Only alpha clones should be able to mine without waste. The more time you have in game, the more waste your character should generate.
My understanding is that while t2 low waste is still wasting more than T1, you’re mining more too. This was kind of the point of their design - they didn’t want to overly penalize newer miners, but provide older miners with skills and isk to blow a way to yield more at the cost of more waste.
Waste makes the most sense at an individual level, but at an alliance level where yield is the #1 concern, not isk per hour or time, this is what gets Horde and other big groups to yell at folks for too much waste.
So I think what you’re asking for is essentially the opposite of what they’re trying to do. They don’t want to make the waste equal.
1 Like
I understand what they wanted to do, to give players a tradeoff between yield and waste, where higher yield goes paired with higher waste.
I just don’t see why there is no ‘low yield low waste’ option for T2 miners with at least equal waste to T1 lasers. Type A I crystals should have been that.
The current situation feels as if someone trained into T2 hybrid guns, has trouble hitting small fast targets no matter what T2 guns and ammo setup they use, and when they ask about it they get told that T1 guns always have better tracking than T2, even better tracking than the ‘best tracking’ T2 ammo and that all their training time for T2 guns was useless to fight small fast targets, because everyone uses T1 guns to hit them.
It’s not encouraging people to train T2.
Yes, I understand that CCP wants a tradeoff between yield and waste, but that tradeoff is still there for all the different T2 crystals. All they need to do to fix this issue is to make the lowest waste crystals (which is type A I) have equal waste as T1.
It will mine slightly faster than T1 lasers with equal waste, so it still encourages players to train into T2, yet is also slower than A II, B I and B II crystals which all have higher yield and waste, to keep the yield versus waste tradeoff intact.
2 Likes
This sounds exactly like what would happen if some competent developer laid out a logical, coherent system based on waste, T1/T2, crystal types, etc. Then he gave that to his manager. His manager went to a meeting with the paper in his hand, got surprised by questions from his manager and agreed to change some specific details of it to make his manager happy.
Then the manager went back to the developer and commanded him to change things, without explaining why. The developer might have suggested better, more logical, adjustments to the system, but he would then be told to just do what he was told. Then the demoralized developer made the changes.
It is a song as old as rhyme.
2 Likes
what about :
- naked module (with no crystal) same as current A-type but lower yield
- A-type reduces waste by 100%
- B-type increases yield and waste by 20%
- C-type increases yield by 30% but waste by 100%
The encouragement is that you can mine more. Yes, there’s more waste, but the yield is higher as well. That’s the entire point of it.
I could fly all officer stuff all the time if I felt like it, but there are times when tech 1 or meta is going to be better for the use case. This is the same here, isn’t it? What’s wrong with using tech 1 if that’s what gives you the optimal outcome you’re looking for?
1 Like
Isn’t the concept behind most T2 stuff that it is better than T1, but you have to make a choice between two versions of better? Like better range, worse damage or better damage/worse range? That was always my impression. Having T1 be better at something than either T2 variant seems like an oversight.
3 Likes
That was concept. T2 (with proper crystals) didn’t have waste at first. But then people cried that anyone who can’t use T2 wouldn’t be allowed to mine. Hence why CCP made waste mechanic even more dumb
2 Likes
It was good that people mentioned that during the first iterations of the waste patch, because otherwise T1 people would be in the position where they aren’t allowed to mine, which is harsh for newbies.
CCP listened and chanced T1 waste.
But they made the mistake to change T1 waste from more than T2 to less than T2, rather than making it equal to the least wasteful T2.
This decision by CCP then put T2 miners in the position that they’re not allowed to mine, no matter which crystal they use, which is silly. What’s the point of having all these choices of high waste and low waste crystals if none of them are as good as not using a crystal at all?
1 Like
What’s the point of artificial sink when all it would take to have same if not better effect to just limit the faucet?
Residue is just dumb from very start to the end. And there is zero reason to even discuss about it.
Limiting the faucet was the old situation, before asteroids were doubled.
Doubling the asteroids (which meant increasing the faucet) and adding residue was an interesting change to mining, in my opinion, as it adds an extra dimension to mining in the choice between yield and efficiency, similar to how in EVE no combat is one-dimensional and only ‘higher dps’ wins battles, but people also need to balance dps with tracking, range, size, etc. Now people can pick higher yield with type B crystals, but have to swap targets more often, if there even are enough asteroids to be targeted, or they can be more efficient with their asteroids but reduce their yield with type A crystals.
Residue made mining optimisation less one-dimensional, which is why I think it was a good addition to the game.
I just think the current implementation has issues, because it encourages people who are looking for efficient mining to not use (or train into) T2 at all, which is wrong in my opinion.
1 Like
you have to understand, that here in null sec , we dont have enough ressource for all miner that why they dont want waste !
Meanwhile you say:
It didn’t. There are mostly/only two choices: Max yield or max efficiency which means T1 or faction. Middle ground, well it’s middle ground. Which makes it sub optimal from the get go.
No. They don’t want you to waste their R64 moons that otherwise they would make profit on/tax you.
If you are not satisfied with the rules of your current environment:
- leave and move somewhere else, there are lots of alliances and places with absolutely no rules for mining, you could mine entire anomalies just for yourself with the most wasteful B-type crystals if you want and keep all the ore. You might want to think about how to protect yourself while doing that, because that part is currently organized by the alliance and the rules you need to follow are the “price” for that protection.
- change the rules, try to become part of the alliance leadership and think about new rules for the miners. will be a lot of political work.
- break the rules and deal with the consequences. Sometimes you get away with it. Sometimes not.
2 Likes
Which has more dimensions than before, where it was just ‘max yield’. Now you need to make choices while mining, just like how in fights you generally either use the close range or the long range ammo depending on circumstances, or use the hard hitting versus accurate ammo.
The only problem is now that people cannot use their T2 for one of the two options, because CCP made T1 more efficient than the efficient T2 option.
1 Like
And now you have regression in progress. Making something more complex just for sake of it being more complex isn’t good design. Especially when it’s mostly affecting niche within activity. In this case it’s moon mining.
Oh and since I missed that one:
2 x 0 = 0
There’s regression in progress when going from T1 to T2 missiles too if you’re using the highest dps ammo against small targets. But T2 weapons also give more choice, so that you can pick accurate ammo against small targets and high damage inaccurate ammo against large targets and deal more damage than T1 in both cases.
(Unlike mining, where progress into T2 indeed is worse than T1 in some cases, even when given choice of ammo.)
Making something more complex can result in more interesting game mechanics. The entire game of EVE is more complex than necessary, why do we have all these different ships, different ores, different solar systems? That could be much simpler, but simple doesn’t mean better. Neither does more complex mean better, I agree, but in cases where the old gameplay was very one-dimensional, having multiple factors makes mining more interesting, in my opinion.
Ha ha.
Yes, funny.
For the few regions where zero asteroids were after the mineral reshuffle, you’re right. Everywhere else in the game that had non-zero sized asteroids, your joke doesn’t apply and all those asteroids did get doubled in size.
1 Like
It wasn’t a joke. Yes doubling remaining 10% if there was any ore to double.
From any perspective that isn’t 0 ore, like in your joke, doubling the ore means you get significantly more ore than before. Twice the ore, to be precise.
So I really don’t get why you pretend it’s insignificant.
sorry, i didnt get it. but I can say here in null sec the price of them r very high and the tax corp to !