You underestimate how much mining is done in rorquals and afk orcas. That’s what most of this salt is all about.
2 Likes
Thank you CCP for working with the players and CSM to find better ground.
I played a little on SISI yesterday - and I would like to say, my biggest issues with compression module was a large misunderstanding of what was really happening and how the numbers worked. Thank you for taking more time to reflect on this aspect of the game play.
Other than that, I don’t believe the changes are 100%, they are definitely not the way I would take things. But, I don’t own CCP. I do know looking and reflecting on the suggestion I made in the other thread, I like that idea more and more as it adds meaningful differences in the way resources are collected between the different ship groups.
Wow those waste probabilities…damn…
40-60%
Most expensive drones get royally screwed… surely better more expensive means less wastage!
If a tradesmen uses crap tools for the job there’s a big chance there will be wastage of materials etc but if they buy more expensive tools then they last longer, cut better etc meaning less wastage…
This sounds so wrong…
2 Likes
Yup, they went from one extreme to the other…
While I appreciate the fact that CCP seems to be listening to the complaints of the community and making adjustments, I believe you’re still missing the main point of why people are not happy.
How is scarcity “firmly ending in Q4 2021”?
All I see is mining nerfs. This should not be the first and only change.
5 Likes
You are probably forgetting that all of the above is in the context of ore being doubled
@CCP_Psych Those are some nice pictures comparing the old numbers to the new numbers. Could you update them to include Orca and Porpoise as well?
1 Like
There are NO mining nerf.
Look, right now to be able mine all ore with T2 crystals and Exhumer, you need a lot of time to learn all this.
They make just 4 mining crystals: Common, Uncommon, Rare and Merx. (gas and ice I wont count it’s different resource) … So! Now you learn about a Month or so faster for t2 mining crystals. (maybe cheaper to, since you don’t have to pay for every single ore type skill book)
how is that a nerf? All players who are new and want to go deep in mining, they can do it Faster/Cheaper then before.
-
You will get more m3 ore per cycle with mining barge bonus, how is that worse then now?
-
Rorqual mining had to be nerfed a long time ago. Because of them we was at scarcity and economic hole.
-
They double the belts/moons/Gas so you can mine Faster and Waste about 40% (lets say with t2 barge and t2 quick cycle crystal) and still you will get 60% belt as a bonus + you can strip that belt Faster, which increase m3/h How is that Worse then now?
And over all if you mine asteroid belts/ice fields you can just max out your m3/h and don’t worry about waste, because you can go next belt and every day they have reset, all ore is back, why you worry?
Much better to hear, especially the not removing of gas huffing bonuses.
Personally I still dont like splitting the ore and gas holds. Finding out the orca ore hold actually held gas was great, but mine never hauls ore so this change would just half this capability for my orca, unless it’s another equal sized hold? I’d also think those with ore also don’t venture near any gas clouds so not sure how useful this change really is, what’s the purpose of it even? Specialized holds also seems unrealistic.
Feel like ORE strip miner price is gna go parabolic. Maybe adding in some hi sec ORE agents might be of use to mitigate this?
If the Orca is not a mining ship because its supposed to be a command mining ship with no mining capability. Then a command combat ship should not have offensive combat capabilities. Seeing as they are supposed to be command ships to.
Lets not forget that one of the reasons miners are shifting to the orca for mining. Its tank. Its not so much the AFK aspect.
Many of the miners in my corp do not even care if you nurf the mining capability. They want the tank. They are tired of being ganked by ships that cost 1/10 or less what it cost them.
2 Likes
not just agents would need to be added. a lp store in high sec would be needed to.
the only thing you should be doing to barge EHP is reducing it. and all the mining support ships as well.
You kill off lots of ore in the process.
Rorqual mining was not in need of being nerfed. The ability to parallelize Rorquals was the issue, not its yield. We had to live through Scarcity because CCP intentionally and deliberately forgot to limit Rorqual numbers per resource field to boost character numbers to make EVE population figures look “healthy”.
You waste lots of that additional ore and you waste lots of the ore that you actually want while you still won’t bother with the crappy ore because even with the C-type waste it’s still a waste of time to mine it.
That is not how normal belts work. At all.
1 Like
It’s good that CCP decided to revert some proposed changes, delay others and iterate on the rest, based on player feedback. Cudos for that, really.
However, I’m finding it difficult to understand the source information, they’re using to base their next decisions onto. Looking at the first graph for current TQ stats, there are no markings for the vertical bar, so let’s assume that is yield/sec. If this is correct then there is no way that the Mackinaw is outmining a Covetor in the current TQ state, or am I wrong here? As far as I know, the Cov has a total of 35% bonus reduction on mining time and the Mack has only 20%, assuming lvl5 skills on everything and equal fittings. So how is it that on the graph the Mack is mining more (m3/s) than the Covetor? It should be at least 15% lower, if numbers are correct on the graph.
Another thing is that the Hulk has a total bonus of 50% on mining time reduction so it should be like 15% better in ore mining than the Covetor. Go see the above graph for the Hulk and make up your mind - that “Core inactive” number looks like 35, which is way higher than 20*1.15=23, that should be.
I’m not sure about the “Core active” values, but those might be wrong also → @CCP_Psych
1 Like
Orca is not a command mining ship, it’s a mining support ship. Unlike command battleships which are command versions of regular battleships with command bursts on top of the regular hull, the Orca is not a command barge.
If the Orca was a T2 version of Barges but with mining bursts on top of it, your comparison would be accurate.
The Orca however is nothing like a barge. It is a ship with significantly larger ore hold, compression (soon), mining bursts, remote repairs and drone defence. It’s a completely different ship than the barges so the comparison of Orcas to Barges with Command ships to regular battleships is apples to oranges.
I have not looked at the new figures in detail because I would like to ask something first: For what should I look exactly? What is the goal of this update?
The goal of the waste mechanics was previously to be rewarded for training mining skills, so it was called in the eve pulse from the 19.11… Now the goal is said to be making decisions. Within a week, the same mechanics were used to achieve a completely different goal!
More examples: It seemed to be the goal was, that harvesting all raw materials and production should not happen anymore at the same place. Instead, certain ressursen were put in to diffrent places in New Eden (like Isogen into low sec). In this way it has become necessary to ship large quantities of resources. Then taxes are raised and compression, the technique that enables the mass transport of ores, gets changed with loss. Players are forced to take care of logistics and trade, but at the same time they are punished for it. So, either or: taxes must be lowered and logistics simplified or to achieve local production again the minirals must be made available again everywhere. But both at the same time is not possible - that are unclear objective!
New capital ratting sights were introduced. At the same time, however, capitals have been made almost impossible to build, so this sights can hardly be used - unclear objective.
More examples can be made but the problem should be clear.
As (hopefully) has been seen in the protests, we are at a critical point. CCP needs to regain the trust of its customers through clear communication and clear objectives. Because at the moment it is completely unclear what is to be achieved here at all.
Thanks for reading.
PS: As often mentioned before, a good way to make people happy and excited about the “New Dawn” would have been the introduction of battleship class mining ships and it would be still a thing to get back on course.
3 Likes
so dose that mean that the orca should have strip miner capabilities then? so that it is more in line with what combat command ships have.
1 Like
If the Orca was a strip mining barge with mining command bursts, your comparison would be useful.
Is it? No.
Conclusion: your comparison made no sense.
1 Like
Thank you @CCP_Psych for the update, and @CCP_Swift for generally participating in these threads. Happy that this iterative process is happening! 
I have one core point to make, broken into lengthy paragraphs. Sorry. TL;DR: Please consider leaving a “design out” to address the T1/T2 whole-belt-optimization gap, preferably by simply giving “mining waste” and “mining space dust” its own distinct name. It doesn’t have to be my suggestion of “tailings” nor @Mike_Azariah 's “slag”. Any distinct name will do.
(Background: this continues to build off my previous, initial feedback.)
Problem: As it stands, CCP is positioning itself in a lose/lose situation where adjusting “waste” numbers yields either suboptimal outcomes for T2s or newbros in T1s. The fundamental emergent playstyle causing this issue is “whole belt optimization”, where groups in control of a resource “node” – whether a belt, anomaly, or moon chunk – wish to optimize for maximizing the amount gotten out of that particular resource node. In this scenario, “minimizing waste” is the player forcing function.
- T1 Waste > T2 Waste: This was CCP’s initial proposal, and I think we all understand and agree this punishes new players.
- T2 Waste > T1 Waste: This is CCP’s current proposal. What this means is players are not incentivized to skill to T2 versions for “whole belt optimization” resources like R64 moons. And players using T2 versions are punished, instead of newbros.
Perhaps this is a better outcome, but I posit a still-suboptimal one. Since “waste” is the only number available to CCP to adjust for this gameplay, you can see from above that no matter how “waste” is adjusted for T1/T2 relative to each other, CCP doesn’t have a lever to adjust “who gets to be better” for this particular problem, just “what kind of skill-level capsuleer” is getting frowned upon for this kind of gameplay.
This can be avoided by CCP considering additional design work to turn “waste” into a secondary thing more, somehow, in the future. That provides a positive feedback loop to “waste”, which means CCP would have a lever to both control 1st-order effects around waste-generation (the negative loop, currently the only one), and then 2nd-order effects about “mitigating the negative loop” which hopefully involves player activity.
For a humble hypothetical vision, consider the following: we give “mining waste” the name “tailings” today. In two quarters, you introduce “tailings” objects that spawn in space as the “waste lottery” is hit by T2 lasers & crystals. Perhaps Type C crystals prevent these from ever spawning. Great, now we have “tailings” objects left after a clear belt. Now, salvagers come along and salvage the tailings to get small amounts of alloys (those reprocessable units of trace minerals). Now you have active gameplay that allows complex balance: you could put low-sec-minerals into high-sec tailings, null-sec-minerals into low-sec tailings, trit-and-iso into null-sec tailings, etc. Plus, this would keep salvaging on the theme of “salvagers come in behind ratters and now miners for the leftover scraps”.
This all starts today with giving “mining waste” a good strong name today that distinguishes it from “compression waste”. You don’t have to consider any other details about my proposal. Just please consider giving yourself that “design out” so you’re not trapped in a design corner today.
Thanks for listening.
1 Like
“That is not how normal belts work. At all.”(c)
Belts, Classic Ore belts resets every day, if not, explain me how then they work?
60% (approx.) + with higher mining yield in Hour, I’ll take it, if you don’t see advantage of it, then don’t mine.
I don’t know how many players actually can mine whole belts to 0 every day and ask for more.
If you think you can mine m3 more and you don’t have enough ore, just seek out systems with more belts.