These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Aftermath of the Mining Barge Changes (Price Indices – October 2012)

First post
Author
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#81 - 2012-12-07 22:19:04 UTC
I think that the easiest fix for the Mack vs Hulk problem is simply to remove the "2 strips/harvesters are as good as 3" bonus on the Mack/Retriever (as well as removing the "1 is as good as 3" bonus on the Skiff/Proc). This would restore the Hulk/Covetor as the top mining ships, for efficiency, yet still keep the Mack/Retriever as the choice for AFK miners, who are willing to trade efficiency for the larger cargohold.

For the Skiff/Proc, I'd like to see weapon hardpoints added. These ships have the tank, so lets give them more gank - and turn them into true combat miners. At the very least, we'd get entertainment value at seeing these ships used in bizarre PVP scenarios.

Note: Yes, kids, AFK mining will never go away. Before the change from standard cargoholds to ore-specific cargoholds, AFK miners fit barges/exhumers for max cargo, while non-AFK miners fit for max efficiency. And, even if you gimp the mining ships by removing their cargoholds completely, AFK miners will use haulers with mining lasers and Orcas with drones.
Maul555
Xen Investments
#82 - 2012-12-08 02:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Maul555
corestwo wrote:
Maul555 wrote:
corestwo wrote:
It's been said, but I'm saying it again.

"Diversity"?

Really?

What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!

From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.

Mining is boring.

Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.

Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.

Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.

In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?

E: I like the focus on mineral prices from August onward only. Nicely ignores the fact that pyerite, trit and isogen have all taken huge leaps earlier in the year thanks to other mistakes you've made becoming apparent.


Hey, careful there. I don't want you giving any wrong ideas to CCP... Mining is boring, but that is the way it is supposed to be. If they introduce new mouse clicks for the sake of giving us something to do, I will be royally pissed. People are taking the AFK mackinaw option because they want to, and not, specifically, because mining is boring. Please do not fix "mining is boring" with "more clicks to get mining done"... I do not need tedium to be added to boring, thank you. That would be one way to end my many years-long career as a miner.


Fine. It's been demonstrated and agreed upon that isk per effort, not isk per hour, is not what miners actually value. I'm glad you confirm this. In light of that fact, the point that the mackinaw is "broken" in that it offers six times the isk:effort ratio of the Hulk and a significantly better tank, and CCP needs to re-tweak the barges to account for isk:effort, not isk:hour, being the preferred metric. Would you agree?

If so, why not?

Additionally, if you could play an interesting minigame, that required much more attention (something more in line with what mission running requires, for example) but boosted your yield by some acceptably high degree, would you do it?


I agree with you. But I have 2 main mining moods, and different ships for them.

1: Isk:effort ratio. The main reason I mine a lot is because it has a low isk:effort ratio. I could obviously make much more isk running missions or doing incursions, but I choose not to because I often just have eve open all day in the background while I get other **** done. This makes mining a preferred profession for obvious resons.

2: Isk/crunch time. The other mode is get the isk now. I have excellent mining skills, and will often switch from ice mining in a mack to doing a couple of frenzied days bringing in ore with my hulk, and will usually bring another toon to the party. For this, the hulk, no matter how much effort, is the game plan. Now that is with 3 characters, and I am already multiboxing + multitasking other stuff. Any mini-game would not get used most likely. If it became mandatory to play a stupid mini-game, then mining becomes too much hassle for either scenario. If that where to happen, then I would need to completely re-think my place in Eve. Note that this has never happened, and I have been a happy miner, off and on, since 2003. such a change should be unthinkable if CCP knows what they are doing.
raskonalkov
Tie Fighters Inc
#83 - 2012-12-08 03:37:12 UTC
I am gonna need a mackinaw with a bigger hold to put all the sad people in this thread into, so I can carry them to a happier place.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#84 - 2012-12-08 07:47:40 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Fine. It's been demonstrated and agreed upon that isk per effort, not isk per hour, is not what miners actually value. I'm glad you confirm this. In light of that fact, the point that the mackinaw is "broken" in that it offers six times the isk:effort ratio of the Hulk and a significantly better tank, and CCP needs to re-tweak the barges to account for isk:effort, not isk:hour, being the preferred metric. Would you agree?

If so, why not?

Additionally, if you could play an interesting minigame, that required much more attention (something more in line with what mission running requires, for example) but boosted your yield by some acceptably high degree, would you do it?



You cannot really use a ratio for "isk:effort" when including AFK mining because effort will almost equal zero. Correct?

Now, a ratio of "isk:hour" is more feasible since "bot-mining" isn't supposed to happen (yeah, right ... I see no fix for this) and it includes AFK mining, but needs to focus more on mining ops whether they take place in high-sec or null.

If there were more realistic bonus/role allowances to graduate from the Procurer to Retriever to Covetor, and the Skiff to Mack, or Hulk (think specialty here; Skiff is Mercoxit, Mack is ice, and Hulk is ore) then I could see the changes. The nerf to the Hulk simply doesn't make sense because it doesn't fall in line with other ship balancing. To be fair, the Hulk is actually worse than it's T1 cousin, the Covetor.

As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?
Dave stark
#85 - 2012-12-08 09:35:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Balder Verdandi wrote:
As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?


because that just makes the hulk even worse. i would have even less reason to own a hulk if that were the case than i have to own it now, and i have a hard time justifying undocking it now.

if it was only while in a fleet (regardless of size) then sure, it might be a viable bonus. however forcing the fleet to be so large would be a mistake.
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
#86 - 2012-12-08 11:28:41 UTC
i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield.
Dave stark
#87 - 2012-12-08 11:44:49 UTC
Ryder Lenberg wrote:
i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield.


you clearly only have one account, don't you?
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#88 - 2012-12-08 12:46:12 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Balder Verdandi wrote:
As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?


because that just makes the hulk even worse. i would have even less reason to own a hulk if that were the case than i have to own it now, and i have a hard time justifying undocking it now.

if it was only while in a fleet (regardless of size) then sure, it might be a viable bonus. however forcing the fleet to be so large would be a mistake.



CCP's idea was to push the Hulk into fleet ops, right?

I'm fine with that, but what I should have said is if they wanted to do that then they should have provided a specialty bonus for being in a fleet ... I was just using "6" as an example. Honestly any number would work, but as of now it's the only T2 exhumer without a dedicated specialty (think Skiff/Mercoxit and Mack/Ice).

I definitely agree it's not worth undocking in a Hulk anymore, boosted fleet or not. CCP went overboard with their nerf, and I think that the two thirds idea (Procurer mines 2/3 of the Retty, which mines 2/3 of the Covetor .... with maxed skills) would be better served. Right now there should be an incentive to mine in a Hulk, and there is none.
Dave stark
#89 - 2012-12-08 13:04:03 UTC
Balder Verdandi wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Balder Verdandi wrote:
As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?


because that just makes the hulk even worse. i would have even less reason to own a hulk if that were the case than i have to own it now, and i have a hard time justifying undocking it now.

if it was only while in a fleet (regardless of size) then sure, it might be a viable bonus. however forcing the fleet to be so large would be a mistake.



CCP's idea was to push the Hulk into fleet ops, right?

I'm fine with that, but what I should have said is if they wanted to do that then they should have provided a specialty bonus for being in a fleet ... I was just using "6" as an example. Honestly any number would work, but as of now it's the only T2 exhumer without a dedicated specialty (think Skiff/Mercoxit and Mack/Ice).

I definitely agree it's not worth undocking in a Hulk anymore, boosted fleet or not. CCP went overboard with their nerf, and I think that the two thirds idea (Procurer mines 2/3 of the Retty, which mines 2/3 of the Covetor .... with maxed skills) would be better served. Right now there should be an incentive to mine in a Hulk, and there is none.


ccp's idea was to give every ship a niche. they failed. it's that simple. the mackinaw has ample yield, and tank, and top class cargo capacity. that's not a niche that's just crowning a new king, the exact thing they wanted to get away from. they were told what would happen, the graphs proved it, and they just looked at it and decided to slap each other on the ass and high five each other as the point sailed over their head.

the hulk doesn't even need to be a "fleet only" ship, it just needs to not suck at everything but yield in order to be viable. doesn't matter if it has an extra yield bonus if there's A) nowhere to put the ore, B) not enough room to store crystals to get the most out of these bonuses, C) enough tank to last long enough to warp it out of a belt when rats warp in, or for other ships to deal with them. etc.

the simple fact is that it's let down so badly by every other aspect that it doesn't excel in that you can't use it for it's intended function. it's like owning a car with no wheels and a petrol cap glued shut. sure it might have an engine capable of doing 250mph but you'll never use it because it's got no wheels and you can't fill it with petrol. it's effectively a museum exhibit, which is what's happened to the hulk.
Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#90 - 2012-12-08 14:40:11 UTC
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
#91 - 2012-12-08 17:41:05 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Ryder Lenberg wrote:
i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield.


you clearly only have one account, don't you?




i have more than 2 accounts
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#92 - 2012-12-08 17:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Way to go CCP! Cheer yourselves on for completely devaluing the ice mining profession.

Extrapolate from your precocious graphs. What does the value of ice look like in a year? How about two?

CCP, these changes were absolutely terrible but you've managed to sell yourselves on them hook, line, and sinker.

Just awful. What?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Dave stark
#93 - 2012-12-08 19:36:25 UTC
Ryder Lenberg wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Ryder Lenberg wrote:
i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield.


you clearly only have one account, don't you?




i have more than 2 accounts


then you're the octopus man?

i fail to see how you would benefit from your mining lasers turning off on every other account because you're messing around with some mining mini game on one account that the other miners stop mining.
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
#94 - 2012-12-08 20:00:47 UTC
Planing is the key son
Dave stark
#95 - 2012-12-08 20:10:19 UTC
Ryder Lenberg wrote:
Planing is the key son


still doesn't change the fact that you can't play the mini-game on several accounts at once unless you are some kind of freak with 8 arms and/or have mining lasers going inactive.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#96 - 2012-12-08 20:20:28 UTC
tl;dr: "we made the hulk and skiff irrelevant and we all but legalized macromining, hi5 devs"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2012-12-09 11:51:43 UTC
Freezehunter wrote:
Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?

Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?


What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes.

Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had.

Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties...

  • Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
  • Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.

I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed.

I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy?

The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#98 - 2012-12-09 17:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Mocam wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?

Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?


What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes.

Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had.

Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties...

  • Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
  • Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.

I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed.

I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy?

The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.

All your composites amount to nothing.

If the miners who mine AFK suckling the teat of undepletable ice just mined mineral rocks, there would be a DEFLATION problem rather than an INFLATION problem. Ice has plummeted while tritanium has spiked. That's because miners are taking the path of least resistance to wealth - even at the expense of the future value of the commodities they refuse to lay off.

I get it now! Resounding success CCP and AFK ice miners!

But only if your intent is to grief potential future ice miners.

Don't you think there are players who signed up today who might want to train ice mining in the future and expect some modicum of profit from it when they do?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#99 - 2012-12-10 00:03:41 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
That's a big part of the problem, there's just not enough difference between the Hulk/Covetor and the Mack/Retriever. The Hulk and Covetors need about another 5-10% yield/hr over the Mack/Retty in order for them to be preferred for at-the-keyboard mining.

Then there's the whole issue that the preferred mining pair is now a hulk+mack where the mack acts as the hauler for the mini-fleet. The T1 industrial ships can't haul that much, and the Orca's 50k m3 ore bay is now pretty much a joke (that needs to be boosted up into the 400-600k m3 range).


Sadly, doing what you say is correct but would bring immediately back the issue CCP tried to address. Small cargo = exponential botting and putting Hulk back to the top would lead to rampant botting again.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#100 - 2012-12-10 00:18:14 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Pre Inferno
Players: "CCP these mining barge changes are a bad idea, Mackinaw is too good seeing as it has good enough tank to avoid getting ganked meaning only the most paranoid will ever use the Skiff, the biggest ore bay, and enough yield that it's still very competitive against the Hulk for considerably less effort."
CCP: "But teiricide! Roles! Ganking was never meant to be profitable!"

Post Inferno:
Players: "Look CCP, all we see now are Mackinaws everywhere, Hulks are used FAR less than they were before and Mackinaws got a disproportionally large boost. Two Mackinaws get better yield than a Hulk + Orca with full fleet boosts, and even players in large mining fleets mine in Mackinaws often for convenience."
CCP: *silence*

Post Retribution:
CCP: "Look, players! We've evaluated the mining barge changes, and we've made this pretty graph that confirms what you said about the Mackinaw. Not only that, but we've shown that this barge change has had no significant effect on mining anywhere outside of highsec. We like the way this turned out!"
Players: "WTF, how could you possibly look at that data and say you're HAPPY with these changes?"


Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed.


No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity.