Officer, arrest this man for spreading false rumors. And illegal holoreels about the improper use of mining crystals.
1 Like
Let’s do some maths.
Let’s assume 100 units per minute as a base, and two rocks, each with 2000 ore.
For Tech 1 crystals you get the same mining bonus (50%), so both now mine 150 units per minute.
In 10 minutes, a miner on rock 1 with the Type A crystal cycles 10 times, and gets 1500 ore, and an estimated 340 waste, leaving the 160 ore They may get this, they may not (it may all go to waste as a worst-case).
Cycling 9 times, the miner with the Type B crystal will gather 1350 ore and theoretically loses 607 ore - more than the rock has to start with. If some of that waste occurs on the last cycle, it’s taken FIRST - either way, this miner ends up with LESS ore, and does so faster - meaning they need to move to another rock.
Is my maths bad? Because if not, that seems… bad.
1 Like
Per cycle the follow is current.
T2 without crystal mines the lowest amount per cycle.
T1, T2 with T1 type A, T2 with T1 type B and ORE all mine the same m3 per cycle.
T2 with T2 Type A or Type B mine the same m3 per cycle.
T1, T2 without crystal or with type A crystals and ORE all have the same cycle times.
T2 with T1 type B mines with a 10sec base cycle time reduction.
T2 with T2 type B mines with a 30sec base cycle reduction.
T1 and ORE have 0 chance of resource destruction.
T2 has a 1 in 3 chance of resource destruction of equal amount mined that cycle.
There was, when I was young, a poster you would see in some workshops and garages.
Fast Cheap Good — You can only have two
I looked, there are images of the old ones about as well as modern version where the artists pretend to be original
I think that this is the issue with the mining. Some of you want the ship/module/crystal combos to offer all three at the same time. I don’t think CCP is trying to give you that. They WANT you to have to make choices where you forego one of the three choices in favour of the other two.
/me shrugs I could be wrong, would not be the first time, but that is how I see it right now.
m
14 Likes
Most appear to want instant rewards for no work or risk
3 Likes
CCP is offering more ore, so min-maxer’s are going to leverage every method available to eat all the food on the table. Big groups say “Mining slow is ok - just add more alts.” That’s good for CCP, but is it good for EVE, to perpetuate this method?
1 Like
As I saw the first release it was focused around players deciding to ether go;
Cheap T1 for low risk and no resource bonus
Spend time to get T2 with T1 crystal to gain access to more bonus resources with the added risk of being on grid for longer.
Spend more time to get T2 with T2 crystals to gain higher yields and similar access to bonus resources as the T1 crystals to time and crystal distribution risk
Or Spend isk to get all the bonus resource with no destruction for even more time on grid and increase isk value for gankers.
And yes the compression mechanics need work and the structure compression needed to be addressed. ( did post earlier a suggestion for this)
This solves nothing. I don’t want to see the way miners want to play cut to pieces by CCP, and nor do I want to see HS gankers suffer the same fate (as much as their play style is not my play style, they’re doing it within the game rules, and good luck to them).
3 Likes
my Orca… price 2+ bil isk… mines @ 18.9 m3/sec
alt’s Covetor… price 51.4 mil isk. mines @ 20.8 m3/sec unboosted with T1 crystals
I am not even at max skills… CCP’s math does not fly with me
Miner’s PvP game consist of keeping the ship alive
1)Fly tanky(make gankers work harder)
2)Fly fast(ganker’s don’t kill what they can’t hit)
3)Fly cheap(ganker’s don’t earn isk)
4)Don’t afk(A fool and his money are soon parted)
I’m very sad that you of all people don’t get our concerns over this update. We use the same modules as battleships. Would you be happy if bastion was 2.5 minutes(150 sec) with no improved defenses and your rep boost was 20%? The loss of mining ability is last on my list.
3 Likes
I mentioned the ‘fast cheap good’ thing earlier, and when I’m the only one paying for the consequence, that’s fine.
But when I choose a compromise and that impacts those around me (and does so in a way that they cannot see or track or influence), that’s just bad.
I kinda get the idea of waste - but in the end, it’s just the introduction of a complex new mechanic to achieve something they can already do with existing simpler mechanics. I just don’t see the point at that stage.
2 Likes
To me, this is the biggest problem with mining at present. It’s far too easy to use a bot to run mining operations.
None of the proposed changes seem to do anything to make this problem go away.
2 Likes
The changes will not achieve the removal of botting. If you think about the way many miners approach their playstyle, it is suspiciously akin to botting (i.e. ‘robotic’). They seem to like it that way.
I seem to recall a certain mentor of mine referring to miners as ‘bot-aspirants’. That is, if they could automate all the functions required to make maximum Isk from mining - they would!
Actually it adds the ability for CCP to do quick adjustments without having to do major changes.
Miners mine the same amounts per cycle, but ccp can do a quick adjustment just by changing the waste chances while still allowing players to have the chance of maintaining the bonus resources in the field.
The compression mechanics was designed to do the same. But the structure compression should be changed to the same module setup as the Porpoise, Orca and Rorqual, but with better than suggested efficiency for much longer cycle times and adjustment to cycle time based on amount being compressed.
1 Like
It had worked for CCP for years -
More Alts = more subscribed accounts = more dollars for CCP
Then CCP made having many alts pointless via scarcity and a few other nuisance changes.
Base on those data and the change to belts (doubling in size)
It translate into:
A) T1 / Faction if you want to mine the whole belt and use that double in size ores at it’s fullest , mostly used for fleets especially when it comes down to moon ore.
B) T2 with Type 2 for when you just wanna mine solo or with a group without a single care in the world.
1 Like
I agree. The shear amount of similarly named miners mining ice near my normal systems forced me out of that. I know if I start ■■■■ it will likely just hurt our little corp 
Biggest problem is CCP not doing enough to stop multiboxing 5+ accounts, CCP is not doing enough to STOP botting, CCP have no anti-cheat(afaik) or anti-bot detection(again afaik). The problem is not the Orca , it’s the pilot behind the Orca.
Some users on the other thread even mentioned that it was possible to multibox ALPHA ACCOUNTS with the use of third party apps… which is against the eula to do so , will CCP do anything about that ?
like the corp OUTER HECK , Spod Brainlet 001-999, there’s 1 omega in there the rest are just alpha , 1 guy multiboxing 250 alpha accounts. Nice.
There’s one guy flying in my system, he’s been there since august. He be mining with his retriever 1 strip miner , 1 tractor beam , 1 mining drone , 4 light drone of different type… he mines for 5 mins go to station and comes back. He’s in the default NPC corp , never joined any other and he’s been playing for 4 years…
I give him the benefit of the doubt that he just likes mining and doesn’t care about being efficient. But he does look like a bot lol
what all this boils down to is that you got found out. you had ample time to decide on a path, figure out the changes you needed to make to get there, and implement those plans with as little disruption to the game as possible - and you produced a series of bombastic changes that were poorly planned and disastrously implemented. you misled the players - repeatedly - and are continuing to do so. you say you were listening to the players, just which players? if your goal was to empty whole regions of players, you succeeded. if your goal was destroying any good will CCP had with its players, you succeeded. you can’t make this right, but you don’t plan on making it right - your plan is fast talking players who are desperate to believe you because they love this game that you are killing either deliberately or through incompetence. congratulations.
I said one from you and I am not following you around. And you were saying that gankers would have to have multiple accounts to gank and that CCP wanted this for revenue reasons. It is only one, no need to get so upset.
The tanks of all but the Skiff and Proc are too low, and expecting that they should be able to be killed by a single Catalyst in 24 seconds is not really acceptable for most mining players.
Looks more like an SP farmer to me.