It could!
okay, as there is no point to complain - all Big Dudes already agreed with each other - i just share MY view of MY future from MY point.
i dont have umbrella of capitals to help in trouble so all tactic was to minimaze loss and take as much enemies with as possible - rorq strong enough to fight some moskitos but ultimately dont have chances against 10+ cruiser-size ships or higher.
several rorqs were used for moonmining in Nul-sec for about 20-25 hours a week. Sometimes for ice for fuel those rorqs and citadels. Its not r64 moons, but good enough to be better, then NYX-hunting or other straight isk-printing.
Using wetu-depo reduced the loss up to about 1-2bills for each rorq i loss - sometimes it was wormhole rollers or cloak-camper, sometimes it was neighbors as i live close to alliance board.
What do i get after balancing - with 2 drones lost in case of attack the total loss would be about 3-4 bills for each ship with 20% less mining value (btw its a pain to mine moons as moon-ore cant be compressed and even rorq have to unload each 30-40 minites). Enother option - to replace 2 excavators with smaller drones - 2 for ore or 1 for ice - so i can keep losses in old numbers - but they will mine as 1 excavator after rebalance, so then new Rorq will mine about 60% of what it can do now. With all this super-capital hiunting looks much better as i also give isk immidiately and ship have much better mobility (network blocks warp so we just return to several sensor-boosters as it was in old days).
Of course I can just move to space protected with big capital-ship protection like in goons, tests and several others and mine as usual, though this balance suppose to hit them in first place. isn it?
Or just do something else like exploring, incursions or mission-runningā¦ but do i need ally for this? Obviosly no.
In case of rising price for moon-goo in 1.5-2 times its still pretty worth to mine in both ways butā¦ but wasnt it why they add moon-mining for wormholes and hi-sec?
Well what do I know about codingā¦ nothing. Perhaps it can be done similar to T3 cruisers, but replacing the 4 mod slots with 5 support slots. Each added support ship gives a certain bonus to your ship.
Stop crying. You still have a ship that mines more than 2 Hulks, boosts, compresses, dishes out over 1k DPS and tanks whole fleets. Wipe away your crocodile tears and think logically, you spoiled brat.
Besides, be happy that you can still push tons of rorquals into the same belt, which essentially means you still do not have to compromise. CCP should have just given the Rorqual its first iteration mining yield back but limit it to 1 within 1000 km around an asteroid. That way mining would have taken a serious and much needed nose-dive. People then would have to use the Rorqual again as what it was supposed to be: the ultimate mining booster on the field for your fleet of exhumers, exhumers which are a lot more attackable than 20 Rorquals on field. And the Rorqual character with its exhumer swarm would have to make a tactical, meaningful choice with the PANIC: use it to save your mining fleet from bombs or let your mining fleet suffer in order to save your Rorqual from the imminent dread bomb.
That would have been a change which would improve EVE and change things for the better again.
2 Likes
Agree though Iād say exhumers rather than barges. No problem with Roqs mining, but it it should be require player interaction sufficient to limit practical use to one or two for elite multi-taskers-- something akin to carrier ratting.
Maybe I forgot something obvious, but does the devblog mean Excavator yirld will be 80m/3 instead of 800m/3? Iām looking ingame at 100m/3 as the base, not 1000m/3:
SHHHH!
I must say i hope the current Sisi changes are incorrect cause the nerfs to HAWs are much more than a 50% dmg nerf - and itās also nerfed the Dreads which i believe wasnāt the idea when the siege was active.
Seems theyāre all over the place with the gun stats, as stuff like cap usage, optimal range, tracking and falloff, are ALL different on Sisi vs TQ on identical chars with identical fits.
Screenshots:
Check your fits.
Because you donāt have anything enhancing accuracy falloff on the second screenshot. Which even if the base numbers were different you should if itās the same skills, implants and fits. Which says itās either a clear bug or user error.
Also check the module base stats rather than fitted modules.
Nah, the explanationās simpler than that:
That is a Naglar. Sieged. Being repped.
@CCP_Falcon @CCP_Fozzie @CCP_Rise - you broke the Siege Module in these changes.
Also, live Sisi testing confirms the charts theyāre presenting are flawed, but in the neighborhood. For example, the fax curve:
The curve is based on 1600hp/s per rep, which is a T2 Capital Remote Armor Repairer II. The black line is 6 reps (has to be at the left side of the #, or the orange line couldnāt start at 1). The chart predicts that 6 reps at 1600hp/s will be around 96-97% effectiveness. CCP also tells us that the amount being repped, not the number of modules, is really what the math is working on.
Actual SISI testing using Lifs[1] with CONCORD Capital Remote Shield Boosters (1833hp/s) shows this number coming in at 93.12%[2]. Itās important to remember, though, that the difference in modules and hulls comes into play here. Six CCRSBs on the Lifs roughly equate to the same number of total repairs as 6.87375 CRAR IIs on CCPās baseline Apostles.
As you can see, 93% is roughly in the neighborhood of 7-8 Apostle reps.
The cruiser chart is also about right. This is what the chart looks like for cruiser-scale reps. Weāre not told what ācruiser repsā are supposed to mean, though as has been previously established, the numbers appear to be focusing on Large Remote Shield Booster IIs. Testing on Sisi took place with 14 Basilisks, each carrying 3 Large Murky Compact Remote Shield Boosters and 1 Large Ancillary Remote Shield Booster.
(please note that the center of the ā1ā now lines up with the beginning of the chart)
In this chart, the black line is the predicted performance of 42 (14x3) reps on the cruiser formula. What we saw in testing was 562 hp/cycle, down from 600 for a single module. This is 93.667% effectiveness, where the chart appears to predict around 90.5%. However, LRSB IIs produce a baseline of 680 hp/cycle (85hp/s). which is roughly equivalent to 1.13x the performance of the Murkies. When we adjust to the predicted performance for 25,200 incoming reps, we come up with 37.05 LRSB IIs. The blue line indicates where on this chart 37 modules occurs, and comes inā¦ a little below the observed 93.667%, but not by much.
Finally, the green and red lines. The green line represents the combined effectiveness of all 56 reps on the 14 shipsā42 Murkys and 14 Ancillaries. The Ancillaries deliver 950 reps per cycle, but when combined with the Murkies, the final amount per Ancillary is only 869 hp/cycle, or 91.47% effectiveness. The Murkies drop to 535 under the same conditions, or 89.16% effectiveness. The combined effectiveness of the shipsā remote repairs averages to 90.58%.
The chart, however, predicts ~86-87% effectiveness at 56 reppers (Green). When we perform the same adjustment for rep amount, the numbers should move back to roughly aligned. However, the total pre-diminishing reps from those modules is 38,500. 56 LRSB IIs deliver 38,080. The adjustment actually moves things higher, though not by a full repper.
Even when we apply the diminishing returns and adjust to LRSB IIs, the result of ~51 reppers still comes in at 89% predictedābelow what weāre seeing with actual numbers.
This is likely an artifact of the non-uniform rep sizes on the modules, but more testing is definitely needed.
All in all, CCP definitely have a better handle on their math than Iād initially thought, so good job on that, guys, and I apologize for my own errors. However, thereās still some stuff going wonky when we get into the permutations and complications we see in actual gameplay. So, fair warning: the meta may not be the clean curve you anticipate.
- Lifs and RSBs were chosen because of their application at the beginning of the cycle, not the end. This enabled testing of things like ācan you weaponize a single FAX rep to degrade the effectiveness of subcapital logistics?ā The answer turns out to be āyesā, but the point at which the FAX repās penalty to the cruiser reps outweighs the amount of reps being delivered by the FAX rep isā¦ prohibitive, roughly 35-40 cruiser logi. At which point, really, youāre already playing the ākill the damned logi firstā game.
- One of the biggest problems with testing at low numbers like this is that it appears possible to game the systemāor at least, game the reporting. Each remote repair module looks like it applies a modifier based on amount delivered and the size of the module. However, when testing in the low-end, this modifier can appear to fall off, becauseā¦ it does. Each moduleās modifier falls off immediately before re-application, as it cycles. This is also the moment when that moduleās repairs land, so it never sees its own modifier. This means that, depending on how well-staggered the repairs are, when testing with 1-2 faxes, the first cycle of all repairers will exceed the curve by 1 module: itself. Over time, this appears to smooth out, though.
I checked EVERYTHING - fits and chars are identical, even went through the mutated dmg mods on the avatar to verify they were exactly identical.
If youād read the post and not just look at the screenshots, youād see that i commented on exactly this that the mods are all over the place even though they shouldnāt beā¦
Seriously: they broke the siege module.
1 Like
Anything that makes mining more difficult leads to higher earnings for the miners that remain
1 Like
I read. Just wanted to be sure rather than assume. Thanks for confirming.
Listen, people!
This is what you should get after spending billions to ship and skills! Choice between bad and bad! 
Reallyā¦the bots are the reason all the nerfs are taking place in eveā¦i have to lol this
In the future, I really do think it would be best for CCP to include the equation they plan on using unless it specifically needs to be kept secret. I understand that there are likely a good majority of people who may not fully comprehend the witchcraft that is algebra, but it is a little insulting to assume that thereās not a person among the playerbase that couldnāt benefit from giving it a pair of second eyes.
You trusted us with all those industry blogs for Crius. Surely we can use this one too.
Hell, if it is that bad then even better. You have an easy math test/filter for finding good feedback.
1 Like
Oh, right. I forgot: Meaningful Choice is now a banished concept. Instead, people just need to have their I-Win-Buttons to feel save and cradled in their Warning: Fragile Ego Inside boxes.
Catiz, I wish there was a way to know if you are serious (and by extension stupid beyond belief) or whether you mean this ironically.
Massive Multiboxers. When you see 30 Rorquals in a system you know something is bad. None of the nerfs would have had to be put in place if CCP had only done the logical thing way earlier on and limit the Rorq to what it was supposed to do: boost. The first announcements of the changes to Rorquals even say so specifically: The Rorqual gets excellent mining capabilities to make boosting your fleets more worthwhile. CCP just failed to read their own texts and still remains utterly oblivious of the āfleet partā.
Not that you can blame them for that if you have muppets like March Rabbit existing at all.
" Caracal Navy issue
- Drone bay and bandwidth increased to 25m3
Corax
- PG increased to 53 (was 48)"
YAAAAASSSSS
hahaha I have to lol again at thisā¦you are missing the bigger hidden agenda ever since all these monthly updates started years agoā¦with the so called vision they had. And before you say itā¦no āāand the earth its not flatāā No conspiracy in space pixels gameā¦only making more money that is whats all aboutā¦soā¦ its okā¦ if you donāt understand what iām on about and disagreeā¦not everyone can identify the truth.
1 Like