Incoming Changes to the Orca

[Anderson_Geten]

@Algarion_Getz

ridiculous claims

It’s been proven by now that the people who made claims about AFK orca being a problem

1. don’t even know what AFK means
2. have no idea what is actually mining in orca, to the point they claim an orca has more yield than a barge.
3. are so bad at math they don’t understand the APM is linear with yield, and as such claiming that the orca has lower APM is just plainly stupid.
4. need to do cherry picking in any number they made, to the point that for them an “AFK player” is a player who spends 15minute to search for a belt with adequate rocks, warps his orca there, before actually doing mining, and a player in a barge must NOT receive boosts from a boosting ship, and a boosting orca should NEVER use boosting implants - while the reality is the complete opposite.
5. don’t even understand why the orca was added drones to start with, but still want to get rid of those drones for the exact reason they were added. This actually is linked to the 1. , that is they don’t even know what AFK actually means.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

are so bad at math they don’t understand the APM is linear with yield, and as such claiming that the orca has lower APM is just plainly stupid.

Most of the actions in a barge in an ice belt consist of emptying the filled ore hold regularly. Very regularly if you fly a Covetor. Orca does not have this problem. The Orca therefore has lower APM.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

Most of the actions in a barge in an ice belt consist of emptying the filled ore hold regularly. Very regularly if you fly a Covetor. Orca does not have this problem. The Orca therefore has lower APM.

And you again completely missed my point.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Anderson_Geten

are so bad at math they don’t understand the APM is linear with yield

This is only true if you are directly increasing yield while not changing any other factors.
Barges for example normally only use 2 strip miners. Though they can of course also use 5 mining drones which further increased APM but not in a linear relationship with the increase in yield.

@Anderson_Geten

And you again completely missed my point.

Other than negating someone’s claim that was clearly stupid, what was your point?

[Renly_Rohan]

@Anderson_Geten

It’s been proven by now that the people who made claims about AFK orca being a problem

My only objection is with the apparent lumping of those folks alltogether. I believe those are individual false claims/beliefs/ disconnects made by individuals representing only themselves.

Good job compiling the list though.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Barges for example normally only use 2 strip miners. Though they can of course also use 5 mining drones which further increased APM but not in a linear relationship with the increase in yield.

Still. If they have double the yield, then the asteroid they are mining will become empty twice as fast, and their hold will be empty twice as fast. So exactly double the APM : the APM of a ship is exactly linear with its yield.

So since the orca has lower yield, it also has lower APM. Complaining about a change in APM which is basically due to having lower yield, and asking for a reduction in yield, is completely stupid. Which was my point.

Now if you want to compare with same yield, you instead use the formula I gave above, that is the action per m³ instead of per minute. And then again, if the rock is the same size as your barge, the orca and the barge have same action per m³ - assuming your barge has an orca ready to take the ore or is using jetcans. Which means, the orca has lower APM for the sole reason it has less yield.

then you look at “if the asteroid is same size as the barge ore hold” :

https://imgur.com/csGjwIR

it’s like a fourth of a proc ore, or less than half a covetor, for the biggest ones.

Another one

https://imgur.com/oksp6S5
(I collapsed entries without a rock more than 2000 m³)
you have THREE rocks that are more than half a covetor hold.
I made several belts. none of them had big enough rock to require to empty a covetor, least a procurer.

So yes, most of the time the ore are smaller than a barge hold. So yes most of the time the action per m³ of an orca is HIGHER than a barge’s. so yes, the only reason the orca has lower APM is because it has less yield.

@Nevyn_Auscent

what was your point?

Exactly what I wrote. If you can’t understand it, then there is no point trying to explain you something THAT simple.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Anderson_Geten

Still. If they have double the yield, then the asteroid they are mining will become empty twice as fast,

Only if we are looking at the same ship.
If we are comparing a ship with 2 strip miners vs a ship with 5 drones, the lower yield ship ‘can’ have higher APM. A whole lot of things play into APM, not just yield.

@Anderson_Geten

Exactly what I wrote

You wrote a whole lot of blather without actually making a relevant point. Try actually structured writing.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

And you again completely missed my point.

Your point being that the lower APM goes down linear with yield?

This one?

@Anderson_Geten

are so bad at math they don’t understand the APM is linear with yield, and as such claiming that the orca has lower APM is just plainly stupid.

No, I just refuted that.

I tried to clarify it in my previous post that I was not talking about linear reduction of the APM, but the slow mode of this thread made that impossible. Sorry.

Orcas do not have to swap around ores in the huge ore hold, so any actions that a Covetor is required to do extra to empty the ore hold is not a problem for Orcas at all. As such, the Orcas have nonlinear less APM than a Covetor, even when taking into account a linear lesser APM for the lower yield.

[Xuixien]

@Renly_Rohan

Its almost amusing how AFK mining is treated as a problem.

AFK gameplay is a problem.

@Algarion_Getz

I heard ridiculous claims like Orca miners in highsec can go afk for hours and have ore worth hundreds of millions in their cargo when they return.

This isn’t a ridiculous claim, it’s just outdated and a bit exaggerated.

@Algarion_Getz

So i tried Orca mining myself and my experience was pretty much this:

I can’t leave to get a Sandwich & Coffee or taking a
Bio Break without coming back and having half of my
Drones on idle.

The obviously hyperbolic nature of this statement aside, it sounds like need to learn what a survey scan is, bud.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

the Orcas have nonlinear less APM than a Covetor,

That’s a nonsense.

If you want to compare with same yield, then you compare the action per m³. and then the orca has higher actions per cubic meter because it needs to move from an asteroid to another more often - literally for each asteroid, while the barges need to jettison their hold less than once per 2 asteroid (even 3 for procurer). And that is, assuming you just press F instead of setting each drone on its own asteroind

So yes, if you set the yield of an orca to the same as a covetor, then the orca would have higher APM. Which means, that the orca has lower APM for the SOLE reason it has lower yield.

So yes, claiming that the orca has lower APM, which is correct, is actually stupid : it actually makes no sense in the problem. Especially when you invoke this reason to ask for a reduction in yield. Which was my point.

So no, you refuted a strawman. The APM going linearly with yield is a fact, you can’t refute it. By claiming this was my point you completely missed my point.

@Nevyn_Auscent

You wrote a whole lot of blather without actually making a relevant point. Try actually structured writing.

Try opening your eyes.

@Nevyn_Auscent

Only if we are looking at the same ship.
If we are comparing a ship with 2 strip miners vs a ship with 5 drones, the lower yield ship ‘can’ have higher APM. A whole lot of things play into APM, not just yield.

And STILL yield is a factor exactly linear. if you double the yield of a ship, you double the APM.
I know it’s very complex for you but that’s the actual definition.

Now I understand why you don’t get my point : “linear” is a term already too complex for you.

@Xuixien

it sounds like need to learn what a survey scan is, bud.

For what ? to get more “AFK” ? “be more active to be less active !!”
Anyhow with average 1500 m³ per rock, that means your average rock lasts 60s . So even with 5 drones, you have to change one on average every 60s (unless you just started to mine)

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

because it needs to move from an asteroid to another more often - literally for each asteroid, while the barges need to jettison their hold less than once per 2 asteroid

Did I mention I was talking about ice? I did.

Find large targets (such as ice) and you will be able to mine a lot more m3 in an Orca than a Covetor for the same amount of actions.

[Zayisha_Andara]

@Xuixien

AFK gameplay is a problem.

Depending on you POV, yes it can be a problem.

Thing is, this Topic is about the Orca.
And the Orca is not the Problem. The Mining Systems is.

Have a look at Elite Dangerous and you know what i’m talking about.
The Solution lies in reworking the Mining, not the Orca.

Make it like ED, problem solved.
Jump into the Belt, start to search a high Value Rock.
Fire you Laser, and have Loot depending on how well you perform (aka, the more activity you put in).
And make sure, that it is possible to get the same Loot in ISK with that in 15 to 30 Minutes that now takes 8h of so called AFK Mining.

And because you try this false thing up again: no, it wouldn’t destroy Economy.
If there is only x amount of Ore, it’s just mined out faster.

So more PVP (competition who gets the rocks), more activity, LESS Time on Grid.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Zayisha_Andara

So more PVP (competition who gets the rocks), more activity, LESS Time on Grid.

I think you mean ‘More PvE for people who log on right after downtime, no ore for anyone else, hardly any PvP because no-one is in a belt to be attacked or compete.’

Also

@Zayisha_Andara

If there is only x amount of Ore, it’s just mined out faster.

This assumes that 100% of x is currently getting mined out and that time is not a limiting factor on many peoples efforts.

[Zayisha_Andara]

If you want to say: “it aint that easy to rework mining”. Agreed.

@Nevyn_Auscent

This assumes that 100% of x is currently getting mined out and that time is not a limiting factor on many peoples efforts.

“x” can be adjusted by CCP as they see fit.
And time is the most just and fair indicator. Every human has 24h per day at their disposal. It’s just how you decide to spend them.

@Nevyn_Auscent

I think you mean ‘More PvE for people who log on right after downtime

That can be adjusted as well by CCP (just go away from lazy: “everything respawns with the same numbers at the same spot on downtime”)
Actually they are already doing this. Have a look at Ice mining for an example.

@Nevyn_Auscent

hardly any PvP because no-one is in a belt to be attacked or compete.’

You don’t have to be in the same spot at the same time. Competing for good rocks is more like Market PvP.

“not to be attacked”
That would be: “less effortles Targets to be attacked”.
And that’s a good thing.
Combat PVP is not what a miner is looking for. Especially not when they have chosen to be in HiSec.
So that would Force lazy, low skilled Gankers that are looking for effortles easy targets to adep. Not even speaking of NOT supporting Narcissists/Soziopaths/Psychopaths who just roam HiSec to create Drama (and feed on that).
Those would actually have to harden up and adept. Being forced to go in Null-/Lowsec to find targets, flown by people that are willing to do Combat PVP, while flying the proper Ships for that activity.
Basically leading to more quality Combat PVP.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Zayisha_Andara

Make it like ED, problem solved.
Jump into the Belt, start to search a high Value Rock.
Fire you Laser, and have Loot depending on how well you perform (aka, the more activity you put in).
And make sure, that it is possible to get the same Loot in ISK with that in 15 to 30 Minutes that now takes 8h of so called AFK Mining.

EVE mining is created with slow low intensity gameplay in mind. Mining ships have good yield, but apart from the frigates, are some of the slowest ships in the game for their size. Mining ships are intentionally slow and intentionally spend a lot of time in ore anomalies and belts to allow gameplay opportunities where these ships can defend themselves against agressors with their drones, shield boosts and shield reps.

EVE mining gameplay is created like it is with player interaction in mind, whether it takes the form of suicide gankers in high sec or roaming pvpers in other regions. Without content like this in space, space would be pretty dead.

I understand that your example of more engaging quick gameplay where you enter a site, put in more effort and extract valuables fast is a tempting alternative to mining in EVE, but we already have a gameplay activity that fills this description in EVE: exploration.

Mining has a good place in EVE as a slow low activity gameplay option. We just need to make sure it isn’t too low activity, as that enables large scale multiboxing, which makes the activity much less worth doing for the non-multiboxing competitors.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

Mining ships are intentionally slow and intentionally

and intentionally bad.

@Gerard_Amatin

EVE mining gameplay is created like it is with player interaction in mind, whether it takes the form of suicide gankers in high sec or roaming pvpers in other regions. Without content like this in space, space would be pretty dead.

But if the suicide gankers job is too easy, then space is also pretty dead. Which is the case with barges, and why people use orcas. Orcas can also be ganked, it’s just that contrary to what some people say, many gankers don’t want a target that requires as much investment to kill as the target does. (Note that not all gankers share that twisted mentality, some actually do it for the lolz)

No more carebears than a gankers who fly cats.

@Gerard_Amatin

We just need to make sure it isn’t too low activity, as that enables large scale multiboxing, which makes the activity much less worth doing for the non-multiboxing competitors.

Nah.
You can multibox with many activities. It’s not an issue per se. And if multiboxing reduces the income of the competitors, then it also reduces the income of the multiboxer, meaning the gain from the activity is less than linear even though the activity in itself requires linear inputs. Which is a form of balancing already present.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

and intentionally bad.

Barges each have their clear strengths and weaknesses. If you want to call that ‘intentionally bad’, go ahead. I prefer to call it 'intentionally well balanced to allow optimisation choices’.

@Anderson_Geten

many gankers don’t want a target that requires as much investment to kill as the target does. (Note that not all gankers share that twisted mentality, some actually do it for the lolz)

Obviously a lot of people only gank when it’s profitable. In a game that’s all about profits, from industry, hauling, trading, exploration, missions… why would profitable ganking be a twisted mentality?

@Anderson_Geten

You can multibox with many activities. It’s not an issue per se. And if multiboxing reduces the income of the competitors, then it also reduces the income of the multiboxer, meaning the gain from the activity is less than linear even though the activity in itself requires linear inputs. Which is a form of balancing already present.

I agree that profits for multiboxers going down is indeed a form of balancing. However, if ‘multiboxing profits’ is the main driving factor to balance profits for an activity, it means that by the time multiboxers may consider the activity not worth their time anymore, the solo player, who’s time is paying significantly less, has already considered the activity to be worthless for a long time. And that’s a shame, why should certain activities only be worth doing for multiboxers?

I’m not against multiboxing, but I do think that any activity that is as easily multiboxed as Orcas in a belt with large volumes (such as ice) should be adjusted.

[Zayisha_Andara]

@Gerard_Amatin

why would profitable ganking be a twisted mentality

It isn’t, if it’s done right.
If someone wants to gank non-combat targets (miners/haulers) you can do that in a profitable way very easy: go to Low-/NullSec. No CONCORD there.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Zayisha_Andara

It isn’t, if it’s done right.

Ganking profitability is not a gameplay design. It’s player choice to be a profitable ganking target.

Or rather, player mistake.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

In a game that’s all about profits, from industry, hauling, trading, exploration, missions… why would profitable ganking be a twisted mentality?

No it’s not. PvP in general is not profitable in Eve, for the sole reason it’s a negative sum game : players who engage in PVP don’t do it with the sole reason to be isk positive. In that regard, “profitable” suicide ganking is twisted , especially when they look down on “carebears” with insults like “greed” or “calm down”.

@Gerard_Amatin

And that’s a shame, why should certain activities only be worth doing for multiboxers?

They are not. They are worth the same for each. Just, an activity that is easily doable will crumble in value. Like exploration, or L4 SOE.

@Gerard_Amatin

I’m not against multiboxing, but I do think that any activity that is as easily multiboxed as Orcas in a belt with large volumes (such as ice) should be adjusted.

Then you are against profitable multiboxing.