Mining waste/residue takes effect before yield. Because of this, when mining a nearly depleted asteroid, there is a chance to obtain zero ore from the cycle.
Say your yield is 2000 m3 for 120 s. If the asteroid has 1900 m3, you can complete a 120-s cycle and get nothing for your time.
This is very frustrating. It creates a feels-bad situation for players, even if – in fact, only if – they are using upgraded mining equipment (T2) that takes a long time to skill into.
Wouldn’t it be better if yield was calculated before waste/residue? Then we wouldn’t get stung with worthless mining cycles for asteroids near depletion. Seems like this would be an easy fix, and I at least would really appreciate it!
The reason waste comes before yield is to punish afk miners. They want you paying attention on the last pieces of rock.
I don’t get it. Even if you’re active, as a comment above notes, the ore can still be lost because waste/residue is chance-based. Am I missing something?
Edit: Woops, apparently that was you who made the comment I’m referring to
Why though ? It is as it is. If it was the other way around, you would have 0% wastage on the last shot.
Now, if you have 32% chance of wastage, you have 32% chance of 32% chance (so 11%) that you last shot will be 0 yield.
So, the devs had to choose between 32% chance of incorrect wastage, and 11% chance of incorrect yield. The lower issue, gameplay wise, is the 11% incorrect yield.
Why though ? It is as it is. If it was the other way around, you would have 0% wastage on the last shot.
Now, if you have 32% chance of wastage, you have 32% chance of 32% chance (so 11%) that you last shot will be 0 yield.
So, the devs had to choose between 32% chance of incorrect wastage, and 11% chance of incorrect yield. The lower issue, gameplay wise, is the 11% incorrect yield.
Why is it 32% of 32%? I’m imagining a single laser with 2000 m3 per 120 s.
What’s wrong with having 0% wastage on the last shot? I thought the whole idea behind this patch was to increase ore availability (prosperity).
I don’t understand the dev choice (32% vs 11%) you describe.
you have 32% chance less ore remaining than the wastage on the last hit.
basically on 100 asteroids with uniform spread of ore quantity, avg 32 will have less ore on the last hit than what would be wasted, if you have 32% chance of wastage.
and on those asteroids, you have 32% chance to have wastage, so the change to actually notice wastage on the last hit is 32% of 32%.
Your two sentences are not related by any logical sense.
What’s wrong with 0% wastage is that it defeats the goal of wastage. people could scan the roid and use higher wastage chance while avoiding that wastage.
Yeah it’s math, I know it’s difficult.
You don’t need to understand. You should only know, it’s better the way it is.
I’m not sure your 11% argument tracks; you’ll notice wastage also if the asteroids have more than what would be wasted in a final cycle. For example, if the asteroid has 2400 m3 on the last cycle and you have 2000 m3 yield per 120 s, you come away with only 400 m3. This is noticeable.
Basically once any asteroid gets low there’s some chance that you’ll get less than your usual yield, with different probability for different amounts of lost yield. Seems to me preferable from a “fun” standpoint to avoid that outcome. Furthermore, CCP representatives have emphasized repeatedly that waste should not reduce yields – and yet we see that in some cases it does.
That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of that. But it’s not clear to me that it’s a problem; personally I would prefer to get yield before waste and allow folks who want to target near-depletion asteroids to have higher yield per unit time. Again this seems consistent with the spirit of the patch.
@Anderson_Geten
Didn’t I see Daichi mention somewhere that it would be better to get rid of the RNG?
So, instead of getting nothing as is, or getting everything if yield went through before waste, a miner would always get 70% (or whatever) of what was left, with the appropriate amount going to wastage.
And, bear with me here, but I don’t think that this actually rewards active miners. I’ve not only heard devs say, “if you leave it up to players, they’ll optimize the fun out your game,” but I’m also pretty sure that I’ve heard CCP devs say it too. So, I’m not exactly sure how they consider it good game design to incentivize players to engage in tedious game play. I mean, yeah, it’s “active” game play. But it’s not challenging, exciting, or fun. And, as far as I’m concerned, it’s bad game design.
It’s like the whole waste mechanic. As the CSM and a few players pointed out, they should have framed it as a bonus. Instead of doubling ore, and then having players waste it, they should have kept it the same, and then had players get extra ore depending on modules/skills/whatever. The could have balanced the numbers so that the end result could have been exactly the same. However, framing it as a bonus, instead of a penalty, would have made our stupid monkey brains like it.
Sigh. I assert that this is straight up bad game design. And this is coming from a CCP shill. The waste mechanic, as a whole, failed to consider player psychology, and the particular way it was implemented encourages players to optimize the fun out of the game.
He belongs to the “any change that does not directly increase my production is bad” crowd, sorry I just skip his rants.
I agree. Though people would still complain that waste removed from your yield. So why bother with them in the first place ?
But I agree, even if people would still complain about the rounding.
What are you talking about ?
CCP added wastage, which makes mining having meaningful choices between two metrics of efficiency : the yield and the salvage .
All they changed to the gameplay, was making barges able to use propmod, increase the spread of the asteroids.
Nah, because then it’s harder to balance against changes in other places. This keeps a straight upper bound. This makes mechanism more easy to understand.
The Houston airport kept getting lots of complaints about how long people had to wait to get their baggage. They tried doing what they could to reduce wait times, but the complaints kept pouring in. They eventually responded by moving the baggage claim further away from the terminal. The time between passengers disembarking and claiming their baggage remained the same, however, the change meant that flyers spent more of that time walking, and less of that time standing around waiting. The complaints stopped.
So, don’t get it twisted, I am not advocating that CCP compromise on their artistic vision or game play goals in order to cater to “a race to the bottom” set of demands from the mob. However, I also think that I think they could have achieved their goals and vision, and also make the mob happy, by understanding and taking advantage of how human psychology works.
im not a fan of the rng element of this either but………. I know I understand why it needs to be implemeted that way. While it seems better on the face of it to take 34% from every cycle as oppossed to have a 34% chance to waste a full cycle it wouldnt work for ice. We cant waste a third of an ice block. we cant start working in fractions.
I think in implementing waste first they have implemented the better of the options. I dont think its great but if you are using a survey scanner and prepared to short cycle your strip miners you can make sure that this mechanic doesnt impact you too much.
taking yield before waste is a bonus to waste that benefits players that are not paying attention. Basically if you click more and do some sums in your head you can reduce the impact of waste first to 0. Im not saying clicking more is a good from a game play point of view. Im just saying its possible to click your way out of the problem.
In other words, people who pay attention can, at the cost of a couple seconds, free capacitor and a bit of crystal hp on average get more ore out of a last cycle than someone who isn’t paying attention.
So miners who pay attention get more yield, while the overall yield of the miners goes slightly down due to the inattentive and lazy among miners, which means better prices for ore.
all of which i dealt with already. before waste was implemented i still short cycled my strip miners because why wait 120seconds for a full cycle when the rock only has a quarter cycle left. The only change is im now doing that at different points
not liking this doesnt mean there are not ways to mitgate this.
Hell you could even move onto a different rock before the last cycle and have a set of t1 mining drones clear up the remnants.
Im not saying its not a stealth nerf. It is. Ive posted several times about this mechanic but more in relation to the various combinations of waste rng/waste first mechanic that could break mining missions as an forseen consequence. But in day to day mining its manageable.
Compare the new system to deep core mining lasers (which have to be accounted for in this new system) deep core miners have to run full cycle to produce anything, if you cut them off mid cycle you get nothing, unlike most players strip miners etc… the material is ‘evaporated’ as it was pulled from the rock, but you’ll get nothing. So any and all material has to be accounted for in this, including the waste component, in spite of your lack of yield in the end. Thus waste is calculated before yield.
Deep core miners are thus used to the component of watching how much ore is left, as not to waste time on a full cycle for a mere couple units. Yes it makes more ‘work’ or requires more attention, but I think that was the point.
