[09:51] <max_kolonko> That 120km scimi, shitty reps fir sure, but when repping feigs it can be enough
[09:52] <max_kolonko> I havebt looked at capital reps, they are changing bonus on carriers and compansating with reps range on module
[09:52] <max_kolonko> But what will be effective 100% range now?
[09:57] <5pitf1re> There is no information whether carriers will be bonused yet, but I believe they will. We’ll certainly know and discuss it though as soon as we hear anything official. :simple_smile:
[10:11] <xttz> on sisi carriers get 40% per level to both optimal and falloff
[10:13] <xttz> at carrier V armour is something like 45km optimal 12km falloff
[10:13] <xttz> shield is 27km optimal 36km falloff
[10:33] <5pitf1re> oh they already do?
[10:35] <rocket_x> rip wyvern
[10:35] <rocket_x> op success
[10:45] <5pitf1re> Please tell me sexy Hel is good now.
[10:56] <steveronuken> So... Rorquals with space for couple of squadrons of fighters. sound reasonable?
[10:58] <rocket_x> i think rorq's should maintain their current drone bonuses
[10:58] <rocket_x> they're more likely to be fighting off small groups of subcaps
[10:58] <rocket_x> so having bonuses that effect subcap drones (especially light drones) is actually a huge benefit to them over carriers
[10:59] <rocket_x> (or will be once normal drones can no longer be put in carriers)
[11:00] <steveronuken> The problem is just making sure that people would put a Rorq into a belt or anomaly, and not think it was a really dumb idea
[11:02] <5pitf1re> It would always be a bad idea unless covered by a really strong fleet.
[11:04] <steveronuken> like people carrier ratting?
[11:05] <5pitf1re> Carriers are a bit different, they are in fact combat ships.
[11:05] <5pitf1re> However, solo they are still going to die.
[11:06] <5pitf1re> Check Deklein loss mails for carriers. :simple_smile:
[11:06] <steveronuken> Oh, I know people die there :smile:
[11:07] <steveronuken> But I don't CCP having Rorqs remaining pretty much the only boosting ship that's off grid.
[11:07] <steveronuken> > So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt
[11:07] <steveronuken> is a quote from Fozzie back when the last set of link changes were announced (about the Rorq)
[11:08] <5pitf1re> No definitely, they’ll have to repurpose it however I wouldn’t be surprised if CCP will make an exception for mining boosts.
[11:10] <rocket_x> @steveronuken: if you give the rorqual supercarrier level fighter dps
[11:10] <rocket_x> people still aren't going to think thats good enough for it to be in a belt lol
[11:11] <steveronuken> That's one of the reasons why you have to change the focus. So it's not a boosting ship. But one which opens up new capabilities for the ships its with.
[11:11] <5pitf1re> Changing focus, yes. Making it a combat vessel, no.
[11:11] <5pitf1re> Make it a mobile industrial platform.
[11:12] <5pitf1re> Give it a bonus to capital module built time and material efficiency.
[11:12] <5pitf1re> Also fighters.
[11:19] <steveronuken> My personal preference is along the lines of a planet/moon/asteroid cracker, which then enables other mining vessels to mine stuff they wouldn't normally get their hands on. With some limited combat ability. And strong defences.
[11:22] <steveronuken> Possibly projected defences. Though that would have to come with a combat debuf
[11:39] <max_kolonko> Rorq ninja moon-mining?
[11:40] <max_kolonko> Like way more powerfull siphon
[11:40] <max_kolonko> With ability to mine moon from safe distance feom moon (so pos can not kill it easly)
[11:41] <max_kolonko> It could drain so much moongoo that it woukd leave normall moonmining on that moon penalised for x hours/days to compansate
[11:43] <rocket_x> you people must be blazin' some serious J's
[11:43] <rocket_x> :smile:
[11:44] <titus.tallang> 5pitf1re: question - why should mining links be excepted
[11:44] <titus.tallang> what is the game design reasoning why mining links should be at less risk than every other kind of links?
[11:44] <titus.tallang> i didn't understand this when they changed forcefield links either
[11:44] <titus.tallang> why are mining links allowed inside a pos shield
[11:45] <steveronuken> Because _right now_ mining boost ships are somewhat badly positioned. And don't have a combat effect.
[11:47] <rocket_x> the rorq itself needs another reason to be on grid aside from links
[11:50] <max_kolonko> What about orca
[11:51] <max_kolonko> Its the sane category of ship - mining bonus with mediocre defense capabilities
[11:51] <titus.tallang> orca is very strong already, just underutilized, especially in highsec
[11:51] <titus.tallang> properly utilized orca makes you ungankable by catalysts
[11:52] <max_kolonko> We both kniw we are NOT talking about hi sec here
[11:52] <titus.tallang> well, same as barges really, higgs rig, stay aligned
[11:52] <max_kolonko> Orca in high sec is in the right spot and ff field links are not needed for it to be useful
[11:53] <titus.tallang> yes but forcing orca on grid will lead to more highsec miners considering the possibilities of SMB as gank defense
[11:53] <max_kolonko> But rorq operate in low/null/wh
[11:53] <titus.tallang> which is a good thing
[11:53] <max_kolonko> Where its not gankers you have to worry abiut
[11:53] <titus.tallang> but your own blues :troll:
[11:54] <max_kolonko> Ba dum tss
[11:54] <max_kolonko> Both ships need to have clear reson to warp to belt/ore site
[11:55] <max_kolonko> There where some wild udeas about rorq forcefield/invul kind of thing, where you go into rf mode for x minutes with ff protecting your fleet while you can get backup during that time
[11:56] <titus.tallang> so only the rorqual is shootable, but anything inside the shield can't warp/move?
[11:56] <titus.tallang> sounds intrigueing
[11:57] <max_kolonko> Idea was littke diffrebt but who cares we can imagine aby way for it to work
[12:02] <max_kolonko> Did fozzie mentioned during strwam when offgrid boosting wil be gone?
[12:03] <max_kolonko> I remeber wagely somethimg about not next month
[12:03] <steveronuken> no. no timescale at all
[12:04] <max_kolonko> Quote from someone on reddit:
[12:04] <max_kolonko> Confirmed in ccp stream today by fozzie. Links will have to be ongrid, might be aoe. Change wont be for atleast a month and no sp is going to be refunded.
[12:04] <titus.tallang> well, it's always been "we'd like to do it"
[12:05] <titus.tallang> it's also always been with the disclaimer "we don't know how we can do it without killing server load"
[12:05] <max_kolonko> Maybe with biab in place...
[12:05] <titus.tallang> possible
[12:07] <5pitf1re> titus.tallang: they have never given a time frame though, fozzie did now.
[12:08] <5pitf1re> We also knew that it was a technical issue which got solved by BiaB.
[12:08] <5pitf1re> I for one am so excited about off-grid link getting killed. :simple_smile:
[12:09] <max_kolonko> But going back to rorq and orca - they should be excluded until fixed
[12:11] <5pitf1re> titus.tallang: To answer your question from earlier. Why I think they should be excluded? Simply because they don’t provide offensive boosting. They provide utility boosting for industrial purposes.
[12:12] <5pitf1re> I don’t see an issue with them being in a POS.
[12:12] <5pitf1re> They are very vulnerable ships in lowsec and nullsec.
[12:12] <lordsservant> mornin
[12:13] <5pitf1re> Morning.
[12:13] <lordsservant> nice to see people actually on here talking :simple_smile:
[12:13] <5pitf1re> heh, we just needed stuff to talk about
[12:15] <capqu> trump 2016
[12:15] <5pitf1re> :getout:
[12:19] <titus.tallang> 5pitf1re: except they aren't vulnerable ships if you can just put them in a forcefield
[12:19] <titus.tallang> shouldn't we create reasons for them to be risked, rather than just going "yup, those pilots are never gonna do anything except admire the prettiness of their force field, that is good design, let's encourage it"
[12:20] <5pitf1re> They can’t defend themselves at all in low or null though. Unless you make them combat capable beyond what they are now you won’t see them in belts.
[12:21] <5pitf1re> If those get pushed on grid too I predict ghetto Orcas on grid for less boosts.
[12:22] <titus.tallang> then they should be made combat capable beyond what they are now, and then given trade-offs in the form of sacrificing (some of) that combat capability for improved boosts
[12:22] <titus.tallang> making "huddle in the force field and go afk" the optimal gameplay is never good design
[12:23] <5pitf1re> I agree with that but they are not really a vessel meant for the pvp oriented target audience.
[12:23] <5pitf1re> Forcing them to do that is not really sandbox design either.
[12:23] <titus.tallang> sitting in a force field is the opposite of sandbox gameplay
[12:23] <5pitf1re> How?
[12:24] <titus.tallang> it's a magical field that prevents people from interfering with you
[12:24] <5pitf1re> How is that the opposite of sandbox gameplay though.
[12:25] <titus.tallang> not just "makes it hard for people to interfere with you", or "discourages people from interfering with you", or "makes you capable of defending against people interfering with you"
[12:25] <titus.tallang> > prevents people from interfering from you
[12:25] <titus.tallang> it's a magical shield that lets you play a single-player game without being touched, without your input, just by existing
[12:26] <lordsservant> id try to make a solution based around their "siege mode"
[12:26] <5pitf1re> Alright, how about 50% (or more than that) less boosts while not on grid?
[12:27] <lordsservant> eh, with offgrid boosts going away I dont think making the rorqual an exception is good design
[12:27] <titus.tallang> in my opinion, any game design in this game should be aimed to _encourage_ player-player interaction
[12:27] <lordsservant> force it on grid
[12:27] <5pitf1re> encourage yes, enforce not
[12:27] <titus.tallang> any design decision that makes it easier for people to play their single-player experience without ever interacting with another player is a terrible design decision
[12:28] <5pitf1re> I know for a fact that there are industrialists that simply do not want to engage in PVP.
[12:28] <titus.tallang> i've seen way, _way_ too many new players get drawn into the single-player trap, burn out and quit
[12:28] <titus.tallang> not _wanting_ to engage in PvP does not equate to not _having_ to engage in PvP
[12:28] <titus.tallang> not _wanting_ to engage in PvP should mean that you aim to avoid PvP encounters, not that you _can_ automatically avoid _any_ PvP encounters
[12:29] <titus.tallang> there needs to be counterplay, a hunter and hunted element, not just a magical bubble of AFK invincibility
[12:32] <5pitf1re> I mean ultimately I really don’t care and I also don’t think that it is our core focus to be honest.
[12:32] <5pitf1re> Just like ECM itself was not our core focus :stuck_out_tongue:
[12:32] <lordsservant> the issue is, if we let it be offgrid, ppl will use it offgrid
[12:32] <titus.tallang> it isn't, but our core focus is currently struck with a heavy case of "you get no info, boo"
[12:32] <lordsservant> miners dont really care, theyre just multiboxing a pile of characters or w/e
[12:32] <lordsservant> they'll take a slight loss of profits to park it in a FF if they can
[12:32] <5pitf1re> We are discussing mechanics that go beyond capitals now, that’s all.
[12:33] <lordsservant> we need to make it clear if you want bonuses, its on grid like everything else
[12:33] <lordsservant> big risk = big reward
[12:33] <5pitf1re> They interfere with capitals to a degree but we simply drift off too far most of the time.
[12:34] <titus.tallang> to elaborate on this, new players will imitate whatever behavior they see from "veteran" players
[12:34] <titus.tallang> > miners dont really care, theyre just multiboxing a pile of characters or w/e
[12:34] <titus.tallang> >they'll take a slight loss of profits to park it in a FF if they can
[12:34] <titus.tallang> so if the old player promotes a low-input mining style as "optimal" because it allows them to multibox 10 accounts, the new player will use this low-input mining style despite only playing a single account
[12:34] <lordsservant> yep
[12:35] <titus.tallang> this is, in my opinion, a large part of the current issue with high-sec mining too
[12:35] <lordsservant> id just throw the rorq a flat 30% bonus to hull/shield resists while in siege
[12:35] <titus.tallang> it's not that there aren't optimizable way that has theoretically better yield and requires (at least some) interaction and input
[12:35] <lordsservant> so its got a ton of ehp and doesnt die instantly to anything that sneezes towards it
[12:35] <lordsservant> a large alliance could support it if it gets in trouble is the idea
[12:35] <titus.tallang> it's just that the difference between that theoretically better yield and just mining afk isn't worth it for the old player that multiboxes, and thus is never promoted to the new players
[12:36] <lordsservant> and it can survive long enough against a small-mid size force long enough to give the alliance time to form a rescue fleet
[12:36] <titus.tallang> link orca on grid with max yield fit hulks is theoretically the optimal setup for highsec mining
[12:36] <titus.tallang> SMB means max yield hulks can't really be ganked, fleet hangar + ore bay allows ore transfer to a hauler
[12:37] <titus.tallang> but the gain over just AFK civilian shield booster (lel) mackinaws isn't there for old players
[12:37] <titus.tallang> and thus new players are schooled in the art of afk mining from day one
[12:37] <lordsservant> eh
[12:37] <lordsservant> with the way you make money from straight mining, its not worth to do much else
[12:38] <lordsservant> the income just isn't there, you can maybe do it as an industrialist
[12:38] <titus.tallang> exactly
[12:38] <lordsservant> but mining isnt really that workable or engaging for a single player
[12:38] <lordsservant> but again, thats not our concern
[12:38] <titus.tallang> if older players would actually use hulk/orca setups because it'd be worth it, then there'd be _actual_ mining corps doing it for mutual benefit, and new players would learn about it
[12:38] <lordsservant> rorquals are our concern
[12:38] <titus.tallang> yes
[12:38] <titus.tallang> instead of the "mining corps" (lel) we have now
[12:38] <titus.tallang> or as i like to call them, new player flytraps
[12:39] <titus.tallang> they catch them, lure them in, then don't let them out until they wither and die
[12:39] <lordsservant> my little brother unironically runs a mining alt corp :stuck_out_tongue:
[12:39] <max_kolonko> Whatever bonus rorq will give to mining fleet it should be big enough to encorage escort fleet to help defend the miners
[12:39] <max_kolonko> That way we dont try to make rorq super weapon
[12:39] <lordsservant> I wouldnt do an escort fleet
[12:39] <lordsservant> noone wants to do escort
[12:39] <titus.tallang> i wouldn't aim at escort fleet
[12:40] <titus.tallang> what lords said
[12:40] <lordsservant> and we dont want offensive capabilities on a mining ship
[12:40] <titus.tallang> escort fleets are boring as fuck
[12:40] <lordsservant> give it huge defensive capabilities, like a hull resist bonus or w/e when in siege
[12:40] <lordsservant> so if it gets jumped
[12:40] <lordsservant> it can hold out long enough for rescue to arrive
[12:40] <titus.tallang> i'd aim towards giving temporary defensive ability (projected onto the miners) that allows a response to form
[12:40] <titus.tallang> yup what lords said
[12:40] <lordsservant> it already has silly hull HP
[12:40] <titus.tallang> so some sort of stasis field or something along those lines
[12:40] <lordsservant> so just throw it a hull resist bonus
[12:40] <lordsservant> eh
[12:40] <lordsservant> miners can bail
[12:40] <lordsservant> rorq is in siege
[12:40] <titus.tallang> meh i don't like miners always getting a free exit
[12:41] <max_kolonko> Fine
[12:41] <lordsservant> miners CAN bail if theyre on the ball
[12:41] <max_kolonko> But beter if miners have too stay too
[12:41] <max_kolonko> :)
[12:41] <lordsservant> we just want a rorqual that doesn't instantly die to the first 5 man blops drop on it
[12:41] <titus.tallang> maybe just make the stasis bubble not prevent movement, but act like a hictor bubble
[12:41] <titus.tallang> so if they burn out they can warp but you can tackle if they try
[12:42] <titus.tallang> afk
[12:43] <lordsservant> work o/
[13:37] <nync> rorq links easy to sort
[13:37] <nync> 10% boost inside shield
[13:38] <nync> 30% boost on grid
[13:38] <nync> and you will see ppl getting it out of shield
[14:27] <phantomite> Nync I think you overestimate how ballsy hiseccers are ;)
[14:27] <nync> rorka is a perfect tool to bait
[14:58] <max_kolonko> It is
[14:58] <max_kolonko> But thats pvpers using pve ship as bait
[14:59] <max_kolonko> We are talking about pve'ers taking their pve ship into pvp enviroment
[14:59] <max_kolonko> They need tangible reason to do this other than "get 5 more isk per hour and risk 3b ship"
[15:01] <max_kolonko> Reinforce to get friends seems good reason enough to do it during your alliqnce primetime
[15:01] <max_kolonko> If the bonus is also big enough
[15:02] <max_kolonko> And after thinking about i agree that any form of forcing playersbto form defence fleet that have to stay with mining fleet will be shitton of boredom
[17:51] <sisterbliss> Automatically route mined ore from the mining ships directly into the ore bay of a rorqual which is on-grid in some kinda 'ore routing effect'
[17:52] <sisterbliss> Something like that could be part of a set of on-grid benefits
[17:54] <5pitf1re> Rorqual with freighter squadrons which pick up the ore directly from the mining barges. :smile:
[17:57] <sisterbliss> yeah same outcome etc. + I'm sure there are plenty of ideas to make deploying rorq into a belt useful
[17:57] <sisterbliss> notwithstanding capabilities for AOE sonic blast or something every x minutes with auto-tractor of shattered ore
[17:58] <sisterbliss> could even be targeted mod
[18:02] <sisterbliss> If you wanna get rorqs in belts, then a significant boost to output + some new capabilities would be in order. Any minor boost just wont see widrspread makeup as its too expensive to risk without a constant defense fleet, and it wont be economical to run a defence fleet unless the benefit is significant