ore as you are mining on hulk. Devs choose to hide real information from people. who are lazy to go into test server and see what they will get with 14 March patch Reading your posts I'm more thinking you are living in different universe and playing on your own EvE sever : )
Winter Archipelago Autumn Industrial Enterprises 834	Posted - 2017.03.10 16:29:18 - [799] - Quote "Before" Image: Bright Spod. "After" Image: Regular Spod. Are the Bright Spod asteroids not significantly smaller than regular Spod asteroids already? This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2017.03.10 16:30:26 - [800] - Quote A reminder for anyone panicked without having tested themselves: In a colossal nullsec anom, only some rocks are gigantic. Most rocks are still small. This is not a blanket 75% rorqual nerf. On the largest spod, without drone speed rigs and proper placement, I do believe you'll see yields fall by 75% vs. current values. But most rocks will be small enough for little yield reduction beyond the advertised 25% excavator nerf. And if you pack on drone speed rigs and park your rorqual intelligently, it won't be as bad. Spoiler Alert: Optimize your mining fleets by bringing barges to hit the big rocks from the beginning of the anom, use your rorquals on small rocks first.

Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 36	Posted - 2017.03.10 16:38:39 - [801] - Quote Winter Archipelago wrote: "Before" Image: Bright Spod. "After" Image: Regular Spod. Are the Bright Spod asteroids not significantly smaller than regular Spod asteroids already? This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I don't think this impacts testing, so long as you look at ore amount instead of estimated isk. Whether the ores are regular/+ 5%/+10% is determined by the security status of the system. At certain security breakpoints, all of the ore switches to one variety, but I think it LOOKS the same. AFAIK from my casual observation, the size of the rocks is otherwise identical. The ore itself has identical volume too. I could be wrong, as I haven't extensively tested it, but I have no reason to be concerned from jump. It's hard to find anoms on the test server, so it's not surprising that people testing on sisi can't always match the "flavor" of ore they use on tranquility.
Winter Archipelago Autumn Industrial Enterprises 834	Posted - 2017.03.10 17:11:11 - [802] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Winter Archipelago wrote: "Before" Image: Bright Spod. "After" Image: Regular Spod. Are the Bright Spod asteroids not significantly smaller than regular Spod asteroids already? This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I don't think this impacts testing, so long as you look at ore amount instead of estimated isk. Whether the ores are regular/+ 5%/+10% is determined by the security status of the system. At certain security breakpoints, all of the ore switches to one variety, but I think it LOOKS the same. AFAIK from my casual observation, the size of the rocks is otherwise identical. The ore itself has identical volume too. I could be wrong, as I haven't extensively tested it, but I have no reason to be concerned from jump. It's hard to find anoms on the test server, so it's not surprising that people testing on sisi can't always match the "flavor" of ore they use on tranquility. I'm not looking at the estimated ISK, but at the actual quantities of mined ore. The size of the asteroids themselves is different, and if a person goes after a Bright Spod rock in one place that's small and the Spodzilla on the test server, it's going to make a huge difference in yield. I don't have a Rorqual of my own to test it with on my own, unfortunately, but without having seen the actual tests conducted by my own eyes, I'm extremely skeptical as to the true use of this test. For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
Tommy Robotic The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.10 17:15:38 - [803] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: A reminder for anyone panicked without having tested themselves: In a colossal nullsec anom, only some rocks are gigantic. Most rocks are still small. This is not a blanket 75% rorqual nerf. On the largest spod, without drone speed rigs and proper placement, I do believe you'll see yields fall by 75% vs. current values. But most rocks will be small enough for little yield reduction beyond the advertised 25% excavator nerf. And if you pack on drone speed rigs and park your rorqual intelligently, it won't be as bad. Spoiler Alert: Optimize your mining fleets by bringing barges to hit the big rocks from the beginning of the anom, use your rorquals on small rocks first. Spod is where the majority of the m3 is in the colossal so you will need the majority of your fleet in Hulks working the spod. If this is CCP's response to keep a dozen rorq's from flipping colossals all day, ok but then don't nerf the drone yield amounts. It'd have had the desired effect while allowing the players that are working solo or small groups to have a good isk/hr while reducing the income of the large groups of rorq's that are flipping anoms 23/7. The nerf they are proposing is so heavy handed that it'd take an idiot to believe this is a rational "adjustment" to mining yields.
Marcus Tedric Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 92	Posted - 2017.03.10 17:32:47 - [804] - Quote Sisi Collins wrote: ......................... And why Devs are not explaining what logic they used to make 10B capital industrial ship mines less than 300mil T2 barge hulk : ) I'm really want to hear CCP response to that. You don't need a CCP response to what has always been the logic.... The Rorqual, a Capital Industrial Ship, has always been supposed to be the central boosting and compression hub of a mining 'fleet' of mining barges. This is no different to the same logic that has always intended that a Capital Ship cannot operate properly without sub-caps in support (that's indeed why they can actually carry them - although hardly ever used in combat situations). Provided that, and a future pass may be needed, it is better than an Orca doing it and that better than a Porpoise - and is actually used; then we'll approach 'balance'. Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 18:05:27 - [805] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: You forgot passive aggressive ranting in place of an actual debate and misconstruing of arguments and evidence you disagree with in place of evidence. I didn't want to come across as being too negative towards you.
Tommy Robotic The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.03.10 18:47:07 - [806] - Quote Marcus Tedric wrote: Sisi Collins wrote: ......................... And why Devs are not explaining what logic they used to make 10B capital industrial ship mines less than 300mil T2 barge hulk : ) I'm really want to hear CCP response to that. You don't need a CCP response to what has always been the logic.... The Rorqual, a Capital Industrial Ship, has always been supposed to be the central boosting and compression hub of a mining 'fleet' of mining barges. This is no different to the same logic that has always intended that a Capital Ship cannot operate properly without sub-caps in support (that's indeed why they can actually carry them - although hardly ever used in combat situations). Provided that, and a future pass may be needed, it is better than an Orca doing it and that better than a Porpoise - and is actually used; then we'll approach 'balance'. Are you role playing right now?? Rorquals were re-introduced as the best mining ships in nullsec. They are a huge investment. I think everyone agrees their yield was too high when they came out and an adjustment was needed. It's been awhile and perhaps it's still a little bit too high (up for debate) so a minor adjustment could be seen as reasonable. The changes they are proposing are not an "adjustment". They are severe and drastic. It shows that there is a bigger problem than the rorquals themselves.
Goldensaver Lom Corporation Just let it happen 434	Posted - 2017.03.10 19:39:47 - [807] - Quote I really wish they'd roll the range bonus directly into the miners themselves rather than the command burst. In those odd situations where you don't have links it's going to become even more cancerous to mine since you probably won't have a spare rock in range.
Cade Windstalker 1059	Posted - 2017.03.10 19:46:24 - [808] - Quote Sisi Collins wrote: Ideal? Please go to SISI and just sit on spodumain rock at 0 for 1hour mining and than to TQ in same conditions. IT will not be ~25%. What ever you will say it will not be a 25%, it will not be even 30-40%, you will get ore as you are mining on hulk. Devs choose to hide real information from people. who are lazy to go into test server and see what they will get with 14 March patch Reading your posts I'm more thinking you are living in different universe and playing on your own EvE sever : ) Yes... as I said in the post you quoted, the 25% change figure was, explicitly, to the ideal yield of the Rorqual, not to the actual yield. The actual yield is always going to be lower than the ideal, and the drone travel time changes combined with the larger rocks are going to result in something far less than the ideal values. CCP flat out stated back here in this reply post that they tested the values with the increased asteroid size, so the new average yield (I would assume across all rock sizes, not just the largest or smallest) are entirely intentional on CCP's part. If I were to speculate I'd say that CCP may be hoping people will use Rorquals for both boosting and mining now, using Hulks on the larger rocks and sitting the Rorquals on the physically smaller ones since they can mine those more efficiently. Tommy Robotic wrote: Are you role playing right now?? Rorquals were re-introduced as the best mining ships in nullsec. They are a huge investment. I think everyone agrees their yield was too high when they came out and an adjustment was needed. It's been awhile and perhaps it's still a little bit too high (up for debate) so a minor adjustment could be seen as reasonable. The changes they are proposing are not an "adjustment". They are severe and drastic. It shows that there is a bigger problem than the rorquals themselves. Thanks to a small error on CCP's part we actually have a pretty good window into the impact of the Rorqual. Previous MERs didn't include Rorqual data, if you look at January's the first graph shows something very different from the latest MER for the months since November. Combined with Fozzie's comment on the MER being missing drone data previously this suggests that the first graph at least was fixed. In the latest Monthly Economic Report the totals for the individual regions don't add up to the values displayed on the first graph for the month of February. This suggests that while the first graph was fixed the regional values were not. If you total up the values from the regions and average by 28 days you get ~.7748 Trillion per day. The graph shows a daily average around 1.7-1.8 Trillion. That would mean that drones, including the Rorqual, account for almost a Trillion ISK in mining value per day, or roughly 56% of mined ore in the game. That hardly suggests that there's a bigger problem than the Rorqual, it suggests that the Rorqual suddenly more than doubled the mined value in the game in the span of a few months. jizzah wrote: I didn't want to come across as being too negative towards you. Uh-huh, right. I'm seriously still waiting for you to provide some evidence beyond the erroneous anecdotal stuff you've provided so far, and even that hasn't been put into much of a logical argument beyond a pile of 'evidence' followed by something like 'therefore clearly these nerfs are too much!' That is... not much of an argument, to put it mildly. Bit of a shame too, because you clearly do have some idea what you're talking about, you're just putting it together really poorly and going with gut-flinch reactions over analysis of the available evidence.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 19:54:18 - [809] - Quote Ok I'm going to do some 'maths' here. I'm going to look at mining drone yield and travel time. I'll use base values. At the moment the base yield is 220m-¦ per 90 seconds. Changes take that to 110m-¦ per 60 seconds. 220/90=2.44444 110/60=1.83333 (1.83333/2.44444)x100=75% So, so far we can see that the changes to yield per cycle are 75% of the current value, ergo "a 25% nerf to ideal yields" So, lets now add into this travel time. As has been shown in SISI the furthest drones can reach round the new 'roids is 15km, so lets make the assumption they're using supercharged drones with speed boosted and they actually have made it to the far side, meaning the diameter of the orbit is 15km. The circumference for a 15km diameter is +ÿ x -Ç = 3.142 x 15 = 47.13, so in order to reach the far side of such a radius, the drone will have to travel around 23.5 km. Take a drone with base speed of 200m/s. Distance = speed x time Distance = 200 x 60 Distance = 12km The fact is, in order to reach the very far side of a roid of the dimensions given, the drone would need to be travelling at almost 400m/s (speed = distance/time, =23500/60, = 391m/s). Regardless of navigations skills or the calculations, if it's taken you 60 seconds to reach a point, it will more than likely take you between 42-60 seconds to return due to the possible arcs. 42 seconds is best case, worked out using a right angled triangle and the equation (a-¦+b-¦=c-¦) to give us the length of the hypotenuse. i'll use base speed for this, but the principle's the same if you go faster, you go further which means you've further to travel back, but you're going faster, etc, etc. GêÜ (6-¦+6-¦) GêÜ (36+36)=8.48 Then work out the time for 8.48km @ 200m/s 8480/200=42 Compare that with the current values: The biggest orbit I've recorded is 3.5km, so lets say a 3.5km orbit diameter. That's 11km orbit circumference or 5.5km to the far side. Now, with the base values, even if you're at the far side doing 200m/s it will take you 27.5 seconds to return and as the orbit is 90 seconds, the true travel time can be anywhere from 0 (if you're lucky enough to have it passing you when it reaches cycle end) to 27.5 seconds at max distance. Base values. 200m/s Under 30 seconds at worst. 0-30 42-60 Difference 12-30 seconds extra travel time. So there's some 'maths' for you to mull over. 25% reduction in yield and a further 12-30 seconds of dead time further reducing it, meaning the nonsense being quoted about rorquals still being the 'best mining ship' is pretty thin and entirely objective. "Sometimes" the best mining ship would be more accurate.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 9	Posted - 2017.03.10 19:58:00 - [810] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Uh-huh, right. I'm seriously still waiting for you to provide some evidence beyond the erroneous anecdotal stuff you've provided so far, and even that hasn't been put into much of a logical argument beyond a pile of 'evidence' followed by something like 'therefore clearly these nerfs are too much!' That is... not much of an argument, to put it mildly. Bit of a shame too, because you clearly do have some idea what you're talking about, you're just putting it together really poorly and going with gut-flinch reactions over analysis of the available evidence. Lets see your 'math' then, and no cheating. I want to see working.

Cade Windstalker 1059	Posted - 2017.03.10 20:15:29 - [811] - Quote jizzah wrote: So there's some 'maths' for you to mull over. 25% reduction in yield and a further 12-30 seconds of dead time further reducing it, meaning the nonsense being quoted about rorquals still being the 'best mining ship' is pretty thin and entirely objective. "Sometimes" the best mining ship would be more accurate. I find your math convincing and entirely accurate. At best though that's an argument that the Rorqual is situationally good now, which isn't actually a bad thing IMO. It means you have to put some thought into its use instead of just using it as a massive ore hoover that sucks up everything but Mercoxit like a shopvac having a milkshake. I think you might have a pretty reasonable argument here for a speed bump to the Rorqual's drones, because if I'm reading your math right (and I do apologize I don't have time to do more than estimate here) there's a sweet spot for drone speed and it occurs before Drone Nav 5, and these sorts of weird "don't train this to 5, it's worse" situations are something CCP have been actively trying to eliminate in the last several years, especially with drones and bloody drone nav. Without knowing what the average size of rock in a belt is though it's hard to get a feel for what the actual yield of the Rorqual is going to be after the changes. I can poke around on Sisi tonight and see if I can figure it out, but that'll be a few hours yet. If the actual yield of the Rorqual across an entire Ore Anom does end up being pretty close to a Hulk's then these nerfs have probably gone too far and there should be some kind of adjustment upwards, either in drone speed or somewhere else. jizzah wrote: Lets see your 'math' then, and no cheating. I want to see working. What, exactly, do you want to see my math on? I just posted most of my argument for the current issue with Rorqual economics being out of control. I can expand that with some reference to supply and demand graphs from the various market sites to try and explain why I don't feel just evening out the ore bottlenecks is going to solve the issue, with references to the destroyed value graph for the MER. Is that what you're after by way of math? My argument here has never really been over the magnitude of the nerfs and what they actually are, except when I felt someone's own claims about magnitude were incorrect. I don't actually particularly care what the numbers currently are or what they end up being in the future, I care about good and accurate debate over things like this. If these threads consisted of nothing but posts like the one you just made being used to support solid reasoning either for or against the changes being proposed no one would ever see me in one of these threads again except with a graph or a spreadsheet to chuck into the mix. In short sir, fantastic. Love your post, more like it please.
Pryce Caesar Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans 89	Posted - 2017.03.10 20:53:46 - [812] - Quote So, if I am understanding correctly: The impact of the Rorqual's mining on the mineral economy in Null-Sec was perceived to be "too good", so they have once again nerfed the Drones down to a whole flight only giving the equivalent mining yield of two Hulks/Exhumers, despite the fact that Rorqual are the biggest mining vessels in the game, and effectively reduced down to mining far less per hour than their actual worth. Certain players were complaining about the more creative uses of the Rorqual's PANIC module, a module originally designed to give the Rorqual more survivability against hot-droppers or Frigate swarms, so they reduced the PANIC module, WHICH WAS ALREADY A ONE-SHOT DEAL, to only being able to be activated when you have an asteroid locked on, leaving a Rorqual vulnerable for 90% of the time it is anywhere out in space. In case Fozzie has not noticed, the "tank" on Rorquals mean nothing when gangs that drop on top of Rorqs have enough substantial fire-power to melt a TITAN in a few minute's time. And reducing the mining values on a Rorqual only hurts the ship itself. In terms of actual mineral economy, the impact will be zip. You will still have massive mining fleets out and about chewing up asteroids and ice fields, making the overall decrease in mineral absolute minimal - 2% decrease in overall mineral mining from Null-Sec AT THE MOST. And you still have those Excavator Drones priced as high as CAPITAL SHIPS despite you nerfing their mining output by 60%. A price more in line with an actual Exhumer would be much more reasonable. You are nerfing the Rorqual to high-hell and back because certain players complained about not being able to find a work-around to a module THAT ONLY HAS ONE CYCLE BEFORE IT DEACTIVATES. It is a good thing if Rorqs are able to introduce new tactics and make the game more challenging in fleet battles; you should not make it easier because vocal groups started complaining about they couldn't think up a way to beat the strategy.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 11	Posted - 2017.03.10 20:57:16 - [813] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: jizzah wrote: Lets see your 'math' then, and no cheating. I want to see working. What, exactly, do you want to see my math on? I just posted most of my argument for the current issue with Rorqual economics being out of control. I can expand that with some reference to supply and demand graphs from the various market sites to try and explain why I don't feel just evening out the ore bottlenecks is going to solve the issue, with references to the destroyed value graph for the MER. Is that what you're after by way of math? My argument here has never really been over the magnitude of the nerfs and what they actually are, except when I felt someone's own claims about magnitude were incorrect. I don't actually particularly care what the numbers currently are or what they end up being in the future, I care about good and accurate debate over things like this. Well, to be frank I'd like to see some actual work put in. Effort from own evidence rather than copy/pasting links and other people's speculations. It's what has got a lot of the people posting here's backs up, when you're telling everyone how it is without any actual real experience. You see, it's very easy to link data supplied by CCP which is inaccurate at the best of times, then base an argument on it. The fact is, that's someone else's information-not yours, and the engineer in me ****ing well hates that sort of half done job. You know what, even if your figures were a mile out, I'd still have a lot more time and respect for you for trying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Cade Windstalker 1060	Posted - 2017.03.10 21:13:40 - [814] - Quote jizzah wrote: Well, to be frank I'd like to see some actual work put in. Effort from own evidence rather than copy/pasting links and other people's speculations. It's what has got a lot of the people posting here's backs up, when you're telling everyone how it is without any actual real experience. You see, it's very easy to link data supplied by CCP which is inaccurate at the best of times, then base an argument on it. The fact is, that's someone else's information-not yours, and the engineer in me ****ing well hates that sort of half done job. You know what, even if your figures were a mile out, I'd still have a lot more time and respect for you for trying. Ah, I actually tend to take something of the opposite approach, and that's why I've specifically avoided posting much from personal experience unless I absolutely can't avoid it. My own results are going to be subject to bias and won't reflect anything more than my own little window on Eve, which is hardly a viable sample size. Even my own little corner of Eve is comparatively tiny, so I try to only bring up specific experience as a counter-example to someone else's sweeping statement. For example the claim that everyone just hoovers up entire Ore Anoms when I know from the people I've talked to that this isn't the case for everyone. For me, I much prefer looking at things through the lens of math and API data, and only using testing to inform conclusions grounded in those things, as you did with your math above. Generally I've found this approach to be more effective than simply posting personal experiences. Someone else will always have a contradictory experience, and quite often those arguments for me have spiralled off into quibbling over details, but it's a lot harder to nitpick a broad sample size or some hard math working out yields, DPS, tracking, ect. It's possible our two approaches just aren't compatible, but if you have any suggestions I'd like to hear them.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 12	Posted - 2017.03.10 21:20:05 - [815] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: It's possible our two approaches just aren't compatible, but if you have any suggestions I'd like to hear them. If you can't fit, it fix it. If you can't fix it, ** it If you can't ** it, forget it (Anom, n.d.)
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 164	Posted - 2017.03.10 21:53:38 - [816] - 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.
Cade Windstalker 1065	Posted - 2017.03.10 22:43:35 - [817] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. To address these points in no particular order: I'm not advocating for balancing simply around optimal play. If that was the case I'd be on the "OMG nerf Carrier ratting/Incursions/ect" train, among others, because there's often a significant difference between perfect play and play in practice. My comment about the 25% nerf value was simply pointing out that CCP did specifically say that it was a 25% nerf to the optimal yield of the ship, and not what the actual yield would be in practice for each player. I was simply calling out what i felt was an inaccurate criticism. As to the people I know, I just collect stories and talk to people. I've spent most of my Eve career dabbling and talking to people about what they know, what they've done, or what they're currently doing. I don't claim to have a perfect view on the game, I just get frustrated when people make claims solely from personal experience as if they're universally applicable to everyone. In retrospect I've probably let a little too much of that frustration into my comments recently and for that I'll apologize. The people I know, with no exceptions that immediately come to mind, generally avoid the Eve-O forums like they're going to catch cancer here. I'm often the person informing others of new changes that have been posted here for weeks because those players simply don't frequent the forums and when I mention interactions I have on here to them, rarely, I'm generally advised to avoid the forums entirely. I'm not really sure why you and Jizzah have claimed that CCP's data is inaccurate or incomplete. Personally, outside of the times when they themselves state as much, I've never found much cause to doubt its accuracy. It's certainly proven more accurate than player created metrics, which are almost by definition more limited and piecemeal. There's one thing I do feel fairly confident speaking on from personal experience and that's debate and these forums. I've been in and out of the forums on and off for years and I've gotten a pretty good idea of what does or doesn't get a response from CCP and what can convince them a change may not be warranted. The sort of "but my personal experience says this is wrong" yelling that so often makes up the majority of these threads doesn't do it. It does nothing to refute whatever internal metrics, data, or evidence CCP has in support of their change, the only thing I've ever seen it do is potentially bring up cases they haven't thought of, like the targeting range issue for Barges and Exhumers that was exposed in this thread. Math is great, but if it doesn't fit cohesively into the point being made it's not worth much, and it won't make its point for you. Something like math showing the extent of the yield nerf is, more than likely, already known to CCP either through their own math or their own testing. Without some other argument or evidence to back up why that's too much of a change it's not going to elicit more of a response than 'yup, we're aware of that', assuming they even say anything. Personally I'm more than a little sad that people can't manage to have a decent discussion on these forums around the changes posted here. They just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and then complain that CCP doesn't listen to "the overwhelmingly negative feedback in this thread" when that's not what CCP is looking for, and unless they get way more negative feedback than they're expecting it's not going to do jack ****. Just throwing your .02 ISK of personal experience on the scale just isn't a terribly convincing argument. That's what my personal experience tells me.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 79	Posted - 2017.03.10 22:49:43 - [818] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: A reminder for anyone panicked without having tested themselves: In a colossal nullsec anom, only some rocks are gigantic. Most rocks are still small. This is not a blanket 75% rorqual nerf. On the largest spod, without drone speed rigs and proper placement, I do believe you'll see yields fall by 75% vs. current values. But most rocks will be small enough for little yield reduction beyond the advertised 25% excavator nerf. And if you pack on drone speed rigs and park your rorqual intelligently, it won't be as bad. Spoiler Alert: Optimize your mining fleets by bringing barges to hit the big rocks from the beginning of the anom, use your rorquals on small rocks first. you mean the 5+ spod rocks that are all 65k+
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 79	Posted - 2017.03.10 23:02:53 - [819] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: My comment about the 25% nerf value was simply pointing out that CCP did specifically say that it was a 25% nerf to the optimal yield of the ship, and not what the actual yield would be in practice for each player. I was simply calling out what i felt was an inaccurate criticism. In case you're not really reading the posts.. We all KNOW what CCP based their 25% nerf on.. what we are pointing out.. that OFF paper, ie. in the real spaceships world, where these changes are actually going to play out.. it's not a 25% nerf. and in fact not even CLOSE to that number. Nobody cares about the changes on paper. It's the application that's being raged over. so for you to keep reiterating that it's won't be that bad, without having done any of it yourself .. well.
Cade Windstalker 1065	Posted - 2017.03.11 00:33:06 - [820] - Quote Soko99 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: My comment about the 25% nerf value was simply pointing out that CCP did specifically say that it was a 25% nerf to the optimal yield of the ship, and not what the actual yield would be in practice for each player. I was simply calling out what i felt was an inaccurate criticism. In case you're not really reading the posts.. We all KNOW what CCP based their 25% nerf on.. what we are pointing out.. that OFF paper, ie. in the real spaceships world, where these changes are actually going to play out.. it's not a 25% nerf. and in fact not even CLOSE to that number. Nobody cares about the changes on paper. It's the application that's being raged over. so for you to keep reiterating that it's won't be that bad, without having done any of it yourself .. well. Sorry, my bad for being unclear or ambiguous. At no point here have I meant to state, imply, express, ect that the nerf "won't be that bad" or any such thing. The closest I've come is pointing out that Excavator Drones are unlikely to stay at current prices so the asset on the field is likely to be worth less, which helps the time to pay back the initial investment. Some people were saying the 25% nerf number was incorrect, I was taking them literally and correcting what I saw as incorrect information. I'm quite aware that this nerf is going to be quite severe, and the rock size changes have certainly only made it more so. From the looks of things on the largest rocks a Rorqual will mine slightly better than a Hulk, give or take. On the smaller and higher value ones it'll still be around 2-3 Hulks of yield give or take. Whether or not that's too much, I haven't really seen convincing evidence either way. At this point my gut says it's a little too much and should be balanced out by a speed buff on the drones, but I don't generally trust my gut for things like this, it's biased. For whatever it's worth I do empathize with the people affected by this and every other nerf. Nerfs kinda suck, the perfect game would be one where everyone could feel like their thing was 20% more powerful than everyone else's thing, but a competitive game like that with any depth is pretty much impossible to design, so we're stuck with the rolling saga of nerfs and buffs that every MMO has.

w1ndstrike Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 40	Posted - 2017.03.11 06:14:09 - [821] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: The closest I've come is pointing out that Excavator Drones are unlikely to stay at current prices so the asset on the field is likely to be worth less, which helps the time to pay back the initial investment. I haven't read any of your other posts in the massive back and forth, but you're wrong on this one. The choke on price is not high demand, it is controlled and manipulated parts supply. It's not even conjecture, anyone with a trade alt and about 200m to burn can check for themselves in the same manner you normally check for manipulations of other goods. Without a change to the blueprint or a large increase in the supply of certain components, drones will only fall to about 670m at best, which makes the risk/reward ratio taking the new larger rocks into account completely unacceptable. (1 command destroyer and they're all toast)
Birabanor PWT0 Fleet Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2017.03.11 07:46:38 - [822] - Quote Tobias Frank wrote: Philip Shazih wrote: Is there a reason why you first say you want to make them awesome support ships, then make them the best miner in the game so everyone buys them and then nerf the ** out of them? Or did you guys just ** up with the initial yield and didnt think we'd all be having 10 rorqs per anom? Exactly this. Sure, player behavior is not 100% forseeable, but there are years of experience with such things. Do they (the developers) even know their game and the players? Lets be honest, the inital Rorqual redesign was a complete failure, the whole dronemining concept is just ridiculous, inculding the pricing for the excavators. You are just leaving a ton of dissapointed players who spent huge amounts of time and money to train into and obtain certain ships and equipment. Really frustraiting and not funny. Right CCP i feel that you dont have a close idea about the changes "needed", how ca you RISK a 10 billion rorqual for nothing? isnt the motto "Big risk Big reward"? you guys fron CCP really need to get in to the game and then fix things. The nexus is not woking, https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/ More than a Half of them had the Nexus... did it work or made a difference ? answer : NO I know that you CCP work hard to improve this game i been playing for more than 10 yrs, but right now you are heading in the wrong direction.
Pesadel0 Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc. 130	Posted - 2017.03.11 08:38:44 - [823] - Quote jizzah wrote: Ok I'm going to do some 'maths' here. I'm going to look at mining drone yield and travel time. I'll use base values. At the moment the base yield is 220m-¦ per 90 seconds. Changes take that to 110m-¦ per 60 seconds. 220/90=2.44444 110/60=1.83333 (1.83333/2.44444)x100=75% So, so far we can see that the changes to yield per cycle are 75% of the current value, ergo "a 25% nerf to ideal yields" So, lets now add into this travel time. As has been shown in SISI the furthest drones can reach round the new 'roids is 15km, so lets make the assumption they're using supercharged drones with speed boosted and they actually have made it to the far side, meaning the diameter of the orbit is 15km. The circumference for a 15km diameter is +ÿ x -Ç = 3.142 x 15 = 47.13, so in order to reach the far side of such a radius, the drone will have to travel around 23.5 km. Take a drone with base speed of 200m/s. Distance = speed x time Distance = 200 x 60 Distance = 12km The fact is, in order to reach the very far side of a roid of the dimensions given, the drone would need to be travelling at almost 400m/s (speed = distance/time, =23500/60, = 391m/s). Regardless of navigations skills or the calculations, if it's taken you 60 seconds to reach a point, it will more than likely take you between 42-60 seconds to return due to the possible arcs. 42 seconds is best case, worked out using a right angled triangle and the equation (a-¦+b-¦=c-¦) to give us the length of the hypotenuse. i'll use base speed for this, but the principle's the same if you go faster, you go further which means you've further to travel back, but you're going faster, etc, etc. GêÜ (6-¦+6-¦) GêÜ (36+36)=8.48 Then work out the time for 8.48km @ 200m/s 8480/200=42 Compare that with the current values: The biggest orbit I've recorded is 3.5km, so lets say a 3.5km orbit diameter. That's 11km orbit circumference or 5.5km to the far side. Now, with the base values, even if you're at the far side doing 200m/s it will take you 27.5, call it 28 seconds to return and as the orbit is 90 seconds, the true travel time can be anywhere from 0 (if you're lucky enough to have it passing you when it reaches cycle end) to 28 seconds at max distance. Base values. 200m/s Under 28 seconds at worst. 0-28 42-60 Difference 14-30 seconds extra travel time. So there's some 'maths' for you to mull over. 25% reduction in yield and a further 14-30 seconds of dead time further reducing it, meaning the nonsense being quoted about rorquals still being the 'best mining ship' is pretty thin and entirely objective. "Sometimes" the best mining ship would be more accurate. Well , good feedback fozzie could we get at least some speed to the Escavators now?
Stragak 36	Posted - 2017.03.11 08:50:37 - [824] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Note what I was talking about with the over-supply in this graph from the February MER. After the Rorqual changes the value mined shoots up to almost double before the Rorqual, and value destroyed only scoots up slightly in response. The mining line in that graph doesn't include rorqual mining, because drone mining amounts aren't reported in the tools used for the MER. The increase is only from more people using mining lasers. Think about that: the graph you linked includes 0 ore mined by rorquals. Zero. None. CCP does have that data though, imagine what it must look like... I believe this is not correct, considering this is what the graph looked like when January's report was released and now there's suddenly a distinct spike right after that convenient note about drone mining metrics being bugged. CCP Fozzie or someone else will have to confirm if my suspicion about the report being fixed is correct. Wrong. They have have stated there is and 'continues to be' a logging issue with these drones. Last time I saw mention of the bug (with no response is https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=510695 ), which is also confirmed in Dev blog https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506509&find=unread & Dev Blog, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=502493&find=unread & Dev Blog, and are literally the first questions asked nearly every time a new economic report is released about your MER. Though out the previous pages of the forums you seem to to have no grasp on the Rorq, however you have a great number of alternative facts, that do not add up. "Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio -á-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 16	Posted - 2017.03.11 11:25:17 - [825] - Quote Pesadel0 wrote: Well , good feedback fozzie could we get at least some speed to the Escavators now? swallowed post...
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 39	Posted - 2017.03.11 13:35:00 - [826] - Quote Tested this a lot last night and spreadsheeted it all. Some tests were pure yield tests comparing to theoretical amounts, others involved taking notes on asteroid radius, drone flight time, and max/average drone distance from my rorqual. The takeaways: Based on all of my tests and weighing for ore size in m3, I predict a well positioned rorqual with 3x drone nav comps and good skills chewing through every rock will end up with 82% as much yield over the course of the entire anom. Coupled with the reduction to 75% from the excavator nerf, that makes the overall rorqual nerf a 39.5% reduction from current values (75% (excavator nerf) * 82% (impact of rock nerf) = 61.5% new yield compared to old yield). Faster drones are almost always better, because drones take unpredictable paths. In theory, you would want to match drone speed to asteroid orbital radius to have them end back near your rorqual after 60 seconds, but in practice they just wobble around enough to make that unpredictable. There's an exception for truly large rocks and certain drone velocities that leave them likely to each just make it to the other end of the asteroid in 60 seconds, meaning consistently near worst case scenario yield reduction. The asteroid size nerf can be mitigated by avoiding the largest rocks, which will be more like 60-70% yield due to their size. Skip them entirely, get barges on them, let somebody else get them, whatever - those are the biggest culprit in reducing overall yield. If you never have to mine a rock with a radius over 3,000m, you aren't going to feel much nerf from asteroid size increase. TL;DR With correct play and good skills, increasing rock sizes is another ~18% rorqual nerf if you exclusively mine the anom with rorquals. If you mix in some barges or can skip the biggest rocks, it'll be more like a 5-10% additional yield nerf. In other news, I'm quite pleased that my guesses earlier in this thread closely matched my testing
MajkStone 30plus Fidelas Constans 18	Posted - 2017.03.11 13:51:17 - [827] - Quote CCP should refund isk spent on a fitted rorqual/drones in proportion equal to the percentage amount of the nerf. IE. reduce yield by 25%, give us a 25% refund on the amount of isk spent to build one of these things.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2839	Posted - 2017.03.11 15:15:20 - [828] - Quote MajkStone wrote: CCP should refund isk spent on a fitted rorqual/drones in proportion equal to the percentage amount of the nerf. IE. reduce yield by 25%, give us a 25% refund on the amount of isk spent to build one of these things. Not sure if serious. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Cade Windstalker 1070	Posted - 2017.03.11 16:24:11 - [829] - Quote w1ndstrike wrote: I haven't read any of your other posts in the massive back and forth, but you're wrong on this one. The choke on price is not high demand, it is controlled and manipulated parts supply. It's not even conjecture, anyone with a trade alt and about 200m to burn can check for themselves in the same manner you normally check for manipulations of other goods. Without a change to the blueprint or a large increase in the supply of certain components, drones will only fall to about 670m at best, which makes the risk/reward ratio taking the new larger rocks into account completely unacceptable. (1 command destroyer and they're all toast) I'll certainly believe there's some small scale manipulation going on by individuals, but if anyone actually had this kind of stranglehold on the supply then we wouldn't be seeing the drop we're looking at right now. Last week the materials were selling, in total, for a little above 1.1 billion, now they're selling for barely above 700m and that drop actually out-paces the current Jita buy price. The only thing that your market test says is that someone is at least attempting to cash in on the current drop, it doesn't say anything about the extent of the market manipulation going on or its effectiveness, and judging from the recent market trends it's not being very effective. Stragak wrote: Wrong. They have have stated there is and 'continues to be' a logging issue with these drones. Last time I saw mention of the bug (with no response is https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=510695 ), which is also confirmed in Dev blog https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506509&find=unread & Dev Blog, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=502493&find=unread & Dev Blog, and are literally the first questions asked nearly every time a new economic report is released about your MER. Though out the previous pages of the forums you seem to to have no grasp on the Rorq, however you have a great number of alternative facts, that do not add up. back here on the 1st from CCP Fozzie in this thread. Actually the last comment we have on the matter is In that comment he notes that they do, in fact, have logging for drone mining available and going back to the start of the game, it's just not in the logs used for the MER up to that point. I'm going by the massive shift in graphs from one month to the next, something that seems to be unprecidented in the MER's history, and guessing that this means they fixed the logging used to generate that graph but failed to make a note of it in the MER. This is further supported by the regional data not adding up to the average for the month of February and that regional data clearly not including Rorquals based on the testimony of people in this thread. If you have an alternative explanation for the massive shift in that graph compared to the graphs covering those same months in previous MERs then I'd love to hear it because I've got nothing. There's nothing else I can think of that we know wasn't on previous graphs and that might account for 1T a day in yield suddenly showing up but only in the months following the mining changes.
Cade Windstalker 1070	Posted - 2017.03.11 16:25:36 - [830] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Tested this a lot last night and spreadsheeted it all. Some tests were pure yield tests comparing to theoretical amounts, others involved taking notes on asteroid radius, drone flight time, and max/average drone distance from my rorqual. The takeaways: Based on all of my tests and weighing for ore size in m3, I predict a well positioned rorqual with 3x drone nav comps and good skills chewing through every rock will end up with 82% as much yield over the course of the entire anom. Coupled with the reduction to 75% from the excavator nerf, that makes the overall rorqual nerf a 39.5% reduction from current values (75% (excavator nerf) * 82% (impact of rock nerf) = 61.5% new yield compared to old yield). Faster drones are almost always better, because drones take unpredictable paths. In theory, you would want to match drone speed to asteroid orbital radius to have them end back near your rorqual after 60 seconds, but in practice they just wobble around enough to make that unpredictable. There's an exception for truly large rocks and certain drone velocities that leave them likely to each just make it to the other end of the asteroid in 60 seconds, meaning consistently near worst case scenario yield reduction. The asteroid size nerf can be mitigated by avoiding the largest rocks, which will be more like 60-70% yield due to their size. Skip them entirely, get barges on them, let somebody else get them, whatever - those are the biggest culprit in reducing overall yield. If you never have to mine a rock with a radius over 3,000m, you aren't going to feel much nerf from asteroid size increase. TL;DR With correct play and good skills, increasing rock sizes is another ~18% rorqual nerf if you exclusively mine the anom with rorquals. If you mix in some barges or can skip the biggest rocks, it'll be more like a 5-10% additional yield nerf. In other news, I'm quite pleased that my guesses earlier in this thread closely matched my testing Love absolutely everything about this test So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones. @Jizzah, don't forget that the actual speed on the Excavators with max skills is around 350, not the base 200, and then you can throw Drone Nav comps on top of that. I think I'm still in favor of a ~25% velocity bump on the drones. That would be roughly equivalent to a free Drone Nav Comp but you'll still want to adjust your fitting after these changes which creates an interesting tradeoff between max tank and potential yield and drone safety increase with Drone Nav Comps.

Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 41	Posted - 2017.03.11 17:43:04 - [831] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones. It'll certainly help the rorquals' income rate if they never need to touch big spod, although technically a rorqual with solid positioning still has the best yield in the game. A max-boost, max-yield hulk was what, somewhere around 250,000 m3/h? When I parked my rorqual with 3x drone nav comp IIs on The One True Spod (radius: 7,900m) for 15 minutes, I mined a bit over 140,000m3 of spodumain, or roughly 560,000 m3/h (compared to an expected ~800,000 m3/h or so I would have had with my skills/fit and ignoiring drone flight time around a large rock). So the theory is pretty straightforward: Every pilot that can afford to be in a rorqual and should, assuming safe/well-defended space. It will always increase yield over time. Selfless barge pilots should mine the asteroids with the largest radius in descending order (plus the mercoxit). Selfish barge pilots will (still) choose A/G/B first and ignore rock size. They might switch to Spodumain instead of Crokite after A/G/B is gone, at least, which will help the rorquals (crokite rocks are still relatively small). Anybody with 1+ rorquals will receive extra benefit from adding barge alts or recruiting barge pilots to hit the large rocks, but it will never be beneficial for a rorqual pilot to downship to a barge unless there is an additional skill/equipment/safety factor. In practice, because barges and barge alts are vastly cheaper than rorquals and rorqual pilots, I do expect we'll see more in each belt to help keep rorqual efficiency up. I haven't decided if I'll add more barges/exhumers to my setup or not (I already have a few).
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 18	Posted - 2017.03.11 18:08:15 - [832] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: @Jizzah, don't forget that the actual speed on the Excavators with max skills is around 350, not the base 200, and then you can throw Drone Nav comps on top of that. 250m/s on my miner with nav 4. I doubt 1 more level will add 100m/s
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 80	Posted - 2017.03.11 18:16:21 - [833] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones. What's your definition of relatively low quantity? cause there's usually 4-6 60+k spod rocks in a collossal for example. That's a significant number amongst the 15 or so rocks of that kind.. Add in some 70-80k gneiss rocks.. and your looking at 1/4 to 1/5th of the rocks being massive.
Soko99 Repercussus Northern Coalition. 80	Posted - 2017.03.11 18:29:14 - [834] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: @Jizzah, don't forget that the actual speed on the Excavators with max skills is around 350, not the base 200, and then you can throw Drone Nav comps on top of that. You are wrong on this. recommend you go and check on sisi. I'd tell you what the numbers were, but halfway through my testing I noticed that SiSi was an old port so it didn't have my t2 indy core on the ship. Still.. managed to do some testings.. took me 25mins to mine 15k of a 30k spod rock post nerf on a 68k rock.. the same 15k took me 35min that I was able to cut back down to 25mins on the 68k rock (which by then contained 53k) 28 mins on the 30k rock (which was by then contained 15k) other than the initial 15k test on the 30k rock, I had rat spawns to deal with all of them. but that should be a good indicator anyways since you will have belt rats to deal with. One of the biggest challenges though, which so far everyone was ignoring is that warping in on the bigger rocks, means way easier to bounce. and the first time I tried to warp in.. i bounced 15k away. Another thing to point out, was that the 5min cycle on the indy core, was 1/3done before my first load of ore was actually onboard. so you're increasing heavy water consumption quite a bit due to the extra travel time. Another thing to note on the test, was that while on tranq the collossals i've seen have been regular rocks, on sisi the only one I found was all the +10% +5% type of rocks. If that stays the same, and the anom belts in null are changed to the higher value rocks, then I can see this change being close to the 25% nerf that CCP is selling vice the ridiculous numbers we are seeing
blackdeath111 Citadel Construction LTD Hell's Sirens 0	Posted - 2017.03.11 18:40:39 - [835] - Quote Hello the eve community, I think this is my first ever comment on any forum in this bizzare game lol. Any way down to business, the ethics behind this post is to basicly balance ore extraction from the entire game. Well I have a very simple solution e.g. ARKONOR - The rarest and most sought-after ore in the known universe...... THEN MAKE IT RARE!!!!!!!!! Not being funny here but you could arguably buy MEGACYTE in the same amount in quantity as TRIT in high sec !!!. Im using this ore type as an example only. Simply reduce the amount in belts or place a timer on the spawn of a new belt just like you have done to ice mining, this is not difficult to implement!! Then if you did this prices of ores would naturally increase instead of waiting for the destruction of 1000 titans for example.. The other option i had in mind, was to simply double the amounts on BPO's to build anything across the board, this would also increase demand. These options are far less sole destroying than neurfing the crap out of ships mining drones etc, totally pointless. CCP needs to look at other ways to stabilise and increase ore prices and their quantities (MEX always a shortage in 0.0), because at the end of the day you create these toys that we all enjoy, mining / PVE / PVP etc and when some one complains or they think something is stupidly over powered you go ahead and neurf it!!!! When if you just told them to deal with it and maybe train into the ship thats flavour of the month , then guess what they would be on par with every other pilot flying that particular ship. I did slightly digress there sorry. CCP Fozzie seriously needs to stop punishing players with the whole neurfing way of life, its a bit like the phrase " indian giving" you receive it in one hand and the next minute it's gone. It's like for example back in the early days the RAVEN battleship was probably the most feared BS out there and now it may aswell be an ornament in your hanger so to speak. Obviously things progress in game and people want bigger and more powerful ships types etc, but when you create something guys PLEASE just leave it alone! STOP NEURFING stuff and let it die naturally as opposed to killing something off that's only been on the market for 3 months!! Also guys please create in the neo com a character switch facility save logging in and out all the time!! real pain in the ass!! It would benefit everyone regardless of game style in EVE. Many thanks for reading guys, just my 2 pence regards blacky
Cade Windstalker 1071	Posted - 2017.03.11 19:22:43 - [836] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: It'll certainly help the rorquals' income rate if they never need to touch big spod, although technically a rorqual with solid positioning still has the best yield in the game. A max-boost, max-yield hulk was what, somewhere around 250,000 m3/h? When I parked my rorqual with 3x drone nav comp IIs on The One True Spod (radius: 7,900m) for 15 minutes, I mined a bit over 140,000m3 of spodumain, or roughly 560,000 m3/h (compared to an expected ~800,000 m3/h or so I would have had with my skills/fit and ignoiring drone flight time around a large rock). So the theory is pretty straightforward: Every pilot that can afford to be in a rorqual and should, assuming safe/well-defended space. It will always increase yield over time. Selfless barge pilots should mine the asteroids with the largest radius in descending order (plus the mercoxit). Selfish barge pilots will (still) choose A/G/B first and ignore rock size. They might switch to Spodumain instead of Crokite after A/G/B is gone, at least, which will help the rorquals (crokite rocks are still relatively small). Anybody with 1+ rorquals will receive extra benefit from adding barge alts or recruiting barge pilots to hit the large rocks, but it will never be beneficial for a rorqual pilot to downship to a barge unless there is an additional skill/equipment/safety factor. In practice, because barges and barge alts are vastly cheaper than rorquals and rorqual pilots, I do expect we'll see more in each belt to help keep rorqual efficiency up. I haven't decided if I'll add more barges/exhumers to my setup or not (I already have a few). Yup, I'd say this is pretty accurate, with the added note that it takes a Rorqual much longer to pay off its initial investment, so your space doesn't just need to be relatively safe, it needs to be safe enough that you can mine without a loss of the ship or its drones for more than ~100 hours. From a pure risk perspective I would expect many smaller entities to find it worthwhile to use a Rorqual just for boosting and trying to keep Hulks alive to get them off grid rather than the opposite which occurs currently, since the Rorqual hull makes back almost its entire mineral value after insurance. jizzah wrote: 250m/s on my miner with nav 4. I doubt 1 more level will add 100m/s Both Mining Drone Spec and a T2 Indi Core add speed, 2% per level of Drone Spec and 30% for a T2 Indi Core (25% on the T1 Indi core). All 5s on Pyfa shows a drone speed of 358m/s and that matches with the figures reported by others earlier in this thread, also matches what I'm seeing from in-game numbers. Adding three Drone Nav Comps shows 686m/s for me. Soko99 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: So, just estimating here based on the volume of ore in one of these anoms and the relatively low quantity of very large rocks I'm guessing that the ideal mining setup for the larger ore anoms will end up being something like 1-2 Hulks per Rorqual to mine out the Mercoxit and the larger rocks while the Rorqual chews through the smaller ones. What's your definition of relatively low quantity? cause there's usually 4-6 60+k spod rocks in a collossal for example. That's a significant number amongst the 15 or so rocks of that kind.. Add in some 70-80k gneiss rocks.. and your looking at 1/4 to 1/5th of the rocks being massive. I was personally counting the rocks ~9km or larger in size, which was 6 in the colossal I checked on Sisi out of about 60 rocks total which would be 1/10th. Oddly the Enormous I checked actually had a higher percentage of larger rocks, with about 1/5th of the rocks being 9km or larger in size. Overall I'd say about 1/5th to 1/6th is about accurate. Whether or not that qualifies as "relatively few" is debatable, if you don't think so then I'll bow to your definition. I do think it helps justify a speed boost, since the actual impact on mining yield will be pretty minimal even in the worst case scenario, it just buys back a little bit of safety for the drones over what's been lost with the size change, and reduces player frustration due to fluctuating yields on larger rocks. It also helps out the Enormous anoms a bit, since they seem to, oddly, contain a larger percentage of larger asteroids, though that may just be sampling bias since I haven't been able to find too many systems with all the anoms to check.
jizzah The Collective Northern Coalition. 19	Posted - 2017.03.11 20:55:26 - [837] - Quote Ow, forgot about the core... andf he's got spec 4 too, so you're probably right. 600m/s is 1km/sec so not too hard to work out the orbited distance. Bear in mind though, this will be at the expense of tank
Cade Windstalker 1072	Posted - 2017.03.11 21:46:31 - [838] - Quote jizzah wrote: Ow, forgot about the core... andf he's got spec 4 too, so you're probably right. 600m/s is 1km/sec so not too hard to work out the orbited distance. Bear in mind though, this will be at the expense of tank Yup, which I think makes for an interesting trade off, considering a Rorqual can tank something like 50k DPS right now, and doesn't have a ton of other stuff to occupy its mid slots that I can think of. That's part of why I say a 25% speed buff might be warranted, it buys back a bit of the mining time off the rock size and cycle time changes as well as adding a bit of safety for the drones but doesn't buff their speed so much that you don't ever want to fit Drone Navs for a better return on large rocks. I'd need to mess around with what the turn around time on a Rorqual looks warping to a ping and back like but it might even be worthwhile to fit Drone Navs to avoid having to move between rocks, though I would imagine that would be fairly niche and highly dependent on the size of the rock, siege timers, distance, ect. Honestly kinda hoping this nerf is enough, because there's not that much space left between the practical results of the Rorqual and a boosted Hulk just sitting down and mining. FWIW to you and the other miners I really do wish this nerf hadn't been necessary but it feels like the rush of people to the Rorqual from other parts of the game that weren't previously mining pushed CCP into it.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 42	Posted - 2017.03.11 21:48:11 - [839] - Quote Found a PYFA bug! Watching the drones on my overview I hit 562m/s with my rorq pilot on sisi (3x nav computer IIs, Drone Nav V, and T2 industrial core - only mining drone spec IV though). That's a good bit lower than what PYFA indicates it should be, so I mucked around a little. Turns out it's a bug in PYFA: The industrial core's speed bonus (30%) is stacking penalized against drone navigation computers in-game, but PYFA (for whatever reason) appears to apply the industrial core bonus in a separate stack. The effect of that is to greatly reduce the benefit of stacking more than 2-3 drone navigation computers. Here are the real figures: All Vs, T2 Core, no nav computer: 358 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (baseline) All Vs, T2 Core, 1x T2 nav comp: 451 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+26% speed) All Vs, T2 Core, 2x T2 nav comp: 528 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+17% speed) All Vs, T2 Core, 3x T2 nav comp: 573 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+8.5% speed) [nb: this figure matches my in-game tests] All Vs, T2 Core, 4x T2 nav comp: 591 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+3.1% speed) All Vs, T2 Core, 5x T2 nav comp: 596 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+0.8% speed) My python skills are a bid rudimentary, but maybe I'll muck around and see if I can submit a fix for the next PYFA release
Cade Windstalker 1075	Posted - 2017.03.12 01:30:10 - [840] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Found a PYFA bug! Watching the drones on my overview I hit 562m/s with my rorq pilot on sisi (3x nav computer IIs, Drone Nav V, and T2 industrial core - only mining drone spec IV though). That's a good bit lower than what PYFA indicates it should be, so I mucked around a little. Turns out it's a bug in PYFA: The industrial core's speed bonus (30%) is stacking penalized against drone navigation computers in-game, but PYFA (for whatever reason) appears to apply the industrial core bonus in a separate stack. The effect of that is to greatly reduce the benefit of stacking more than 2-3 drone navigation computers. Here are the real figures: All Vs, T2 Core, no nav computer: 358 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (baseline) All Vs, T2 Core, 1x T2 nav comp: 451 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+26% speed) All Vs, T2 Core, 2x T2 nav comp: 528 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+17% speed) All Vs, T2 Core, 3x T2 nav comp: 573 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+8.5% speed) [nb: this figure matches my in-game tests] All Vs, T2 Core, 4x T2 nav comp: 591 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+3.1% speed) All Vs, T2 Core, 5x T2 nav comp: 596 m/s drone flight and orbit velocity (+0.8% speed) My python skills are a bid rudimentary, but maybe I'll muck around and see if I can submit a fix for the next PYFA release facepalm I'm honestly not surprised there's a bug in Pyfa (there's another bug in how it calculates boost bonuses, it doesn't factor in the T2 bonus from the Bursts themselves) but I'm more surprised that speed bonus is stacking penalized in-game. That seems... screwy. Fozzie, is the bonus off the Indy core to drone speed supposed to be stacking penalized with other modules?

Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 46	Posted - 2017.03.12 01:53:21 - [841] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: facepalm I'm honestly not surprised there's a bug in Pyfa (there's another bug in how it calculates boost bonuses, it doesn't factor in the T2 bonus from the Bursts themselves) but I'm more surprised that speed bonus is stacking penalized in-game. That seems... screwy. Fozzie, is the bonus off the Indy core to drone speed supposed to be stacking penalized with other modules? Most (all?) bastion module bonuses are stacking penalized against matching module bonuses, so there's at least some precedent. I've never actually checked to see if it's true for the siege module bonuses on dreadnoughts or the triage module bonuses on FAXes.
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 172	Posted - 2017.03.12 06:19:09 - [842] - Quote You know it's funny with the "pve group booster" thing getting everyone saying you HAVE to multi box to mine properly but I wonder how the reaction would be if ccp made some rats only kill able by subcap S, some rats with mechanics to ecm/web fighters, and some rats that are easiest to kill by carriers Oh. And then nerf the dps of carriers to make sure they can't cheese the mechanics why does shooting a rock into dust require more "teamwork" than killing notoriously wanted and bloodthirsty pirate factions that literally exist in lore to kill other ships? The changes don't even make lore sense, they're just blanket nerfs to only one area of gameplay instead of other sensible options.
Cade Windstalker 1075	Posted - 2017.03.12 07:15:16 - [843] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Most (all?) bastion module bonuses are stacking penalized against matching module bonuses, so there's at least some precedent. I've never actually checked to see if it's true for the siege module bonuses on dreadnoughts or the triage module bonuses on FAXes. Fair point on the Bastion module. I don't think the damage and range bonuses on the Siege module are stacking penalized so I had assumed the same applied to the bonuses on the Rorqual. Then again the original thread says the speed bonus is an MWD bonus and I don't think the Excavators have MWDs so... yeah, no idea. Iminent Penance wrote: You know it's funny with the "pve group booster" thing getting everyone saying you HAVE to multi box to mine properly but I wonder how the reaction would be if ccp made some rats only kill able by subcap S, some rats with mechanics to ecm/web fighters, and some rats that are easiest to kill by carriers Oh. And then nerf the dps of carriers to make sure they can't cheese the mechanics why does shooting a rock into dust require more "teamwork" than killing notoriously wanted and bloodthirsty pirate factions that literally exist in lore to kill other ships? The changes don't even make lore sense, they're just blanket nerfs to only one area of gameplay instead of other sensible options. Sounds like a decent recipe for Null-focused group PvE content honestly. Give the rats the advanced AI, stronger than normal tank, and build the encounters in a way that assumes a balanced fleet comp rather than just DPS or just a few ships. Basically Incursions+++ but without the environmental restrictions that make Incursions kill on sight for most Null groups today and slightly better rewards than you can get solo-ratting. 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.
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 172	Posted - 2017.03.12 19:27:46 - [844] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: 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. Nobody would say you'd "have" to bring subcaps to make it efficient/possible to clear anoms. The carrier still would dps large ships better than a Raven, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it'd be more in interest to add more ravens then. Whether friends or alts wouldnt matter, but ratting would then have to be multiboxed and nothing would change that. IT's easy to apply the same logic to multiple angles you know.
Cade Windstalker 1076	Posted - 2017.03.12 23:14:37 - [845] - Quote Iminent Penance wrote: Nobody would say you'd "have" to bring subcaps to make it efficient/possible to clear anoms. The carrier still would dps large ships better than a Raven, but if you're min-maxing your risk vs reward it'd be more in interest to add more ravens then. Whether friends or alts wouldnt matter, but ratting would then have to be multiboxed and nothing would change that. IT's easy to apply the same logic to multiple angles you know. Yup, and that's all we're talking about here. The Rorqual still mines large rocks better than a Hulk, but not that much better anymore so we're just hypothesizing that it'll probably be much more worthwhile to put Hulks in with Rorquals now. You can still just run a single Rorqual as before and mine more per hour than a Hulk. Side note, you could force sub-caps in with Caps for a site with Acceleration gates, but I really hate that idea, and the one Incursion site that does that is terrible. I'm also personally hoping that CCP don't change existing ratting but add another tier of PvE on top of it, similar to how Incursions worked for Level 4 missions, where the added logistics and risk of having to group up and rely on others is offset by generally greater rewards.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 47287	Posted - 2017.03.13 05:10:44 - [846] - Quote I don't fly a Rorqual, but think there is a lot of sense in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5z1qoy/ccplease_preserve_our_ability_to_welp_100b/ I'm sure CCP will see it anyway, but posting here in case. I hope these changes aren't RIP content.
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2017.03.13 13:00:30 - [847] - Quote They won't be rip content. People will still use lots of rorqs, and lots of rorqs will die. Never underestimate greed (rorq income will still be best in the game for the effort required) coupled with hubris (P.A.N.I.C. button still exists). $10 says 6 months from now we're seeing similar rorqual usage/death rates, absent further major balance changes.
starmaser darkborn Black Flag CommonWealth Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2017.03.13 14:01:51 - [848] - Quote I don't fly rorqs but I feel like the problems have other solutions. For example: - Make EWAR not operable during PANIC - Make a Cyno not usable during PANIC or you cant PANIC while using a cyno - Raise the stenosis time multiplier to something obscene Those would be probable solutions to the problems. Rorqs are capitals with little dps or combat ability (as far as I know), having the PANIC work while moving or transporting is a necessity in my opinion. Thoughts?
Trevize Demerzel 83	Posted - 2017.03.13 14:21:46 - [849] - Quote starmaser darkborn wrote: I don't fly rorqs but I feel like the problems have other solutions. For example: - Make EWAR not operable during PANIC - Make a Cyno not usable during PANIC or you cant PANIC while using a cyno - Raise the stenosis time multiplier to something obscene Those would be probable solutions to the problems. Rorqs are capitals with little dps or combat ability (as far as I know), having the PANIC work while moving or transporting is a necessity in my opinion. Thoughts? They've really not done nothing 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.. -
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 173	Posted - 2017.03.13 17:23:39 - [850] - Quote Trevize Demerzel wrote: starmaser darkborn wrote: I don't fly rorqs but I feel like the problems have other solutions. For example: - Make EWAR not operable during PANIC - Make a Cyno not usable during PANIC or you cant PANIC while using a cyno - Raise the stenosis time multiplier to something obscene Those would be probable solutions to the problems. Rorqs are capitals with little dps or combat ability (as far as I know), having the PANIC work while moving or transporting is a necessity in my opinion. Thoughts? 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.. Fozzie would never facepalm because he'd be too busy spinning it to be "creative gameplay" even though its the same ***** issue that caused people to hate it in pvp. The man is either delusional or powerless, nobody can read the math, test things on the test server themselves, and then look at the numbers of the overall picture and say "Seems legit" when compared to ANYTHING else its ****. Nobody except fozzie it seems. Honestly being nice and pointing out basic math or scenarios doesnt mean to someone who literally spends his dev career trying to be an edgelord to his pvp buddies. Jump hic was a problem for pvp, but pl still wants to use it. So they made damn sure it was still usable to gank. I promise you, fozzie will never, ever, facepalm or realize any wrongdoing. He will simply be proud for supporting his bias stance and continue to bring "great" changes to eve. Fozzie. Please. Take your brilliant "gamechanging" ideas to wormholes. Go on, add entosising and other things to "combat the big power blocs" of wormholes. Your ideas are so brilliant I think the rest of eve needs to benefit from them . Or quit your job. I'd be happy either way. Sorry, but the "feedback thread" where you ignore everything involving proof against your statements is just ******.

Rich Nolen Lom Corporation Just let it happen 0	Posted - 2017.03.14 03:30:09 - [851] - Quote The changes to the excavator drones is really alarming. A 50% reduction in yield, with a reduced cycle time for an effective 25% yield loss. This has a sizeable negative impact on smaller corporations who can only afford to field a limited number of Rorquals. Also, the incredible investment per ship with the Hull and Fit is something that should result in an incredible return. This is really a large Nerf (balance pass being the politically correct term) and the scariest part is that it pretty much takes the ship to the max reduction before it makes it irrelevant again, might as well leave them in the POS if nerfed any more. Sorry but the "the boosts are really a great part of it" does not make up for stripping the yield by this amount. The Rorqual was finally made worth it to take out into the belts, and I think it was received positively. But this large of a yield hit sends the wrong message and the huge groups who are fielding hundreds of these ships will simply field more to compensate and the smaller corps and solo players will pay the price, with yet another Nerf. This is how the player base is lost, senseless changes that enrage veteran players who invest a lot in broken promises made by CCP, IE the release of the Rorqual as a great mining ship.
Ghillie Troll Askold KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2017.03.14 10:52:51 - [852] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: We knew there would be inertia involved in player behavior that might cause the ship to remain underused if it ended up GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥. makes the ship GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥
Huydo Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition. 74	Posted - 2017.03.14 11:50:57 - [853] - Quote RIP now. Rorqual contend will be missed.
JOHNNY Rolette Risen from Ashes inPanic 0	Posted - 2017.03.14 11:54:08 - [854] - Quote This thread like many others, everyone who like tthis want to blob and kill rorquals and are NOT industrial people. People who hate this update are rorqlual pilots and spend 9-11b isk for each one. Conclusion of this are ccp are making pirates and blobs better and worse for industrial aspect, when few of them like to gate ganking in highsec with their alts at weekends and coffee breaks... Is it so in the real world are the capitalists rules, and now its anarchists rule eve online to have revenge of the real world?? Without miners, there are now shipbuilders, without shipbuilders there are no fleets, without fleets there are no pirates and blobs... think about it... Thanks again CCP for demolish a great game once more...
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 186	Posted - 2017.03.14 12:28:34 - [855] - Quote JOHNNY Rolette wrote: This thread like many others, everyone who like tthis want to blob and kill rorquals and are NOT industrial people. People who hate this update are rorqlual pilots and spend 9-11b isk for each one. Conclusion of this are ccp are making pirates and blobs better and worse for industrial aspect, when few of them like to gate ganking in highsec with their alts at weekends and coffee breaks... Is it so in the real world are the capitalists rules, and now its anarchists rule eve online to have revenge of the real world?? Without miners, there are now shipbuilders, without shipbuilders there are no fleets, without fleets there are no pirates and blobs... think about it... Thanks again CCP for demolish a great game once more... Or you could do it like this: go back to mining with 30 hulks and 1 rorquals and the rorqual compresses as the hulks mine :3 The hulks sit on top of the rorqual and the rorqual compresses as it mines. Not as good as before but it'll still be good. Just because rorquals get nerfed a little doesn't mean that the EVE economy collapses because no one mines anymorre.
Manks Girl Balkan Mafia Circle-Of-Two 37	Posted - 2017.03.14 12:31:33 - [856] - Quote How is this a 25% nerf? I am mining a 50% less yield, excavators 15k away from me and extremely slow return? This is going to have a huge impact to industrialists across EVE who finally had the ability to use their heavily invested skills with risk vs reward. I can't see why we would field 13b isk ships to mine what seems as 100m per hour. Madness, CCP this is one of the worst I've seen so far.
JOHNNY Rolette Risen from Ashes inPanic 1	Posted - 2017.03.14 12:35:19 - [857] - Quote Or you could do it like this: go back to mining with 30 hulks and 1 rorquals and the rorqual compresses as the hulks mine :3 The hulks sit on top of the rorqual and the rorqual compresses as it mines. Not as good as before but it'll still be good. Just because rorquals get nerfed a little doesn't mean that the EVE economy collapses because no one mines anymorre.[/quote] Probebly, but no need for rorql for compress, without any PANIC button, only for burst module then, but orca is good too. Back to hauler again. No need to build more rorquals and train my alt for it, nowadays....
Manks Girl Balkan Mafia Circle-Of-Two 37	Posted - 2017.03.14 12:38:03 - [858] - Quote JOHNNY Rolette wrote: Henry Plantgenet wrote: [quote=JOHNNY Rolette] Or you could do it like this: go back to mining with 30 hulks and 1 rorquals and the rorqual compresses as the hulks mine :3 The hulks sit on top of the rorqual and the rorqual compresses as it mines. Not as good as before but it'll still be good. Just because rorquals get nerfed a little doesn't mean that the EVE economy collapses because no one mines anymorre. Probebly, but no need for rorql for compress, without any PANIC button, only for burst module then, but orca is good too. Back to hauler again. No need to build more rorquals and train my alt for it, nowadays.... It isn't a little, it's 50% and your excavators orbiting around roids so are 18k away from you moving at 500m/s. This is broken.
clipper shore Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 14	Posted - 2017.03.14 12:44:30 - [859] - Quote rip eve spend alll that and then the nerf it into the ground bact to playing some other game
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 48	Posted - 2017.03.14 13:33:05 - [860] - Quote Happy patch day everyone! Can't wait for all the crying about Big Spod, especially all of the crying about Big Spod that fails to mention all of the non-gigantic rocks in the anom.

Cade Windstalker 1089	Posted - 2017.03.14 14:21:59 - [861] - Quote Coelomate Tian wrote: Happy patch day everyone! Can't wait for all the crying about Big Spod, especially all of the crying about Big Spod that fails to mention all of the non-gigantic rocks in the anom. There's always a flood of ranting from people who only seem to discover the forums when they're linked to from the patch notes. Doesn't do much for the quality of feedback
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 25	Posted - 2017.03.14 16:35:26 - [862] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Coelomate Tian wrote: Happy patch day everyone! Can't wait for all the crying about Big Spod, especially all of the crying about Big Spod that fails to mention all of the non-gigantic rocks in the anom. There's always a flood of ranting from people who only seem to discover the forums when they're linked to from the patch notes. Doesn't do much for the quality of feedback i wouldn't mind the changes to rock size as much, if they didn't also nerf the drone yield and cycle time (it's really a nerf, whatever fozzie says). my actual yield is maybe one hulk now. and that's with a sentient drone nav. i get that they needed to be nerfed because reasons, but i think the changes combined are too much.
Ares Splinter Bank Of Zion Circle-Of-Two 9	Posted - 2017.03.14 16:36:02 - [863] - Quote CCP Fail now we have sevel member there stop playing they got Butt **** agein CCP Claim to say big risk Big reward NO NO BIG RISK NO REWARD ONLY CCP GET the REWARD HURRA now my Carrier make twice as much as my Rorq.. an it cost 14 bil an the carrier cost 2 bil with fit WTF CCP BRAiNLESS CHanges.. this will cost players.. when CCP buttfuck them so hard some of them did pay 1500$ just to get in to there RORQ an now you steal from them hurra.. Roll back what you have done or pay the people back...
Grognard Commissar Splinter Cell Operations inPanic 25	Posted - 2017.03.14 16:39:05 - [864] - Quote starmaser darkborn wrote: I don't fly rorqs but I feel like the problems have other solutions. For example: - Make EWAR not operable during PANIC - Make a Cyno not usable during PANIC or you cant PANIC while using a cyno - Raise the stenosis time multiplier to something obscene Those would be probable solutions to the problems. Rorqs are capitals with little dps or combat ability (as far as I know), having the PANIC work while moving or transporting is a necessity in my opinion. Thoughts? people use cynos with panic to jump in help
Argyle Henderson Burning Skies Apocalypse Now. 4	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:00:34 - [865] - Quote Sigh/ Let me sum up what most ppl here are thinking. COMPLEATE_BULLSHIT. Well at least I'm not spending plex on a Rourq now. Gankers 3.....miners ZERO. GG CCP. Glad to see you finally admit which side your on. (As if there were ever any doubt)
Argyle Henderson Burning Skies Apocalypse Now. 4	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:07:33 - [866] - Quote Ghillie Troll Askold wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: We knew there would be inertia involved in player behavior that might cause the ship to remain underused if it ended up GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥. makes the ship GÇ£just barely good enoughGÇ¥ *quote edited to more realistically reflect the upcoming changes I also wonder, with increased travel time, rock size, and rock separation, I'm actually curious at this point if the Rorqual will even be able to out-mine a single hulk. Even if it was a situation where the only nerf was the cycle time and yeild changes, the Rorqual would still mine ~2 hulks worth of ore. In practicality it's likely to be closer to 1.25-1.75 Hulks. Given fuel costs, at that point, it might even be more profitable to field ONE SINGLE HULK. So, in order to fly a Rorqual and use Excavator drones, I could either invest ~1b in skillbooks, several months of training time, and another ~8-9b in ship and fitting. That's about 9-10b, all things considered. Alternatively, I could invest a month of training time into getting two characters into Hulks, pay less than 150m for all of the required skills, and then have two Hulks. PLEX cost inluded, 2.5b. That's two hulk characters and three months of PLEX for each of them for the same price as a Rorqual, not even counting the PLEX or money spent on injecting or training the Rorqual pilot. Please explain how that sounds like balanced risk vs. reward. ^^^THIS^^^ It's clear that CCP's love of scumbag gankers and their PROFIT MOTIVE are all that matters here.
Ares Splinter Bank Of Zion Circle-Of-Two 9	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:30:41 - [867] - Quote Rich Nolen wrote: The changes to the excavator drones is really alarming. A 50% reduction in yield, with a reduced cycle time for an effective 25% yield loss. This has a sizeable negative impact on smaller corporations who can only afford to field a limited number of Rorquals. Also, the incredible investment per ship with the Hull and Fit is something that should result in an incredible return. This is really a large Nerf (balance pass being the politically correct term) and the scariest part is that it pretty much takes the ship to the max reduction before it makes it irrelevant again, might as well leave them in the POS if nerfed any more. Sorry but the "the boosts are really a great part of it" does not make up for stripping the yield by this amount. The Rorqual was finally made worth it to take out into the belts, and I think it was received positively. But this large of a yield hit sends the wrong message and the huge groups who are fielding hundreds of these ships will simply field more to compensate and the smaller corps and solo players will pay the price, with yet another Nerf. This is how the player base is lost, senseless changes that enrage veteran players who invest a lot in broken promises made by CCP, IE the release of the Rorqual as a great mining ship. Sorry to SAy this time after 10 years i Feel buttfuck by CCP i just testet the RORQ From 300 mil to 100 mil per hour so its more then 50% an price vs the Carrier Rattig Go for Carrier its not worth it anymore CCP Just Ruin all REsien to use RORQ out side fleet mining i do now also conciter to leave CCP an EVE i feel they cheat people now there have payed 1500$ to get in to a rorq some people are useing real money an they ** them over.. CCP say BIG risk BIG reward They seruis ment give us your money an we buttfuck you after we lure you in to buy a ship an plax to get in to this ship.. so expensiv ships as a Rorq need to be on 250 mil hour vs thana there make 180-200 mil hour .. CCP RELLY ** the player this time.. dont changes the game an if they not know what they are doing to the marked.. or changes the RORQ back to a ship compiaer to the price you pay.. CCP
Ares Splinter Bank Of Zion Circle-Of-Two 9	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:32:18 - [868] - Quote btw an if you now Calulate the Cost of heavy water into the neff its alot more then 50% they stole from us..
krakinette ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation 9	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:40:21 - [869] - Quote Nice patch Known with a 10B rorqual you make 100 M per hour great mining ships of EVE LOL Continu to make patch after time you make patch for nobody!!!!
Ares Splinter Bank Of Zion Circle-Of-Two 9	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:41:09 - [870] - Quote CCP Lebowski wrote: Tribal Trogdor wrote: Quote: Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid. So...if you go in and jam a rorq before he panics, he cant panic? that sounds like a pretty bad fix to the problem here I mean he can panic, just not PANIC Never in the 10 years played i have felt so much hate to the ider people in EVE its going to damm ruin the point of paying for the game RORQ =250 mil per hour price 14 bil vs Carrier 180-200 mil price 2 bil WTF RORQ 100 mil hour vs Carrier 180-200 WTF 14 rorq bil vs 2 bil carrier RISK REWARD IN MY AS CCP TRY TO SCAM US. WEAKE the hell up before you start to lose player we already have more people say they are leaving the game becouse of this .. Eter fire the ideer mann or use the damm brain sorry to said it this time CCP relly fail ..

Forgotten N Forsaken Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 40	Posted - 2017.03.14 17:54:51 - [871] - Quote Personally i think the nerf is a bit extreme when you consider the fact it cost 10 billion isk to set up a rorq, thats with the drones priced at 1 bil each. I personally paid 1.3 bill for each of my drones but i know guys who had to pay as much as 1.9 bil so there full fits where 15 bil when all was said and done. We had to put alot on the line for the ship. We should be able to reap the rewards of it. 150 mil an hour is doable in high sec running incursions with a 1 billion isk ship. (150 mil an hr in the rorq is doable if your mining only arknor for an hr. which is very unlikely)
Rendiir UK Corp Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.03.14 18:15:25 - [872] - Quote Well done fozzie, you complete muppet! because of the size of asteroids it takes on average 15 seconds for drones to return... believe it or not I had a bit of optimism about this rebalance but with the flight time for excavators i'm only just mining a little more than my hulk alts at 25meters... Hardly the Behemoth mining machine ? if I could advise you on how this could be made fair, is to make mining drones like sentries where they do not move and if you wanted to make it even more interesting, throw in a mechanic where you need to be within 2500me or something crazy.. but as it stands Rorquals must be deemed broken at the moment.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 169	Posted - 2017.03.14 19:15:09 - [873] - 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?
ISD Chanisa Nemes ISD Community Communications Liaisons 95	Posted - 2017.03.14 20:42:12 - [874] - Quote Deleted some off-topic posts as well as some posts with offensive language. Please remember to be respectful! ISD Chanisa Nemes Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
ultimatefox02 Core Industry. Blades of Grass 0	Posted - 2017.03.14 21:12:06 - [875] - Quote Quote: #864 - 2017-03-14 20:42:12 UTC Deleted some off-topic posts as well as some posts with offensive language. Please remember to be respectful! do you think, what you do with my Rorqual , is respect US ? No, is not , i stop paying my account, for the first time after 10 years , because YOU NOT RESPECT US. Your update is a S H I T, my last connection yesterday to help a member = 5 MIN , and today to see the belt = 5 MIN TANK YOU CCP and fly safe , but not with
tyea Sons of Anarchy of New Eden Manifesto. 0	Posted - 2017.03.14 21:35:38 - [876] - Quote just wanted to say thank you again dev. for making it open season on rorquals . thanks alot buddy ol pal im really thinking of quitting this game .
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 156	Posted - 2017.03.14 22:12:33 - [877] - Quote 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
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 169	Posted - 2017.03.14 22:41:40 - [878] - 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.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 156	Posted - 2017.03.14 22:50:58 - [879] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: 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. +1 to all of this. Not to mentions small ships had finally became profitable due to the materials being cheaper. CCP just couldn't have that.
Iminent Penance Three Inch Wonders 173	Posted - 2017.03.15 00:00:27 - [880] - Quote ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote: 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! Fozzie made this ******* feedback thread to get feedback Then promptly ignored all the feedback And you want us to be RESPECTFUL of all things? Respectfully... go ** yourselves. You all knew this blanket nerf was horseshit. People told you so. You had more feedback than most changes page-wise. And you ignored it all. Didn't even TWEAK anything or bother explaining why the math people presented was utterly ignored. Yes I'm mad. This was bullshit. Nerf the yield. Nerf the ore size. Nerf the panic. Nerf the range of rocks. NOT ALL AT THE SAME *** TIME. ESPECIALLY WHILE IGNORING FEEDBACK THEN YOU ADD KILLMAILS FOR DRONES TO MAKE IT EASIER YOU WANT RESPECT AFTER THAT? GET ***** REAL. PEOPLE WERE RESPECTFUL FOR SEVERAL PAGES HERE. YOU IGNORED THEM ALL.

Peckem Victoriam per Scientiam The Bastion 4	Posted - 2017.03.15 00:05:03 - [881] - Quote I think of ALL the real world money made by CCP to tempt every miner to ungrade into Rorquals by offering unbelievable returns on investment. CCP must have profited from many thousands of real dollars selling the Rorqual mining upgrades to thousands of miners. But as soon as the real-life money flow stopped, "lets take all the benefits away! Say we are sorry and tough luck to those who invested into a scam, and YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING YOUR REAL MONEY BACK. Here in the U.S. there is actually a word for it. IT IS CALLED "FRAUD"! I think CCP has set themselves up for legal action, a civil lawsuit (real ganking) and I have lost interest in the game and the company.
ISD Max Trix ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1671	Posted - 2017.03.15 02:59:06 - [882] - Quote Quote: 31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited. CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. Removed one or more post for the above reason. At this point I have placed a time lock on this thread. There is a right way and a wrong way to give feedback. If you have an issue, concern, or grievance about this topic please feel free to lay it out. However, calling for anyone to get cancer, ** off and die, or any other form of abuse will not be tolerated. Take this time to collect yourselves and take a breath. ISD Max Trix Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department**
Haidere Evolution Northern Coalition. 18	Posted - 2017.03.17 14:05:26 - [883] - Quote With these changes, it is simply not worthwhile to train into a rorqual and make the investment in the platform due to the large amount of time someone would have to mine in order to break even at this point, even with the price of drones going down. Honestly...why didn't you just make some capital mining lasers? Those would have been infinitely easier to fine tune than drones and wouldn't have been affected by a drone's return speed. CCP...we want capital mining lasers, give us capital mining lasers or a mining DD for the rorqual! :D
Coelomate Tian KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 49	Posted - 2017.03.17 14:50:11 - [884] - Quote CCP: We've noticed a 5-minute respawn timer after fully clearing a nullsec asteroid anomally since the patch went live, where it used to be nearly instantaneous (something like 10 seconds?). Can you confirm if this was intentional, and if so, whether that respawn behavior is being explored/tinkered with for balance purposes? I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything about that in this post or the patch notes. General feedback: I've done a good amount of rorqual mining since the patch. Everything is working as predicted, the income is still great, and I will continue to use my rorquals + barges. In addition, mineral prices have recovered nicely since the nerf was announced, to the point of nearly offsetting the nerf entirely from a pure isk-per-hour perspective. The larger rocks are sometimes a headache to deal with, and it's a shame it now takes ~30%+ more time to acquire enough rocks to build a supercarrier, but otherwise all seems well. A quick summary of ways to mitigate the changes: Change default "warp to within" to 3,000m or so to avoid bouncing when warping to larger rock models. Use barges/exhumers as much as possible on the larger rocks instead of rorquals. Fit 1 or 2 drone navigation computers. Be especially vigilant mining larger rocks if hostiles are nearby, since drone return time could be significant if the asteroid radius is over 5,000m or so. Try to finish the last asteroid with barges instead of rorqs if you're nervous about the P.A.N.I.C. changes.
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 16	Posted - 2017.03.17 21:52:10 - [885] - 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. 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. Seriously? I am sorry but this just makes you sound really stupid An EASIER way to avoid all of this was to just not rorquals to be able to fit those modules instead of putting in that ridiculous targeting an asteroid BS!
Mariko Musashi Hareka Kaishin. 16	Posted - 2017.03.17 21:58:03 - [886] - Quote Oh and also you NEED to reduce the Industrial Core time from 5 minutes to 1 minute
bettepus Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2017.03.19 07:32:13 - [887] - Quote mayby remove the drones and put Giant mining laser on the rorq instead with like 20-25 km range would make it easier for ccp to regulate than calculate drone speeds yield etc then remove the core it self and just give the bonusses to the ship per lvl instead
elitatwo Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1653	Posted - 2017.03.19 14:55:24 - [888] - Quote bettepus wrote: mayby remove the drones and put Giant mining laser on the rorq instead with like 20-25 km range would make it easier for ccp to regulate than calculate drone speeds yield etc then remove the core it self and just give the bonusses to the ship per lvl instead Oh why thank you so much for that idea! Now all I need to do to harass goons is to go to the anomalies and shoot the drones, leave and profit! Eve Minions is recruiting. This is the law of ship progression! Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Ghillie Troll Askold KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.03.21 01:11:54 - [889] - Quote Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can now go to hisec and make more ISK/hr running incursions in a 500m battleship than in a 10b rorqual no? And it's probably safer too.
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 192	Posted - 2017.03.21 09:46:33 - [890] - Quote Ghillie Troll Askold wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can now go to hisec and make more ISK/hr running incursions in a 500m battleship than in a 10b rorqual no? And it's probably safer too. Well to be fair mining is mostly AFK anyway. You just sit there scooping up asteroids with 2 fingers in an orifice (I'll pick "Nose" this time)

Argyle Henderson Burning Skies Apocalypse Now. 4	Posted - 2017.03.22 15:32:48 - [891] - Quote Henry Plantgenet wrote: Ghillie Troll Askold wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can now go to hisec and make more ISK/hr running incursions in a 500m battleship than in a 10b rorqual no? And it's probably safer too. Well to be fair mining is mostly AFK anyway. You just sit there scooping up asteroids with 2 fingers in an orifice (I'll pick "Nose" this time) Which explains why your an absolute booger eating moron of a window licker. You have no idea what your talking about.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3250	Posted - 2017.03.22 15:36:40 - [892] - Quote Ghillie Troll Askold wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can now go to hisec and make more ISK/hr running incursions in a 500m battleship than in a 10b rorqual no? And it's probably safer too. LOL if you think CCP cares about that.
Ghillie Troll Askold KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2017.03.22 16:15:30 - [893] - Quote Henry Plantgenet wrote: Ghillie Troll Askold wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can now go to hisec and make more ISK/hr running incursions in a 500m battleship than in a 10b rorqual no? And it's probably safer too. Well to be fair mining is mostly AFK anyway. You just sit there scooping up asteroids with 2 fingers in an orifice (I'll pick "Nose" this time) You would think that, but actually I'm sitting there making sure my 4-6b worth of highly vulnerable drones sitting in space aren't getting - Stolen - Killed by rats (I've had one insta-blapped by them before I could recall it so far) - Killed by players As well as making sure my Rorqual isn't being attacked or killed. You tend to pay a lot of attention to Eve when you have 8-9b floating in space, especially when 4-6b of it can be killed by rats in under two minutes under the right circumstances. At least with yield nerfs I only worry about my Rorq now, given that it's more efficient and effective for me to own a load of barges, be static in one place the whole time, and not bother moving the damn thing and losing ICore boosts on the barges.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1259	Posted - 2017.03.22 21:49:24 - [894] - Quote Can you PLEASE reduce the cycle time of the Industrial Core down to 3 minutes for T1 and 1 minute for T2? Perhaps give the T2 IC a bigger drone yield buff to give some kind of actual reward for trudging through the 30 odd day training time? At least let us reposition our rorqs more easily. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Ghost Blackman Negative or Positive 0	Posted - 2017.03.28 22:47:32 - [895] - Quote 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.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 6581	Posted - 2017.03.29 01:17:41 - [896] - Quote 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 Woo! CSM XI! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Ghost Blackman Negative or Positive 0	Posted - 2017.03.29 09:45:05 - [897] - Quote 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 mining drones because of the bandwith 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...
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 172	Posted - 2017.03.29 17:17:52 - [898] - 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
Penance Toralen Compass Fox 38	Posted - 2017.03.30 00:16:32 - [899] - Quote 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 I am guessing from the text, the guy is using stock Ice Harvesters I or II which are 50mbs. "Excavator' Ice Harvesting Drone" are 25mbs.
Ghost Blackman Negative or Positive 1	Posted - 2017.04.03 09:28:37 - [900] - Quote Not saying i'm not at 9.88 sec a load of ice per drone 35m in 5mins. I seen people run 10 rorquals for 350m in 5 mins. Nasar Vyron wrote: 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

Sim Cognito Obani Gemini Corporation 29	Posted - 2017.04.23 10:47:03 - [901] - Quote The ore belts and anomalies of any kind should be randomized in location, shape, composition and quantity, be depletable, not instantly regenerate and have a significant scanning element. Instead right now the exact same anomaly respawns, forever. No scanning, no variety, no RNG, no gameplay, only an illusion of substantial conflict in the form of lame sneak attacks. At least the new refinery structures and moon mining seem to be in the right direction... it took what, almost two decades?
Sgt Ocker What Corp is it 1348	Posted - 2017.04.23 23:03:09 - [902] - Quote Sim Cognito wrote: The ore belts and anomalies of any kind should be randomized in location, shape, composition and quantity, be depletable, not instantly regenerate and have a significant scanning element. Instead right now the exact same anomaly respawns, forever. No scanning, no variety, no RNG, no gameplay, only an illusion of substantial conflict in the form of lame sneak attacks. Some people mentioned Delve, why does ore have to be infinite? Would it hurt the game if the forces there moved to another region to find more ore while Delve regenerates its supply? How's that for content? At least the new refinery structures and moon mining seem to be in the right direction... it took what, almost two decades? I think you need to try mining. Mining isn't about PVP although it is a part of it, it isn't about trolling around different systems every day to find belts or anoms. It is about keeping Eve provided with the things it needs to be a game. If miners were forced to go to different systems, constellations or regions every time they killed an innocent asteroid belt, many would simply quit which would push up the price of everything on the market. Eve is a world wide game, miners in different TZ's are affected differently by how asteroid belts spawn, for example I'm an Aussie and when I used to mine ore in highsec I'd often have to wait until after dt because other TZ's had mined out everything. Ice mining was better, as long as the person or group who killed the anom last did so to get it to spawn in the few hours I was online each day, if not it meant spending time looking for a system that had a belt, reducing my ability to earn isk. Mining is not so easy as some might imagine - Yes it has decent rewards but you have to earn them. Unlike running missions, mining entails some risk. Asteroid belts never used to deplete, they lasted forever, they now deplete and yes they respawn in the same system but have different quantities of ore - the more often a belt is mined out the less ore it will contain when it respawns. Leave it alone for a few days it will again be worth mining. Anoms used to be sig sights, you had to scan one down to find, this changed a few years ago. Anoms in nulsec require iHub upgrades and a lot of mining to get them in the first place. Yes they re-spawn pretty much straight away but only because people are mining them, those same miners are at risk of PVP because a group hunting miners no longer has to scan them out as the anoms can be seen as you jump into system, reducing the time miners have to get safe. Making anoms a scan sig again would increase the safety of miners - Good thing if you're a miner, not so good if you're a hunter. You mention Delve, I'm not sure of the context unless you're saying Delve has more ore than elsewhere in nul, it doesn't. It has Goons who over the years have become some of the best miners in the game. They also die a lot, the amount of Rorquals that die each day in Delve is content for many, thank you Goonies. As for moving to another region while Delve anoms/belts regenerate - Do you understand how the whole sov system works? * Sorry guys, Delve ore sites have been depleted and will need time to regenerate - We need to move the alliance and take sov, then upgrade that sov so our miners have something to do. *Eventually you would (quickly I'd imagine) end up with pretty much all of New Eden's ore supplies depleted and Eve would come to a standstill. As for the new moon mining structures, they will be great for those large groups who can put them to use (have full TZ coverage) and have the backup to defend them. So far they just look like another nail in the coffin of smaller groups who eek out a living in nulsec. Devs are doing a stellar job of opening the door for the creation of unassailable coalitions again.. And why not set New Eden back a few years. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Punctator Shadow-Kill Aureus Alae 36	Posted - 2017.04.24 00:58:08 - [903] - Quote 1. CCP could you make decent cargo for minig ships - now ***** mining frigate have near same cargo as hulk. You nerfed ice mining doing dynamic belts ok, ships now can be buffed... mining is dangerous as it is, people dont need to be bots to move from cargo to space or other container every 30s of mining. 2. make carier a carier. You nerfed its battle capability, just give them big cargo for ships. Now carier have cargo for ships like drednaught. It is so ***** stupid. Give them back thair jump ranges too. they have no triage, no assist, literaly cariers are for mining now.
Tessa Sage Legion of the Wicked Way Advent of Fate 4	Posted - 2017.04.29 19:56:01 - [904] - Quote It is strange that we refer to reduction of value as 'Nerf', when that is a trade good IRL for efficient, well-packaged foam fun. Rorquals are now being repackaged in unprecedented restocking to the area markets. I very much liked the accompanying price decline in Rorqual paraphernalia after this change, made for piecing together decent psuedo-Jump Freighter haulers of compressed raw mats. By the way, who uses / used to use Rorquals to mine ore? Can't fly an Excavator through a Mercoxit cloud too often.


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]

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.