From Extraction to Production

EVE Information Portal Announcements
, ,
1711

CCP glad to see your revisiting the mining changes also revisit the fact that astriods are way to small and the fields are way spread out as well as you literally stated in the notes that you lissoned to the players and were buffing resists on the mack and hulk but you nerfed them to be even weaker you want them to get used they need more tank they are literally jokes and have been for far to long fix this ■■■■ already asking them for 60k to 100k EHP is not that much to ask but 14k EHP on hulk there is no reason to even buy one cuz it’s not worth the risk to undock them.

Wast needs to be lowered as well
And more look at mining drones as you gave now benifit to use t2 mining drones by having 100% western lower the t2 to the same as t2 moduals 35% would be respectable
The only thing that was nice in this update after my testing on sisi was the compression on orca and porpoise the core is pointless unless it gives a massive tank buff when active.

Bring back ore anomalies to all regions
And with waste make sure you adjust the mining missons as they can’t be done at all if you don’t

Ask for loss with compression this is just bull ■■■■ as it already cost fuel I only see this as respectable for in station compression only

Ask for new player start tried this yesterday and was like wtf. I’ve played for years and it did nothing more then confuse me. Teach basic but don’t explain how to use anything or different ways to do things now wonder new people are always confused when we try to help them.

This is what I have to add beyond what was listed to be re looked at.

1712

And please keep minerals (currently pyerite and mexallon) i highsec moons. Please.

3 Likes
1713

CCP should focus on expanding playstyles, not destroying the few you have left in hopes that previously killed play styles come back.

I was on board to try scarcity, and I trusted the devs to get it right, now it is clearly a disaster.

Rollback the changes, bring back rorqual/capital hunting. Work on Faction War, New Missions/content, and giving people a reason to roam around again.

6 Likes
1714

Well… the current pach leads to more and more people not able to buy ships anymore and therefore most likely unsubbing their alts and only flying around as alpha account long term.

  1. the current nerf of rorquals will result in less ore mined per hour.
  2. less ore means prices go up. In the end after a certain amount of time, the miner may reach the same isk/hour ratio than before, however ships will end up being more expensive than ever
  3. Less capital targets in space will remove the fun of those who are used to hunt them and remove the fun of those who are used to defend them. So boredom and ship spinning starts.
  4. people will be even less eager to field a ship that is expensive… which will result in dropping prices again (less isk per hour for the miners)

And long term we can just play as alpha, i doubt that this will happen as people either fly the ships they like to fly or not at all. So you will be have less subscribers or some that pay. It is a gamble you are trying to achieve, however I believe it will be shocking for you that there are actually very few that will stay. Hence eve is also about the comunity and if my friends no longer log in… i will not log in either.

1715

EVE has always maintained some parallels to real-world physics. Mass, trajectory, volume, etc… While it’s not real, many of the game-mechanics are realistic. Which makes it fun and challenging.

Moving away from 100:1 compression makes sense. If you look at real-world physics of solid materials, the compacted volume of some solids can be reduced by up to one-third. The density of solid and semi-solid materials vary, so should the compression ratios.

Changing the compression ratio from 100:1 to 3:2 would be controversial, without arbitrary loss. But it could be achieved and even painfully accepted by the player community. If it makes the game more realistic.

Gaseous materials have always been compressible in the real-world, which is why many players have asked for gas compression. Making the game more realistic. Gas compression ratios vary, 5:1, 10:1 and even higer. More pressure increases the ratio, but it’s still nowhere near the 100:1 baseline of the current in-game compression of solid materials. But gases should be more compressible than solid materials.

There’s even an opportunity for CCP to monetize gas compression, by selling gas cylinders. Make some gases more volatile, old cylinders can explode after too many uses. There could be some spectacular secondary explosions when a ship full of cylinders is destroyed, damaging any nearby ships. Making the game more realistic.

Since compression takes time and energy, the introduction of compression modules is realistic. While there do seem to be some issues with the game mechanics. In-game compression has always allowed for more efficient use of hold space. But increasing the density of a material through compression or compaction only reduces the volume of a material in the real-world.

The only real-world disadvantages of compression are inefficient ratios, which results in less volume gain. Losing materials through compression is simply unrealistic.

Keep waste and loss at the refining stage, because that’s realistic.

2 Likes
1716

The fallacy there is the idea that players do not already have plenty of incentives to train higher skills as a miner if that is a career they wish to follow. I progressed from Venture to Retriever to Mackinaw to Orca, as well as Prospect, Endurance and Skiff. My primary character still flies all of the named classes except the Retriever, as best suited for the task - Mackinaw in very safe areas, Skiff in dodgier HS spots, Prospect in LS, Endurance when I only want a bit of ice, Orca when I want more ice in less of a hurry or want low yield but low APM from ore, and Venture for worm-hole gas once in a blue moon. Funny how I chose to invest in all those relevant skills without waste to “incentivise” me.

Waste is simply a nonsense just not needed. The problem is that CCP will now cling to a sunk cost fallacy; they have clearly wasted a lot of resource designing it - badly - and will now insist on blundering on, rather than scrapping it. Sheer hubris will cost them a lot of subscriptions, and hubris will blind them as to the cause.

5 Likes
1717

you mine less per cycle than you do with the other ones, you waste 18x as much, so yeah, if you want to be a scumbag, go level your barge skills up

As you have looked at the spreadsheet you know it has a -75% mining amount bonus, 0 cycle time bonus and the best bit is, only you know you are doing it unless you do it to a moon.

3 Likes
1718

I was hoping someone was going to do the math in my previous post and say “hold the phone” that is exactly where we are today! Which if you tweaked the numbers would probably be true.
Lets say currently a new player (A) in a barge can mine 1000m3 every 2 minutes and a trained up player (B) in a barge can mine 2000m3 every 2 minutes.

Then on a 9000m3 rock the following would happen:
at 2mins - A pulls 1000m3, B pulls 2000m3
at 4 mins - A pulls 1000m3, B pulls 2000 m3
at 6 mins - A pulls 1000m3, B pulls 2000 m3 and the rock goes poof.
So player A gets 3000m3 off the rock and B gets 6000m3 off the rock.

so now lets say we are on Sisi. (rock is now size 18 000m3)
at 2 mins - A pulls 1000m3, wastes 1000m3. B rolls waste, fails, wastes 2000m3, pulls 2000m3
at 4 mins - A pulls 1000m3, wastes 1000m3. B rolls waste, wins 34% roll, wastes 0 m3, pulls 2000m3
at 6 mins - A pulls 1000m3, wastes 1000m3. B rolls waste, fails roll, wastes 2000m3, pulls 2000m3

hang on a bit, the roll B made doesn’t mean he automatically gets the 2000m3 still in the rock. Unlike pre waste, player A now also has a chance to get at least some of it.

So the waste mechanic is actually better for player A. (which is another reason why older players are unhappy, since it is a mechanic that is advantageous to new players.)

Well it would be, if they were allowed access to the rocks…

2 Likes
1719

As a low SP miner, sitting seeing “Wasted ISK - 2,580,231” and “You mined 1500 and lost 1500” is most definitely not feeling advantageous.

1143×196 83.2 KB

852×129 36.7 KB

And, you forget that player B can go the entire rock without any waste

5 Likes
1720

Totally agree that player B mining the whole rock is better than current. and also better than letting player A near the rock. The point I was trying to make was that the new mechanic would in theory result in player A getting more than before…

Also agree that seeing you wasted some of the rock doesn’t feel great. not helping the enjoyment factor at all

1721

And maybe none of them get it. If player B for example is ahead on cycle time and rolls for waste…… isn’t the 2000 waste taken first? Meaning if a full cycle is run there is a chance all of the last of that rock is wasted.

If the waste is taken in full before and yield is given it’s a bit of a stealth nerf in all situations not just this one. Seems from what people have tested that is the behaviour but I’d love to get a proper confirmation.

1 Like
1722

Imho the very least that should be done, bar the already mentioned changes by @CCP_Psych is:

  • reversing the waste calc so that it happens after your ship pulls the ore. It’s kinda ■■■■ that the final pull can only be waste if there’s little ore remaining in the rock.
  • making compression cycle in a matter of seconds rather than minutes. Sitting in a Rorq for literal hours compressing millions of m3 of ore is not the rivetting active gameplay I’m expecting.
1 Like
1723

yup, waste roll is first. DOH!

1724

Not everyone Buys there Skill Points; Some of us have been playing since 2004. CCP allowed people to buy Skill points which making it CCP’s stupid fault not everyone took the time to PLAY the game and TRAIN SKILLS one after the other as in tended from the start of the game when I BETA Tested it! I took the time to get my skills and learned to use them. You obviously have not idea what the hell you are talking about. TAKE OUT SKILL INJECTORS!!! Make everyone train skills again!! WOW w2hat a concept!?.

1 Like
1725

Most people in this thread clearly do.

Correctamundo.

I agree

What, because Ive no sympathy for bloated afk rorq krabs? Lol methinks you protest too much.

I guess all that injected SP finally went to your head

2 Likes
1726

Which is wild as it’s almost like you want t1 miners as you know where you stand. Like in your example above player A would have 2k rock and a 1k cycle. So they know a full cycle is 1k and 1k waste. They can plan.

But the t2 miner. With a 2k cycle either let’s it run and gambles that there will be no waste and gets all the ore. But then risks losing it all if they do roll for waste.

Or

Stops mid cycle to be safe. But if he stops mid cycle and he doesn’t get hit by waste we now have a rock with 1k ore and a 2k cycle and the dilemma starts over.

And that’s assuming they are both solo. If they are mining the same rock I can’t think through the cycle gymnastics that would be needed not to waste the majority of what’s left.

IF this is how it is working then surely there is a better way to implement it. Like dynamically splitting so it takes waste and yield equally and not waste first.

1727

lol, i was exactly thinking about this

1728

Please explain which Miners you didn’t screw? More skills to train more time more money more isk for everyone… NewBro’s get it the worst!!! NewBro’s will not be allowed to mine with anyone that provides boosts because the waist!

So ya you Screwed ALL miners! Sorry NERFED all miners!

2 Likes
1729

LOL good points except for where it says I never bought a skill point.

Not much in my head but YEARS of playing a game and PAYING really money not plex.

1 Like
1730

You will get reimbursed skill points and isk for skills and skillbooks you trained. New skills actually take less SP to train. Stop whining.