From Extraction to Production

EVE Information Portal Announcements
, ,
1877

That’s not necessarily true. Most the game can be divided into people who either don’t want to rat/mine to pay for their fun, or people who try to pay for their game time exclusively through in game means. If people from the first group, just want to pay currency to replace their lost ships plex prices have a direct correlation on how much they need to continue their game play.

When when a monthly plex was under 300mil a month, replacing a carrier would be a very costly thing to do for IRL money. As plex prices per month continued to rise, the purchasing power of plex for people who want to use it to replace ships also went up. In turn, they didn’t have to purchase as much plex to replace the ships they lost. Lowering the amount of PLEX purchased for IRL currency, for the same amount of game activity for those individuals. This only amplifies the inflation of plex for isk prices because it also puts volume of plex of it into the economy to purchase.

1878

“I also want to go back to the removal of the minerals on R4, yes we expected it but that does not change that R4 by far was the most effective way to get pyerite. Bistot, Arkonor and Pyroxeres are the alternatives to getting a good amount of pyerite per M3 but that is still only a third compared to Bitumens and Zeolites. This is going to create a new age of scarcity as now the limit of construction will be access to pyerite. I am actually a little amazed people did not comment on this yet but then again big groups and alliances have massive stockpiles so this is probably a side effect of starting a new corp and not having those stockpiles yet.”

This is the central difficulty for my group of Carebears. We range in SP from 120M+ through to “joined eve last week”. We’ve had access to a modest collection of Highsec moons for a couple of years now. When all of the minerals were available in R4 moons we were extremely happy Carebears. When all of the minerals were removed our corp nearly died. When pyrite and mexallon were returned to R4 moons we came back to life again. We use the minerals to start our on production, as well as selling to Lowsec and Nullsec groups. We used the goo for reactions, again for our own industry as well selling to larger groups.

But for us it is extremely social. We look forward to catching up in chat and on comms each weekend while we dig. We look forward to bringing newbros into our group. Many of us could probably make it in null. We have a lot of cap pilots, combat and freight, and a modest amount of pvp experience (120M+ SP gets you into a lot of stuff). But we want to remain where we are for the social aspect. With minerals leaving R4 moons our Highsec activities will die like they did before.

Contrary to popular belief there are quite a few high SP players who happily mooch around Highsec each weekend, with our big ships and experience helping new folk in small ships. We’re in it for the fun-per-hour, and minerals in R4 Highsec moons has been our ticket for a couple of years.

2 Likes
1879

Yikes, you realise this is kind of breaking your NDA knowing this WON’T end scarcity right ?

1 Like
1880

For me, showing the unfinished work, taking feedback, and making changes like they’re doing this time around does something to help me have more faith in them. At least I can see the process and can tell they are taking feedback into account.

I know scarcity has a lot of people upset, but I see development of these features and the opportunity to be involved in them as separate from scarcity. I want CCP to, in general, involve the players in the development of the game as soon as possible for /any/ features, whether they be related to scarcity or not. To get that, players will need to be tolerant of rough edges in early access testing.

Also, just in general, I think what CCP means by ‘this is the end of scarcity’ is really ‘the scarcity phase of our economic plan is over and this is the beginning of the redistribution phase of our plan’. I’m expecting to see other adjustments made after they’ve observed the effects of what they’re working on now.

3 Likes
1881

its nice to see mining a goal and not a afk fest with 10 rorq alts anymore all those salty nerds moaning because their rorquals was nerf’d but they was only following isk no intrest in the field hense the flooding. now there at a point where useful but not dominant it should wean out the isk chasers. but i hope ccp wont bend the knee to people with rorq fleet over threats of unsub. rorq was way overpowerd before. i enjoyed indy but belts always chery picked and gone even i like changes

1882

@CCP_Rattati @CCP_Psych

Hi guys. I wanted to formalise some feedback that ive already discussed in this thread with others but figured its probably got lost in replies and banter and whatever else. This is in specific relation to the WASTE FIRST mechanic and the behaviour that all the waste is taken from the asteriod before a players yield is. This has a some consequences which may or may not be intended but i think are worth highlighting.

First in relation to mission running. I know this has been highlighted however because of the waste first mechanic I dont think its simply a case of doubling the rock size. Take a mission where a player needs to mine 5000m3. that suggests a doubling of the rock to 10000m3 to accommodate T1 modules and their waste. So say a player has a cycle with a 1500m3 yield.

Cycle 1 - 1500 waste; 1500 to hold; 7000 left on the rock
Cycle 2 - 1500 waste; 1500 to hold (3000 total) 4000 left on rock
Cycle 3 - 1500 waste; 1500 to hold (4500 total) 1000 left on rock
Cycle 4 - 1000 waste; 0 to hold (4500 total mined and mission cant be completed)

While i accept that the last cycle could be cut short it would take some skill to hit 50% exactly to ensure to get the 500 ore. And many players running these missions might not be cyclers.

Now i know im using made up numbers here but the point is that with the huge amount of combinations on skills, ships modules and implants player yields could vary signifcantly so unless there is sufficient ore in the rock above a doubling of the quantity needed its possible for the mission to be mathematically broken as a result of waste first.

The second issue id like to raise for your consideration on the waste first mechanic is end of life asteriods and t2 modules. If we look at an example where there is 1500m3 left on an asteriod after the rest of it has been mined and a player with t2 modules has a 1500m3 yield. Now as i understand it there is a 34% chance that waste would be generated. So we are in a situation where running that last cycle is pure rng.

We can set a cycle but if we roll for waste we dont get anything from the asteriod it would all be consumed to space. Now i get over the long term we should mostly get the ore from this asteriod and it balances out long term. But it just feels like a stealth nerf in that the last cycle of an asteriod where there isnt much left will have a 1 in 3 chance to return nothing.

Thats not going to sit well and EVE players will likely look for ways to minimise the risk of wasting rocks. So in the example i gave above it may be that the miner thinks its more efficient to run a half cycle and aim for 750 Ore so that in the event it is a waste roll he/she gets half the ore and the rest is waste. But what then happens if there is no waste. We now have a smaller asteriod with the same dillema and then its probably worth just moving onto the next rock and leaving the tiny rock as it cannot be mined predictably or effcieintly.

T1 modules while more wasteful at least have a behaviour thats predictable allowing a miner to predict and plan how a rock will be mined in relation to cycles to minimise waste on the last cycle on a rock. But T2 modules having this RNG element set up instances on the last cycle on a rock where it will be very difficult for players to predict, plan and be effcient.

This may be functioning exactly as you intend it to but i suspect that its going to be extremely annoying for players on asteriods where the remaining ore is comparable to their cycle yield.

Wouldnt it be fairer all round to just implement the waste on a 1 unit mined 1 unit wasted basis and instead of taking all 1500m3 of the ore as waste before giving anything to the player its automatically split to 750m3 mined ore 750m3 waste? It would help with the mission issue above also as it would at least then give you the comfort that edge case t1 mining setups cant mathematically break the mission.

I hope you give this some thought. Thanks.

3 Likes
1883

Indeed, I am very afraid of the scarcity this will bring. It may end up killing the production part of my corp which would be a shame as that is our primary goal. Construct and supply

1884

■■■■ everything I said earlier. This right here is what we needed to see.

1885

Sure, but the Coercer multiboxer needs good timing, needs to be clicking or input-replicating alot, and he also has to pay 20 subspriptions for his coercer fleet. Unless he can generate around 1B isk per day by ganking orcas, he can’t even keep his fleet omega-ed.

You can also clap an Orca with a lower number of battlecruisers, but it would be a lot more expensive (in ingame currency, though savings in PLEXing can turn the battlecruiser gank less expensive if you don’t consequently feed them all the day, where a higher number of less expensive ships becomes cheaper).

Orca fits aren’t 1B ISK worth btw. Fleet Boost orca fits are worth well less then 50M + (expensive) rigs, while solo mining orca fits are a bit more isk-intensive, and also use expensive mining drones, which might drop or be abandoned for ~100M. The real isk sink, with either variant, however, is the rigs, and those don’t drop.

Orca drops often aren’t even picked up by the ganker.

Orcas aren’t Freighters, you can’t really make a living on ganking them. You kill them either in order to improve your zkill which is junk because you fought too many people that shot back, or you kill them in order to motivate the operator to buy a mining permit from you. If you get your orca ganked in low, where CONCORD isn’t pressuring the gankers to finish the job, CODE will usually offer you to ransom your Orca for 500M … because you paying them 500M is going to be more income to them then whatever your orca could drop.

1886

Ganking loot does not matter to gankers at all anymore if you look at the number of empty freighter being ganked. It is just too cheap to gank a completely defenseless ship worth 3.5B.

REDNES

3 Likes
1887

If this becomes the norm

won’t be a problem.

I don’t trust that plan.
All i have seen so far is long term goals and play styles fading away while the grind to fight ratio gets worse and worse.

Maybe that plan the very first thing CCP needs to explain better and / or adapt to their customers wishes.

We want affordeable ships in space.
We want whaling and high end crabbing to be a thing.
We want large scale capital warfare.

None of those things seem to exist in CCPs plan.

1888

yeah… nearly unkillable and protected by caps and super umbrella , 2km3 per cycle per drones can compress so infinite storage not to mention they had access to the most profitable ore in null… no wonder they could just afford multiple accounts with plex with that absurd amount of isks. then again that’s CCP fault , can’t blame the greed of players if the DEV won’t do SH*T about it. Instead they nerf everyone else when they know damn well who’s to blame.

As an Orca pilot myself , i knew the Rorqual was to be my end goal , before now i didn’t quite look that much into it , i never thought it would be this extreme of a difference between Orca and Rorqual to my knowledge back then.

For that change i’m all in cause F*ck 'em that’s just CCP fixing their Fckup finally about the Rorqual. But ccp … why did you have to mess with EVERYTHING else too ?

1 Like
1889

You raise some interesting points about the ‘waste first’ mechanic.

Personally I think it creates an opportunity for miners to mine smarter. And it creates a purpose for scanners that scanners didn’t have before: an increase in yield, as it gives you valuable information about how to approach the last cycle. You can calculate how long your last cycle needs to be to gain the most ore. Even in case of a waste probability that is not 100%, there will be an optimum that an attentive miner can hit to gain most ore on average.

If the system was ‘waste last’, this opportunity for miners who are paying attention wouldn’t be there - a miner who went afk to get coffee would get the same amount of ore out of the rock.

As ‘waste first’ creates opportunities for miners to play smarter for more rewarding gameplay, I say we should keep it.

(Just do fix the issue for mining missions with limited amount of ore.)

1890

These numbers will be irrelevant once moon ore compression is available. Most moon ore isk more then doubles in value by being reproccessed, even by a unskilled capsuleer at a NPC station. It’s just the ore itself which has so high m^3 that jump freighting isn’t lookrative and you just reprocess it wherever you mine it instead.

With moon ore compression, at least the compressable variant will probably start getting traded around the value of it’s 90-ish % reproc that some dedicated reprocessing alts can do at null/wh-refineries, which means Bitumens will raise their price from 18M-ish per hour to around 40M-ish (if compressed).

It’s R4 btw, just as Sylvite also is.

1891

I like the announced changes very much and am looking forward to seeing them in game. Especially the drift to a more active gameplay in barges and exhumers. And the waste mechanic looks very interesting. Destroying rocks to get faster respawns. Great.
Good job CCP! :slight_smile:

1892

Definitely. But to react like many will. OMG CCP just took 2 mids from my procurer and now i have to use one of the leftover ones for a survey scanner……. You get the gist.

Id never advocate waste last. I completely agree thats way worse. But i cant see why it cant be coded to dynamically split it. Especially if mining smarter means loads of rocks are left floating around with 300m3 in them because its not worth the hassle/rng/time to attempt to pull anything from them.

I totally get im likely OVERSTATING the problem. But it just feels clumsy. Its not a great analogy but its how im thinking about it…….it feels like a roulette table where those green slots on the wheel give the house the edge.

1893

and this is where someone will come and say. But actually this is where the Type C crystals come in. This was possibly the intended way to use them when they came up with it lol

1894

If someone (like me) cant spare the time to play with a small rock because of RNG waste concerns i doubt very much the will spend the time changing chrystals to tidy up with less effciency.

Like i said. Im likely overstating how big an issue this will be and most players will just clear everything up regardless.

1895

That’s nothing new and has always been a thing. This new mechanic just speeds up the necessity to do it and it forces people to do it more often, which does not create smarter gameplay, it just creates more strain.

REDNES

1896

newbros will clean up for sure, others will just move to another belt seeing it’s nearly empty. Maybe a good guy or girl will come and cleanup your mess behind you ?