Orca and Rorq: Bring Balance CCP!

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
41

No, the fact that you are far less likely to have to replace an Orca does.

If you mine more in a Hulk, but all of the extra ISK you earn from that extra ore goes into periodically replacing Hulks that get shot out from under you, is if really more profitable to mine in a Hulk?

My math (and the math of a plethora of hisec miners) says no. That’s why you see so many solo mining Orcas in hisec.

Take away the Orca’s mining bonus, and that math changes considerably. Procurers and Skiffs become a more viable option and the risk of flying a Hulk makes a bit more sense.

42

No it does not. You are mixing things that you should not mix. The yield is the volume your ship can extract per unit of time. The cost of the ship, and the probability to have to repay it, do not change this. The probability of being ganked could have an effect if it was high enough to effectively reduce your mining time by a noticeable amount. However those values can’t be set for the ship, so they are not a property of the ship but of the way you use it - so different people, different values.

I understand what you mean, but it’s false to define the gank probability as a property of the ship. The effective yield is better for the other ships.

Your math is out-of-topic. I was answering to people claiming that orca was better on all points than other ships, which is factually wrong. Just because you have ONE ship that can outperform the others in a combined multicost evaluation, does not mean this ship is actually better than the others on all points. And actually, the notion of “better than other” depends on the valuation function that was chosen - in your case it’s an average income in a high loss environment over long period of time with lots of rocks big enough for the drones to mine them nonstop, but if you choose another evaluation, eg the naked EHP/cost, the orca is the worse one.

Or just give more EHP to the barges. Or the way to make a correct fit.

43

What is so hard for you to “get”? I want to ask if your IQ is super low?

The ship has THREE ROLES, that is fundamentally wrong.

It’s like arguing with a climate denier or a Trump zombie.

Wake up!!

44

If you’re making a personal aggression, that means you are unable to discuss my argument, therefore the issue is with your bitching.

If you have nothing to add just leave. Like the little ■■■■■ you are.

45

I don’t think I claimed that the Orca had a higher raw yield than the barged/exhumers, and I apologize if I did. You are correct, looking purely at raw yield, an Orca will mine less than any exhumer. (And I think any barge too, but I haven’t checked the numbers in a long time.)

And again, you are correct. My analysis technique is subjective. But the reason I bring it up is that when enough players use a similar subjective analysis, reach the same conclusion from that analysis, and alter their gameplay accordingly, that has an impact on game balance. It’s called emergent gameplay and CCP has balanced around it in the past.

In this case, I think it’s pretty obvious that CCP didn’t intend fleets of Orcas to be mining, they intended those Orcas to be supporting fleets of dedicated mining ships.

You’re trying to fix the wrong problem with that change. The underlying issue isn’t that barges/exhumers lack EHP, it’s that the Orca and Rorqual have excessive mining capability that isn’t necessary to fulfill their other roles.

1 Like
46

I was not answering to you, but to

You are the one who claimed I was wrong with the yield, hence my explanations.

What is “enough” ? Do we have more mining orcas in proportion, than ganking catalysts ? Why not nerf the catalyst instead ?

Any modification of the game is supposed to have an impact on the game balance. Otherwise it has no effect, and therefore was useless.

It still does not make orcas fleet mining an issue.

Except that since their yield is lower than the other ships, AND they are supposed to be also mining ships, then the yield is not the issue.

They are designed by CCP to be effective mining ships.
They also have less tank, compared to their price, than eg a procurer and still less mining capacity once the proc is boosted.

So they are replacing the barges because the barges are bad. THAT is the issue, and definitely not their yield, which is required to fulfill their role of both booster and miner ship.

I’m not saying there is no other issue, and IMO the bad gameplay of mining is the most important. I repeat what I already explained : mining should an active and enjoyable activity, instead of a multibox-netflix one. An activity where environment-awareness rewards you instead of something where you do nothing.

Make rogue drones spawn when you mine rocks. Make roids create local effect (like in abyss, eg small DPS) when mined. And what’s more, make the different ship sizes have each their own role, instead of making one just the raw upgrade of the others.

47

You are still wrong, as others have tried to impress upon you yield doesn’t matter when you can run AFK with a huge tank.

48

What about no ?

Yield still maters if you are not AFK. Not you need to show that most players are actually Away From Keyboard, which is very difficult. And since it is difficult, you claim that you are right ? BS.

49

OIC Osterich, ok, bye.

image

1 Like
50

UC nothing, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You make random claims that “people are AFK” when you don’t eve know who you are talking about.

51

I read back a few of your post, you are pretending there is no problem.

52

Learn to read. I say that people who pretend there is a problem, are talking out of their arse.

53

Aww did I make you mad? :rofl:

You still have no answered why it is ok for a ship to have THREE ROLES?

54

How could a ■■■■■ make someone mad ?
You are giving yourself to much importance. All you can do, is suck.

And why would I answer that ?
It’s not like you made a point. You are just begging the question.

55

You may think you are being clever, but as a developer with 30 years of experience, yours is just the kind of posts we ignore. No body gives a ■■■■ about word games, we just don’t have time for that.

The ship has 3 roles, most ships have 1, you are defending this as ok.

Why? Why is it ok for a ship to have 3 roles?

56

Why is it not ok?
You are the one making the claim here, when CCP have clearly indicated that this is intentional, and it provides the pilots of those ships active gameplay rather than sitting there as an alt account with the boosts running.
Additionally by the same token one can claim that every single battlecruiser has 2 roles, every single recon has 2 roles, HIC’s clearly have two roles, Titans have… Um, at least 5 roles. So your claim that ‘most ships only have 1 role’ is clearly false.

57

BS

BS again.

BS again.

You may think you are clever, but as the president of the galaxy with 3000 years of experience, yours are just the kind of BS we ignore. Nobody gives a ■■■■ bout fallacious claims, we just don’t have time for that.

Also T1 explo frig can be used to haul, to scan signatures, to salvage, to open relic/data sites, to combat probe. That’s six roles on the same ship !!! CCP must answer why it’s not an issue !

58

There are a lot of ships in EVE with more than 1 role:

  1. T3 Cruisers - classically have always filled multiple roles
  2. Covert Ops - at least 2 traditional roles - exploration and scouting (including cloaky camping)
  3. Bombers - bombing and traditionally a cyno platform for capital escalation
  4. Catalyst - has for a long time been used as a salvage platform in addition to a combat ship
  5. Interceptors - scouting, tackle and combat, plus nullified travel
  6. Many combat ships also made good mining ships prior to barges
  7. Rorquals - clone bay, compression, boosting even before the links changes
  8. Titans - combat, bridging, clone bays, etc.

So it’s ok not only because there have always been ships in the game with multiple roles, but because that’s the way CCP chose to redesign the Orca and Rorqual.

Specifically for the Rorqual rebalance, there was a lot of outcry in the community about the change in links, requiring the Rorqual to come out of the safety of a POS shield and CCP specifically balanced the roles to ensure people had sufficient reason to lose that old safety net. That also carried into the Orca, especially in highsec where it used to just sit in POS or on a station and boost.

1 Like
59

I agree that lots of ships have two roles. But this topic is about ships with three roles. Going over your examples:

#1 & #8: It’s generally accepted that T3s and Titans are broken, so they may not be the best examples. T3s have a huge range of roles…but can generally only do one or two of them at a time. Titans are, well, Titans.
#2 & #3: Fair points, but all covert ops cloaked ships have access to covert cynos, so also not necessarily the best examples. Also, counting “exploration” and “scouting” as two separate roles when they often rely on the same bonuses (combat probes) is a bit of a stretch.
#4 & #6: Ships can be “good” at multiple things without necessarily having bonuses geared towards them. Salvaging isn’t a “role” for a Catalyst, it’s a side benefit of a small, fast ship with lots of high slots. Same for mining battleships, 500MN MWD bumping Nomens, etc.
#5: Any fast ship can make a good scout, 'Ceptors are fast because they have to, you know, intercept their targets. Them being good scouts is like Catalysts being good salvagers.
#7: Using a Rorqual as an example of why Orcas and Rorquals should have 3 separate roles is circular logic. Sorry.

So, at the end of the day, when you exclude ships that aren’t broken and look at specifically bonused roles as opposed to happy side benefits or unintended uses, how many ships actually have three roles beyond the Orca and Rorqual? More than a few have two, which is fine, so I think the Orca and Rorqual being mining fleet support and ore hauling platforms is more than acceptable.

Also, keep in mind that saying each ship currently only has three roles is being exceedingly generous. You can only get to that number by lumping “command bursts”, “massively buffed combat drones”, "insane tractor beam capabilities, “powerful mineral scanners”, and “remote shield reps” into “mining fleet support” for both platforms, and lumping “massive ore capacity” and “ore compression” into “ore hauling” for the Rorqual.

Imagine if Marauders had all of their current bonuses, plus a bonus to salvaging, plus the ability to run command bursts, and a separate massive hold for salvaged items, and you’re getting close to how badly broken the Rorqual is.

These ships are ridiculously overpowered. They do anything anyone would want any mining ship to do all by themselves, and they do it in a platform that is far more difficult to kill than any dedicated mining ship is.

It’s time for their mining bonuses (and excavator drones*, since only Rorqs can use them) to go and let the mining ships do the mining.

*Alternatively, keep excavator drones and release a new class of capital ship designed specifically to use them, but without any of the boosting, compression, PANIC, etc. of the Rorq.

60

It’s true and I am at work now, we are all lolling you.