In general there should be a better reason than that for not introducing something new because you can always find someone who loses whenever you add something new to the game? So just because there may be losers when something new is introduced or changed is not a good argument in itself. But also i dont think its possible to add something new where everyone wins and noone loses. Im curious about some examples if thats the case.
You asked what was wrong with Rorquals. They are not new, or about to be introduced. Their effects on the economy have already happened, and scarcity was already implemented as a measure to address the problems they contributed to creating. On the subject of adding a new ship, I said any industrial ship you add or any size needs to avoid making the same mistake so that the universe doesn’t have to go through a scarcity phase a second time.
problems they contributed to creating
What was the problem? Ore being dumped on the market? Why is that a problem? New players wont be able to make money from mining then? Why is that a problem? Seems like a bad argument because if ore gets dumped on the market then prices drop on things that are heavily dependent on ore prices, which means altho new players may not be making the same as before prices changed, they also wont have to pay the same for the modules and ships so what is the damage?
What an insane thing could happen if someone manages to kill an ORE titan? That could impact ore prices in high sec. This is nice! Not bad imo
A thing that destroys the market for the thing that it makes and obviates not only its own use, but the use of every other thing engaged in the production of that thing is a net negative. If you don’t believe that, that’s fine, but that the devs thought it was a serious problem and employed drastic measures to try and rebalance things means you’ve got an uphill battle if you want to convince them to double back.
Why was it considered a problem? Ratting would pay more than mining? Why is that a problem? Eventually a balance would be struck as well. If everyone start ratting instead of mining then mining slowly becomes more and more lucrative due to supply and demand? So there is no fundamental problem with a bigger and better miner imo. But whatever. Whatever.
I believe it caused a glut of supers. too many of those throws the game balance out of whack.
I will pass lol. No thanks OP.
We already got Orcas and Rorquals. Sometimes bigger is not always better…
CCP already got a lot on their plate with balancing this economy.
I like the idea of Industrial Titans. Sounds like a cool idea. Not much of a fan about ‘eating’ asteroids but yeah the idea of ORE-Class Titans for industrial purposes seems cool. I know a lot of (new) people like mining in the game so this probably excites a lot of people too.
And, maybe for the other side who loves to destroy things they have another target to destroy.
If it doesent eat asteroids then it would just become a glorified rorqual.
But this idea seems more about a Capital Mining Laser than an ORE Titan. Or those would certainly be the module that it would fit in order to “eat asteroids?” unless it becomes a dommsday module except for asteroids
It is the same, just not a hard limit. No one puts a useless, expensive ship on grid just for the lols. The limitation of 1 active indu core per 1000 km around an asteroid is a reasonable restriction that even allows for strategic play like skillful chain panicking by sacrificing Rorquals (if you really feel the need to save your 10B Hulk fleet).
The Grid term is appropriate because almost all resource fields in the game are much much smaller than 1000 km. There are only a very few legacy asteroid belts that have outlying rocks that approach the 1000 km range. With this change implemented, you could change that and improve the mining grid experience with far larger resource fields.
In contrast to CCP’s limitations and reducing Rorquals to uselessness, this change would allow them to be potent mining vessels and mining boosters, but not fleet miners. This is far from carebearism. It’s a change that would have kept the Rorquals intact, while it fixes the only issues the ship has.
Doomsdays (DD) are single-target, high damage weapons. Each empire has its own damage variant that can only be fitted to that faction (or an associated pirate faction)'s titan, which can only target capital ships and, after a 9-second delay, deals 1,000,000 damage in its one shot. Doomsdays can only fire at captial ships, and others targets like sub-captials, structures, collidable objects are not valid targets. Doomsdays have no attributed range limit, and their only range limit is the target lock range.
Can we have this but for asteroids? Imagine mining whole asteroids with a doomsday miner. imagine the nerdgasms
I can already imagine it. Two variants. One that does an AOE mining ability, and one that does a single target massive “damage”.
There are indications that mineral prices are currently too high, namely T1 modules often are more expensive than their named variants which are often better as well. There could be other factors causing this. But dont think anyone will complain if mineral prices dropped a little?
Potential inspiration for the ships 3D model.
The Prelude, largest offshore facility ever created
(Its not super pretty, particularly the red color, but not every ship has to be super pretty)
i will walk myself out
I’d be more interested in a titan class hauler tbh. As would many I imagine.
That’s because the t1 modules have a price floor of ~85% of the needed minerals (factoring in ME boosts) and the meta modules have a floor at around 55% of their material value (because that’s maximum scrapmetal reprocessing value). T1 modules are also used in T2 manufacturing, meta are not.
Imo, asteroid belts should be rings around planets and stars. Would make it more interesting for mining as well… if you had to search for special rocks among the plethora of veldspar and scordite. It would open the way to creating some new scanning modules that offer a bit more of a visceral gameplay experience as well.
I’d always expect this to be the case, since the basic t1 module is used for t2 production. (Might be used for faction modules too, but I’m fuzzy on that.)
Imo someone should try to fix this some time. New players expect better variants to be more expensive, but its also kinda boring if when you want to make a cheap fit for something you end up being able to use the best named variants because they are the cheapest in a lot of cases atm.
What if everytime you reprocessed a named variant you got something extra? Like a plex or something? Or maybe some evermarks or a skill book
Stop. Just stop. The prices are based on market pressure. The only way to really “fix this” is to have the basic t1 modules drop more often in the loot table, but that would hurt t1 industry. So no, there’s no justifiable reason to change the already existing system.
I think it would be cooler if named/meta modules dropped something extra if they got reprocessed. Like a random chance for some morphite or somehting. This should create extra demand for them over base T1 and in theory be worth more in cases where they currently arent.
there’s no justifiable reason to change the already existing system.
I dont think meta/named modules were intended to be cheaper than than standard T1?
They don’t drop at all.
They’re worth what players will pay for them.