A nerf to Rorquals that slimly affect the "little guy"

This post is a repost of my previous text on reddit. I’ve put it here since Its fitting for this sub section of the forums.

Recent Rorqual nerfs have targeted the mining capability and infinite mining potential of Rorquals & the like, but it seems to me that CCP has been nerfing the wrong thing to fix the issue. Yes Rorqual was a bit too strong mining 500m /hr or some dumb ■■■■ like that, and has been brought down to a more reasonable level, maybe even a little too low, but thats not the point of this post.
In my personal opinion (which is also the opinion of many others I’ve spoken to about it), the issue is not the Rorquals capability of mining or single capabilities, its issue is that of The P.A.N.I.C module.
This module was introduced as a “Protect your fleet of miners while assistance gets here”, which it has done greatly.
However, I don’t find that this has had the effect that was intended. While having 5-7.5m invulnerability sounds all nice & well, it breaks of compared to any other ships capabilities in the game, creating a problem for the “global” use for Rorquals.

Lets do 2 quick scenarios to sum up the current state of Rorqual use throughout Tranquility.

Scenario 1: (The blob)
You’re a happy Rorqual miner in Delve / Impass / Deklein / any other larger entitiy in the game with a major capital / super capital pressence that can’t be lightly defeated without major movement occurs by other blocks. You get tackled by a fleet & are dying, you naturally activate your panic mode and a cyno, while starting to scream for help. Your allies jump into the assumed standing fleet and jump their 100 capitals / super capitals to you, and you are safe. The End.

Scenario 2. (The not so blob)
You’re a happy Rorqual miner in Dronelands / the south east / vale / other smaller less protected areas of Eve. You get tackled by a fleet & are dying, you naturally activate your panic mode and a cyno, however in this scenario your allies can’t muster a fleet to save you fast enough, or a formup that can ensure the safety of your Rorqual, and therefore you die.

As these scenarios show, the big groups have more protection, hence less Rorquals die (obviously), but since the large groups have the capability of scaling Rorquals infinitely and in almost absolute safety, its become less feasible for small entities to ever mine on their own, meaning the use of Rorquals gets limited to that of the major groups, isntead of a spread across all of the cluster.
My idea to fixing this problem, is not to fix the Rorqual itself, but instead to fix the panic module. The idea comes in 3 options (that I could think of), and I will explain why I lean more towards option 2 & 3 but here they are.

Option 1. (the timer).
When a current state panice module is activated you’re immune to any harm for 5-7.5 minutes. This should be reduced to 2.5-5 minutes to make it slightly harder to form 100+ guys to safe the person in need of assistance, and creates are more time sensitive matter (I mean come on, its not hard to form 100 guys in <2 minutes in a 2.000+ man alliance, when they get to use their big toys).

Option 2. (Tradeoff)
This option has ben proposed 100 times over, but here it is again.
Leave the panic module timers as is, but disallow activation of cynos during the effect, to make it a either other scenario, forcing the pilot of said Rorqual to either become safe for 5-7.5min or be able to get help while hopefully tanking.

Option 3. (1 for 1)
Alter the panic module parameters, so when a Rorqual activates panic while having a required rock locked, the rock becomes (Anchored) or w/e meaning other Rorquals cannot panic of this module. This option gives a larger nerf to massive mining groups while not touching the smaller groups. (another added function to this would be the panic consuming the locked rock making it have a “cost” to panic)

Option 4.(no panicing)
Remove the Panic module completely ^^ (I know this won’t happen but the entire idea of a 5min immunity regardless of any parameters is retarded imo).
As far as I am concerned, these are the options, though I am not saying I have not missed any, (please do share if I have).

I personally lean more towards option 2, 3 and 4. as I find that its not exactly hard to burn a cyno ceptor or the like <15 jumps in 7.5min and if that is an impossible task for any major group, then they really don’t deserve to have Rorquals (imo).
Either of these changes would mean more Rorquals dying, making the market for ore moreprofitable to enter, and therefore more Rorquals across the cluster which again would lead to more dead Rorquals / fights over them.
I hope you didn’t die/ fall asleep reading this wall, and hope there can be a constructive discussion about this subject, instead of Rorqual pilots just crying about their loss of “ticks”.

And I of course hope CCP reads this and thinks its a great ideat! :wink:


Reserved for answers & other things

Do you really think that Corps/Alliances using rorquals are the little guy in New Eden?

I know it all depends on perspective in that, you can be little compared to the big dogs like PL, NC., Goons, etc., however the use of rorquals is a choice; and a choice that the true little guys can’t make at all.

So if you want choose to use a rorqual because of the greater income, availability of the PANIC module, or any other reason, it’s on your Corp/Alliance to be able to support that operation.

It’s high end play, just as other capital use is; and it’s fine for the game to have high end play that is out of the reach of many. Otherwise, what is there to aim for in the game for veterans and more experienced players.

1 Like

Based on the above I would have to agree but would offer the following comments in addition which it seems weren’t taken into account when the rorqual and PANIC module were overhauled.

  1. The Rorqual when in Industrial Core Mode tanks similarly to a triaged Force Auxillary or old Triage Carrier, however does not have the limitations of one.
    a. The limitations of a Force Auxillary or old Triaged carrier always prevented it from doing 2 jobs both repping another fleet member and doing damage, however the rorqual can use panic/icore and continue to do damage while also lighting a cyno for help
    b. The Rorqual tanks similarly to a FAX, however it can go invulnerable for 5-7mins, Which I think we can all agree would be broken if a FAX could do

  2. One of the major things Eve/CCP has stressed over the years is Risk vs Reward which is why the harvested amount was lowered, however when they did this for the “small guy” they made it worth mining in 3-4 barges again because the reward was no longer there for the risk of using a large ship, where as the “big guy” got 3 more rorquals and fit Cynos scaling his operation with no risk
    a. Rorquals as of late have created content across all groups of Eve, big and small (examples: more people in industry, more Home Defense Fleets, More hunting Fleets, More small scale fights that eve was built on) so another way to fix this issue would be to prevent both a cyno and Panic module being fit at the same time, OR No Cyno can be lit within XX km of a paniced ship
    c. Require 70% cap (similar to jumping) to activate the panic module so there isn’t as much time spent between both tanking and panicing

I think the biggest issue with Rorquals isn’t the ship or the mining amount, but rather the Panic module and how it affects people has no drawbacks. If there was less tank on a rorqual and it didn’t take 20-30 proper fit people to kill it then a panic module would be more appropriate, however it is one of the tankiest ships in the game that also gets an invulnerability timer, can do more damage while tanking than most Battleships with Drone Damage Amps and has no drawback or requirement to activate other than the module dies after (which with the new citadel patch is free to dock and repair and use again)

So basically, Panic has no cost, no drawback and is the strongest module in the game that if fitted to any other ship CCP would consider broken.

I think I’ve explained my definition of the “little guy” wrongly then. My intention was to refer to the medium/mediumsmall entities in nullsec whom still use rorquals, but can no longer do it in a reasonably profitable way, due to the harsh yield nerfs CCP has chosen to go with as nerfs.

Nerfing the panic module make a much larger impact on the few people in the game who scale the quantity of rorquals to a level where having a reduced yield makes no difference, since you can just add a couple more rorquals to compensate. (example Gaara’s Sniper from goonswarm with 50+ rorquals)

I find the using this kind of scaling should have a risk added to it, just like ratting in a supercapital & any other PVE in eve should have, even for a larger bloc of the game.

You do realize that Gaara suffered a massive loss of rorquals even though im sure they all had panics and cynos fit and he was in grrr goon territory.

Also, you seem to imply that your ideas should punish large alliances because…well…they are large and successfully and for no other reason, which is as bad a reason for a change as it gets even though it appears CCP did just that with its mining anom nerf.

Also, you imply that mid-level alliances in nullsec should be protected by some game mechanic which is anathema to the very nature of nullsec living. Rather, if you cannot protect your mining operations and your corp/alliance flounders because of this then those huge alliances are giving you a clue as to how to solve the problem without introduction of some artificial crutch for your mid-sized alliance to lean on. (hint: the solution involves recruitment).

Your understanding of what happens when a rorqual comes under attack in one of ‘those large alliances’, is at best a serious over generalization and more likely just simply and completely wrong. The general response from the alliance i belong to is to send a fax or carrier and bugger off whatever underpowered aggressor bothered to attack one of our rorqual pilots. We rarely see any fleet of consequence and if we do they turn into killmails pretty fast.

I will say i agree that the panic module is currently overpowered but the best solution i can see is simply to reduce how much defense it provides. Now you get your need for expedient response you wanted in option one and small corps / alliances that might take a bit longer to form up a defense still have 7 mins to do so provided the rorqual pilot decided to fit some tank.

Btw, reducing the timer to 2.5 mins only hurts smaller entities not the big boys. Small and Mid-sized alliances are far more likely to need more time than huge alliances; who typically respond to attacks in times better measured in seconds than minutes.

Also, dividing up panic and cynos so they cannot be both on a rorqual will also hurt small and mid-sized alliances far more than the big boys because we will find a work around that will come easy to us but be difficult for less wealthy and smaller alliances to afford or implement.

This statement implies that you believe that small and mid-sized alliances need help[quote=“Choridon_Saissore, post:7, topic:10745”]
You do realize that Gaara suffered a massive loss of rorquals even though im sure they all had panics and cynos fit and he was in grrr goon territory.

Yes Because the man was mining with his big ass mining fleet during a strat op that kept like 80% of the available alliance busy 2 regions over. Hence couldn’t get saved.

So, you have found a strategy for killing rorquals, even in huge alliances! conrgrats! Now go out there and start pounding Gaara till he screams for mercy.


Yes Because the man was mining with his big ass mining fleet during a strat op that kept like 80% of the available alliance busy 2 regions over. Hence couldn’t get saved.

[quote=“Cindy_the_Sewer, post:6, topic:10745”]
Also, you imply that mid-level alliances in nullsec should be protected by some game mechanic which is anathema to the very nature of nullsec living.
[/quote]I am not implying such a thing at all and if you think thats what I’m writing in this post you a clearly not reading it right, cause I have not at any time in my post mentioned anything about “protecting” anyone.
What I’m trying to explain is that CCP needs to make it a game of risk / reward. The risk doens’t really change for small / med size alliances if the panic module gets altered to the worse, since there is a good chance that these alliances wouldn’t be able to save the Rorqual under attack regardless.

This state ment is an example of what you’re saying I have & do. Considering I Rorqual mine myself on a relatively large scale in a bloc, and I have characters in goonswarm aswell as many other alliances, I would say I have vastly more knowledge of “what happens” when a Rorqual gets attacked.
Further more I’ve probably killed more Rorquals than you or most other people in the game, considering I run fleet specificly targeting said ship on a relatively regular basis.
This gives me a twosided view & makes me alot more enlightned about the situation than most.

Good that we agree that its overpowered. The last line about “fitting some tank” is exactly one of the reasons why the panic module is severely broken, cause if you fit your rorqual right, it would barely be neccesary to use it, unless the agressing force is overwhelming, but people in, since we brought it up, Delve don’t give a damn about fits & solely rely on they panic module and cyno for safety, which is not what I think CCP intended when they released the module.

[quote=“Cindy_the_Sewer, post:6, topic:10745”]
Also, dividing up panic and cynos so they cannot be both on a rorqual will also hurt small and mid-sized alliances far more than the big boys because we will find a work around that will come easy to us but be difficult for less wealthy and smaller alliances to afford or implement.
[/quote]I can give you a cheap easy workaround that even the smallest of groups can implement, its called “cyno ceptor”.
Any ceptor can travel >10j’s within the current timeframe of Panic, and if a “small” alliance has sov further than that away, they should be punished cause they controling far more than they should be able to.

In the end of those reply, please post with ur main & have a little honour :wink:

Let’s start here, i dont post on my main because it is absolutely irrelevant. Further, my statements are my own and on my main you would see both my corporation and my alliance and i dont speak for them and i certainly dont want anyone to believe that my ideas in any way are a reflection of my corp or alliance. Additionally, i dont want lumped in with the beliefs of my corp or alliance since we have vastly differing opinions about how the development of EVE should proceed. Lastly, i find it pathetic that your ‘honor’ as a person is dependent in anyway on a video game. I can assure you that my honor is built on much stronger stuff than that. (I’ll spare you and any other reader the goofy wink emote.)

So, you are saying that despite being in what might be the largest alliance in EVE, you can still achieve destruction of a bunch of rorquals, assuming you either got lucky or better yet you planned ahead and made sure their defense was weak when you attacked. This is directly counter to your scenerio 1 and now you have a problem because this was the basis for your entire argument. I appreciate you providing direct evidence against your own premise and saving me from having to do it.

Your entire discussion is about making it easier for small and mid-sized corporations to succeed at rorqual mining and your strategies for ‘solving the problem’ is to hurt the ability of large well organized alliances to succeed. EVE isnt about you getting help because your small and weak, it is about you getting big enough and organized enough to keep what is yours. So, i stand by my statement that your ideas are anathema to EVEs core gaming mechanics.

You seem to focus on ‘risk vs reward’ as the only justifiable reason for balancing things in EVE, while leaving out that, ‘small and disorganized’ should be punished. Also, do you think those huge alliances got that why, ''poof" here we are. No, they got that way by a lot of hard work and they keep them that way by a lot more hard work. This ‘work’ MUST be rewarded and again you leave this out of the equation.

Odd because i too mine using 4 rorqual pilots in a large alliance and your over-generalization about the response of large alliances to a rorqual being aggressed is just that and over-generalization. I can assure you that the alliance i belong to doesnt generally bother with a huge response to a rorqual being aggressed, its a waste of a bunch of people’s time to do so, it would hurt or economics if we kept responding this way since all those people responding to a single rorqual aggression means they arent making ISK. Further, if we continued to respond this way we could easily be manipulated by our enemies since a small group of aggressors could hurt both our economic base as well as exhaust our defensive forces that would soon tire of constantly over-reacting to a rorqual aggression, not to mention the weakening of our forces ability to respond to threats due to accumulation of jump fatigue.

So you are saying that with luck (or better yet planning) someone killed a massive number of rorquals in what is probably the largest alliance in EVE, this is directly counter to your own argument that states in scenerio 1 that rorquals arent going to die in large alliance space when this particular loss of rorquals was probably one of the largest single losses of rorquals in EVEs history. Again, i cannot express enough my appreciation for again providing a scenerio that is directly counter to and undermines your entire premise, thus saving me the time to have to supply one.

Wait, you want to argue even when we agree!!!


If that small alliance cannot protect the rorquals it has then it shouldn’t be controlling that space at all. Either you have the might to control space or you do not. Control is the most important word in both our sentences, an alliance doesnt have control of its space if a simple mining operation is outside their ability to pull off. And once again i thank you for providing a good argument against your own premise, you sure are saving me a ton of time.

Must say that it seems that any nerf to “larger groups”, would of course also have an impact on smaller ones, but I think this would be a step in the right direction, since it makes less of a change to the small than the big.

Good ideas

(post deleted by author)