From Extraction to Production

does anyone remember when CCP employed pragmatism instead of this dogmatism when they posted content updates?

2 Likes

I wonder how this mechanic works when cycle of miners isn’t automatically stopped when roid is depleted? Will it remove yield from someone else cycle? Or this mechanic gonna be changed?

Riiiiight. Yeah, it’s totally me.

I would say:

Don’t take waste into account for the industry index calculations.

If you do take waste into account for ADMs, we get the following scenarios, both cons:

  • people trying to raise their ADMs would feel encouraged to use more wasteful mining tools to raise ADMs quicker, rather than make the decision to mine based on yield versus efficiency. Trashing your own resources for faster ADMs does not feel good
  • people who offensively destroy enemy ores with type C crystals (no idea how valid that strategy is though) would help their enemy raise ADMs

However, as a counterpoint when you do not take waste into account you get the following con:

  • newbies mining will now not only waste part of your ore in system but also part of your potential ADMs

Related to that last point but unrelated to the ADMs: I really don’t like it that newbies waste so much ore as this can create stress with the better skilled miners in a group when a portion of the ore is wasted by lower skills. Can’t we do something about that? Maybe something like this:

Venture role bonus: This ship produces 70% less waste.

It might make the Venture a good option for lower yield but more efficient mining.

4 Likes

The ones that like the changes only say they do to stir up some argument and unecessary attention.
Nothing more, Nothing less.

A factual reply is better than a quick reply; I checked with the game design team and on the test server as well. As it stands now, the waste is taken first

4 Likes

Ok We all know the mining needs fixing, I get it but I do not think this helps at all.
I’m fine high skilled alts I lose 20 bil because my rorquals are pretty useless (I only need one)
The problems are many-fold
1 New bro will not be asked to help mine decent moons, and as you have made the tank so thin I would kill any low skilled pilot trying to mine say an ice field I want to in high sec it would only take 1 well fitted T1 Alpha piloted ship to kill a t1 miner, so this is very very bad new bros and surely CCP want them to love the game and go why? And go play something else
2 We have tried the new compression in the test server it is a nightmare every approx. 3-5 min (depending on skills) you have to load ore into it and it does 10,000 m3, last night I mined 1.4 mil m3 that is 140 read-loads that would take 7 hours!!!I would have to manually it is !!Mind blown!! No fun total waste of time
3 Exumers have a shield tank, I understand you want to stop afk mining but you are making it way dangerous to use a T2 hull in high-sec risk-reward does not work here.
4 The same goes for the rorqual the tank is killed you can do very little damage on someone who has tackled you, so these will only be flown under blue umbrellas. As to no mining bouns I do agree that should come down a bit but to have no bouns makes the best part of 6 bil of drones worthless and a lot of people have put a lot of time and money into skilling for these.
This patch will make it harder for the small corp /4 account holder to mine, the big alliances will overcome it. The cost of manufacturing will rise very fast, at this moment most ships are been sold at a loss that will have to stop. So as the cost of everything goes PVP will go down because most people won’t want to lose that much isk and big Allinces win again because they can afford to pay that. I believe there is a very strong probability that this could create massive inflation and we all know massive inflation kills an economy

I appreciate that this is still a work in progess, I will check again but on both Friday & Saturday the test server was down so we weren’t able to actually view these changes in person.

Regarding the bringing back gas harvesting bonus to ventures I would please say this is a bad idea!

Ventures are incredibly hard to catch if the owner is paying attention, as a frigate hull they are fast & nimble, being able to get away often before you either load grid or decloak with your cloak timer. In the higher end gas sites the ISK a venture makes is no way related to the risk, as the risk unless your AFK is minimal.

Having barges out minign gas instead of ventures provides a much better target & a potential for escelation, no one is going to save your 1m ISK venture, but people may try to save their barge fleets.

I think it would be fair to have ventures being viable in the low end gas sites, where the reward is considerably less than those your find in shattered, c5 & c6. Maybe this could be done by reducing the volume of the gas in the lower end sites & reducing the bay of the venture so they are effective in thos role, but would not have the bay size to be effective in the high end gas sites.

I understand that running gas sites in a venture as a new player is a great to may isk as the startup money required is low and the pay off is high, but I would argue it is overall detrimental as the ship is too low risk for the reward presented.

Some very experienced players still take ventures into WHs…

Sad thing about the current economy in Eve is, you get a higher ISK per hour when you just do a job at some random fast food restaurant for let’s say 10$ per hour and buy PLEX with said earned 10$ than with any of the ingame activities you have mentioned…

What you think? What is the goal for this trash Company?

Go on, please explain how you enter a system, scan down the correct athanor, warp to it and secure tackle in < 10 seconds, because I know you can’t do that.

I am to understand that the balance pass on the expedition frigates was meant to remove their specializations - so in the interest of being polite and positive I’ll refrain from suggestions to “give us back our cheese.”

Venture has 2 hardpoints. Prospect has 2 hardpoints. Endurance’s 1 hardpoint was barely compensated for by massive role bonuses. With those role bonuses gone, Endurance is left in the dust as a mining platform. If putting an additional turret hardpoint on the Endurance is unviable, consider a role bonus that gives a cycle time or other boost to gas/ice/ore modules so it can reach parity with the other frigates. That said, if the gas bonus has been removed from venture/prospect there’s design space for a blanket buff to both the gas harvesters and the ice mining lasers (which is warranted, imo) to make ~20m3/s viable for ice mining.

As for the prospect, 2-3 drones, maybe? Perhaps with the same penalty as the endurance (I don’t fully understand the drone penalty but as first blush I like it as a heavy-handed way to force us into combat/ecm drones).

This is what protests are for. To get attention. It’s not about the last patch only. It’s about the series of changes and destruction of game for a long time. CCP doesn’t listen to CSM, etc. Contrary, this patch encourages alpha botting due to waste mechanic. You’ll see more botters after this patch. CCP improves NPE with one hand and destroys it with the other.

This was an “outrage” of ppl who still care. Because if you don’t care you leave in silence.

4 Likes

+100 likes :slight_smile:

2 Likes

LOL but true!!

2 Likes

The cycle outcome is calculated at the end of a cycle. There’s no “reserved yield”, no hidden mechanics, nada. (Case in point: two lasers mining a rock that has 1 point of ore left. Whichever finish cycle first gets the ore.)
Thus, it is perfectly possible to calculate the split correctly (i.e. roll for waste, split the yield, etc.). But CCP decided to shaft you. Bummer.
Even though I can see, WHY this has been done, I disagree with implementation.

1 Like

HERE HERE!!! /STOMPS FEET ON FLOOR

2 Likes

Doubly-thank-you for following up! I greatly appreciate it.

I suppose that means all I can do is re-emphasize my feedback for consideration.

I do want to briefly emphasize my aside: the more I try to discuss the “mining waste” and “compression loss” in private, the more I see the need for there really needs to be good, strong thematic labels for the two mechanics. Both seem to be quickly colloquially be confused as “waste”, and there needs to be quicky, easy 1-word ways to distingush “mining waste”-the-mechanic and “compression-loss”-the-mechanic.

Hence my humble proposal for “tailings” for “mining waste”. IDK what for “compression loss”. But that way there is no need for 3 minutes of “what do you really mean by ‘waste’” semantics discussion for every single discussion.

1 Like

Thanks for verifying, I was about to hop onto Sisi and test this scenario for myself.