Very simply, as I wrote, because most mining fleets are of 2+ players. Which means that the question “should I bring an orca” is more “can I afford and pilot an orca”. As soon as you have an alt, it’s better to fly an orca than anything else for that 1st alt.
(1.5 was in the case the orca had a zero yield. In the real case an orca is better than any other second ship as soon as your ship has less than 75 m³/s)
That’s why I said that in most cases the orca is mandatory. Only in single player no alt no frind no interaction the orca is a worse choice.
That’s a very good question. At which part of the cases should an orca become mandatory for it to become balance ? This of course requires to know the repartition of mining fleets, with the function of fleet size to cumulated mining hours.
Almost 3% increase? For putting a billion ISK on field instead of a ship under 100 million?
There is nothing wrong with the Porpoise and it’s a valid alternative. This yield difference is smaller and the price difference a lot bigger than the barge - exhumer upgades, and most of those are valid too in their own niche.
I’d say 2. A solo mining ship should not be a boosting ship. Any fleet bigger than that using/requiring a boosting ship is fair game.
If you can ship an orca it will be better at boosting. The rorqual will be worse because it’s a massive target. The orca can easily dock up in NS (warp to safe until weapon timer is off). In HS orca is plainly better. Only in WS is the porpoise better.
You are again completely missing my point out of hatred for multiboxers.
Please chill out and come back when you are able to discuss. Everything you amount to is GRR multiboxers GRR. It’s pathetic.
It’s not fair if the orca is always best choice by definition.
Well, I wouldn’t count Orca in at all. I tried it in the Belt and it was a cramp to move constantly in the Belt with two alts and Orca. Better to boost from warpin with laser range and let only two alts work, then they can clean up the belt starting from both sides, much more relaxed.
The fact that the gameplay does not require to be ATK for long period of time does not mean that players are AFK.
Especially if they are multiboxing, they rather be ATK.
You can also make BM on the start/end of the belt and warp there, then slowboat your orca from a roid to another . I agree that the mining yield is actually much lower than what people believe since the drones keep moving around at a slow pace. you also make your alts orbit the orca with specialized mining laser crystals, the orca won’t outpace them
If the activity only requires you to be present 1/20th of the time, it allows players to field 20 ships.
Nerf Orca yield and suddenly those multibox miners are required to field dedicated mining ships instead, which require more effort and therefore cut the amount of ships they can multibox and make ore prices fairer for all players who play with a single account.
I don’t want to get rid of multiboxing, I just think it scales too easily because of the near-afk gameplay. I just want to discourage multiboxing at large scale.
No. Nerf orca yield and suddenly the orca is no more a viable mining ship.
People using it for AFK won’t just care about it. They will just AFK more long.
And in the end you just screw people who were mining with it. And the AFK people just don’t care.
Your proposal would not change that at all.
an activity scales with a cost when the production of that activity is close to linear with the cost invested.
If you cut the yield, the activity just scales as much.
completely unrelated. It will still be no more a mining ship.
At a certain point of reduction of Orca yield, the yield will not be viable anymore compared to the yield of Orca + barges.
Orca + barges scales much less for multiboxers as it requires you to empty your barge ore holds into the Orca, so you can’t field as many as you could field Orcas for the same amount of effort.
Already the case. So you are saying that the nerf of yield is useless.
Yes, that’s what we were saying, that for multiboxers orcas is better past a given size of fleet. That’s why orcas scale better. Cutting their yield won’t change their scaling. And them scaling better is not a reason to say there is a problem.
All you are promoting will just make the orca an non viable mining ship. Nothing else.
Not the case, people are still using fleets of Orcas to multibox mine, right?
At a certain nerf to yield those multiboxers will be forced to swap to a setup of booster + barges instead.
Yes it will. Extreme example: yield is now 0. Multiboxers now cannot use multiple Orcas anymore and now need to use barges + a single Orca. Due to increased effort necessary for the barges, it scales much less than multiple low effort Orcas.
I’m not saying that the yield should be 0, but a reduction in yield will decrease scalability after a certain point.
I already gave you a response the previous time you claimed this. And it’s wrong by the way. All it will do is make your Orca fleet a non viable mining fleet.
If we’re just going to repeat the same arguments, I think it’s no longer useful to continue this discussion.
I don’t know what your definition of scalability is. The one I use, says you are wrong.
Scalability is the property of a system to handle a growing amount of work by adding resources to the system.[1]
reduction of yield will have exactly ZERO effect on the capacity of a multi boxing orca fleet to handle more orcas. Which is what scalability is in that context.
There are exceptions to this rule but basically 99% of the hardcore gankers that I have come across basically don’t like the idea of anyone playing EVE in a different way to them (either fundamentally, or marginally, or something in-between) and think that everyone should do’PvP’ as a matter of course.
Anyone who rejects this view as an absolute truth is basically attacked as some kind of super heretic who deserves everything they get.
I’m NOT necessarily accusing anyone in this thread of having these blinkered views, but it is a widely held viewpoint that is shared by many in the community of anti-miner gankers.
The irony of this position is of course that without miners EVE would come to a stop, sooner or later, because without ore you can’t make stuff - like fighting ships, ammo and modules for example - and thus blow stuff up, again, and somewhat ironically, like miners.
Fundamentally EVE functions like an eco system and so any arguments about how much ore you can mine and how you should be ‘allowed’ to do this really come down to a question of balancing the risk V reward coefficient.
Whether this should be decided by gankers or miners is really a moot point. It needs to be set by someone in CCP who is hopefully reasonably intelligent enough to realise that there needs to be (and indeed there really is) enough space out there for people to play the game in the way that they want to.
