I would wager this is due to the end of the war. Which was 3 months ago ish. For goons delve was open for business. And for PAPI no longer camping the 1DQ gate meant going home and returning to mining and ratting.
The war would have majorly supressed the abilty for many groups to mine “safely” for months.
No, you really don’t.
Firstly, MER is close but is not quite there. Per region breakdown is not the same as per-security-zone breakdown. Low sec is fundamentally a part of empire region space, as is high sec, and security status is not neatly divided along regional boundaries as to rigorously follow the MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) principle that would let you make that claim. A MER that would, would have each region consisting entirely and solely of one kind of security zone.
Secondly, the “distributions per security space” is itself an approximating metric. Ideally, you would want longitudinal studies, not points-in-time snapshots like the MER is. What that means is you would want data that tracked individual pilots and then aggregated them: “X% of pilots that had <Y skill points that were mining in high sec are now in low sec”, etc. The distribution over security status I mentioned before is a nice approximation of that, but itself not rigorous. I only mentioned the approximation before because I thought this would not be such a contentious point and readily agreeable between us, as it is readily understandable statistic given the prevalence of MERs.
This is where longitudinal data would be helpful: is it because there was a wave of newbies progressing their mining career to null sov space? Or is it post-war vets finally fueling restarted capital ship component industrymaking? I don’t know myself, I simply contend the MER data you cite is simply not enough to be so certain of the claim you wish to make.
Yeah, play the game how you want! That’s my standard disclaimer.
Now, the topic at hand is about the career progression of a miner. “What does that career look like? What are its gaps? How can those gaps be addressed?” That first question is what I am specifically discussing. A career involves skilling up into all sorts of mining activities. At the high end of that skilling (by skillpoint count) is Deep Core Mining, and T2 nullsec ore crystals. That is just how the skillpoint requirements are set up.
Do you really wish that I write paragraphs justifying that for the purposes of this discussion around “what does a mining career look like”, getting miners out mining high-end minerals and mercoxit in null sec should be the end-goal? Because I’m going to drop out of the conversation if people’s idea of mining career is “get an alt into an orca and have more alts all in exhumers sitting in high sec”.
If you’re trying to make me sound like a hypocrite, it would be helpful to drop it. I believe people should do whatever they damn well please to have fun, but for the purposes of this analytical discussion, of course I’m going to have to put a stake in the ground so we have some frame of reference for analysis.
I honestly don’t get why, if I politely and factually, with references to existing data, debate a point with someone, they quite consistently feel that I am attacking and/or trying to belittle them. If you can give me an example of anything I said that has you so on the defensive, I’ll try to be more careful about it in future.
I was totally on board with “progression for a miner is getting more of what they want out of the game”. I’m less on board with “progression for a miner absolutely means ending up in a Rorq fleet in Null mining Mercoxit with T2 crystals”. Even if that is, technically, the end of the skill training chain.
For me, in a sandbox game, ending up where you’re getting more of what you want out of the game, more effectively, is progression.
For the OP, “progression” apparently means “I want to do something a bit differently than I’m doing now”.
The MER discussion was to indicate that mining, in general, doesn’t appear to be lacking at this time for effectiveness. I use it because it’s the only reliable data we have to base conclusions on.
If you have a source of longitudinal, security-level based, MECE, pilot-specific data that I’m not aware of, it would be great if you could share it with us. Otherwise, I’m gonna have to stick to the one data source we do have to base broad conclusions on.
At any rate, for miner progression paths, still looking for the gaps, niches or functions that are currently not working, in order to have some kind of target to suggest solutions for.
Is your point that the missing link in miner progression is not enough miners are ending up in null mining high-end minerals with T2 crystals?
I understand where you’re coming from, but just because something is “the only data” does not mean it’s a license to support any and all conclusions .
Not at all. I haven’t really put forward an argumentative thesis other than “I believe ship-based progression is a flawed mentality”, which I guess is a negative proposition. Like you, I can’t read OP’s brain to understand what is in need of improving. I was trying to frame “mining career and progression” on alternative terms, in more neutral and objective terms through the way the skills are designed.
If I were given terrible terrifying dictatorial power that could make idealism a reality, in high sec the only boosting ships would be vets guiding a random rabble of newbs, there’d be intermediate miners more willing to tear up low sec anomalies, and experienced miners would be able and willing to devour NPC null mercox belts and anomalies. Notice I’m not naming ships, modules, etc, as there are varied approaches to each. And all this regardless whether such capsuleers were in a big corp or playing solo. For sure, there’d be less almost-AFK-orca-alt-fleets in high sec. IDK what to think about sov nullsec. But thankfully for everyone, what I want and think doesn’t really matter here. But if you want my bias, that’s where it lies.
Cool, and understandable, and it’s kinda sad that the only terrible terrifying dictatorial power involved in this doesn’t seem to have a similarly workable vision.
So from an outsider’s perspective then, since the OP hasn’t stepped up, can people maybe add to a list of things about mining that could use a better approach/fixing? Just so I have an idea what the idea-space around mining improvements is. So far, from various sources, I’ve picked up that:
Some of these will be seen as advantages/desirable by some groups and disadvantages/flaws by others. I assume there are many issues I’ve missed so please feel free anyone to add to the list or clarify points.
Maybe once we get the mining update in we can do a poll or something and get an idea which areas are the most significant. Not that CCP would care anyway, but for our own enlightenment.
It’s like shining path but instead of terrorizing others one is just terrorizing themself.
Again we shouldn’t get hung up on the ships idea. It’s just one of potential many to be had. Mini games, situations, new anomaly types etc. Should be expressed here as well. Let’s liven mining up a bit
All I’m asking for, are the skills and equipment to smash through the alien hordes as me and my dwarf buddies drill through those asteroids.
It ain’t the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean.
A hulk is effectively the BS size mining ship, so maybe instead we add a maurader style mining ship. A bastion module that locks it into place, but doubles/triples yield
Otherwise it mines equal to a hulk.
T3 mining ship sounds fun
There’s also the Mackinaw which has the largest Ore hold… SiSi has it at 31k,m3
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.