Catalyst Mining Issues...Mercoxcit and Mining Efficiency over the years with mining lasers. 4 Unbonused ships

[Gerard_Amatin]

@MILINT_ARC_Trooper

But here lies the problem.

Stocastic Rounding would be fine…if the old mining yields were in place.

But when simultaneously shrink yields to then fit a proportional scaling of mining cycles.

Stocastic becomes a bit of a problem, especially for newer players. And this does slow down their progression.

Where lies the problem?

That you still do not understand how stochastic rounding works?

Shrinking yields and scaling mining cycles to much smaller rates is absolutely fine as stochastic rounding can now fairly give players an average yield even if this is not a whole number of blocks.

If you call it ‘a bit of a problem’ despite my efforts of attempting to tell you how stochastic rounding works throughout this thread, I think the ‘bit of a problem’ is that your goal is to find a problem rather than to understand the situation.

Please stop trying to find problems when you don’t appear to understand the system.

If you want I can attempt to explain stochastic rounding further, but please stop stating there are problems where you simply appear to misunderstand how the game works.

@MILINT_ARC_Trooper

but the assessment from the get go is artificially boosted, for the mechanics. (Because the outset of the game from Day 1 your characters are already getting Mining III. So we start the game with a already adjusted stat.

Adjusted stats are irrelevant for the topic.

50% yield bonus is 50% yield bonus. You simply get 50% more.

With stochastic rounding you can now linearly boost a 6 m3 yield by 50% to 9 m3 yield even if the blocks are 16 m3. And this results in… 50% more average yield.

No weirdness, no thresholds, simply higher average yield, as advertised.

In other words, role bonuses and skills have zero impact on the system of stochastic rounding.

@MILINT_ARC_Trooper

And this also factors in the Mining Destroyer gets +50% hull bonus. Which means you see the skipping (Stocastic Rounding) more…which can work in the opposite direction of encouraging progression of players. IE. Venture → Expedition…skip Mining Destroyers go to into Barge/Exhumer.

Nonsense.

Players can skip mining destroyers to get to barges/exhumers if they want to do so most likely because of the additional yield those ships have over destroyers. Not because of stochastic rounding.

@MILINT_ARC_Trooper

Its an interesting set of problems. You can “cover it” with the bonus yields to offset any issues.

Nonsense, see above.

@MILINT_ARC_Trooper

But that will become a problem later down the road in balancing or tweaking either ore or mining equipment.

I still fail to see how a problem exists here or will exist in the future.

Stochastic rounding has set up a robust mining yield system where no matter how short the cycles, how small the bonuses or how large the blocks people csn always get a fair yield unlike before.

If anything, it’s addition solved many problems in the future.

A funny thing is that I never realized the problem of ‘rounding down blocks’ existed for mining in the past as I never realized mining yield got rounded down at all times for all blocks, until you mentioned it in this thread. Thanks for that info!

Luckily the addition of stochastic rounding fixed that problem, which I assume was necessary for CCP to introduce the more fluid shorter cycles and useful crit bonuses the size of partial blocks.

The only ‘problem’ I can think of if I really start reaching is that a new player who now does short cycles will in some cycles mine zero blocks of ore if their yield per cycle is smaller than a single block of the ore.

But on average their yield should approach the value advertised in their ship fit. So, unless they stare themselves blind at every individual mining cycle and find it ‘problematic’ that some of the now very short cycles go without ore, even if other cycles go with a lot more ore to compensate, there is no problem at all.