These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[September] Mining Barge and Exhumer tweaks

First post
Author
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#461 - 2016-09-14 05:51:05 UTC
Vincent Pelletier wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
[this will not add to the enjoyment


You mean that it won't help you AFK as much.


Multi-boxing miners don't AFK.
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
#462 - 2016-09-14 07:05:11 UTC


Well, I've been cautiously optimistic about the artwork changes until now, and - seeing it first hand today as deployed - it's pretty good work. The lighting on the top of the hulk around the drum-hatch type things is the obvious draw-in here (and probably the justification for why the third turret had to go in the minds of the devs). If one looks closely around the hatches you can see the blue gasses glowing as they seep out which is cool.

The artwork change overall for the barge, wasn't as vivid or drastic color change as I had hoped for - the anticipation I had was for the "yellow" as seen with the Venture (which looks really cool btw) and is more like a "caution" yellow - the barges kind of still look more like a "yam" than a "bee" but oh-well. And of course kudos on the rocket afterburner and fire bursts/smoke effects - good work using the graphics capabilities there. These new physical graphics effects are nice to finally see on the barges.

As for mining yield on the hulk, as promised there seems to be a small boost (assuming the exchange of the 3rd strip miner for one new MLU). I'm getting almost +3 m^3/sec/ship without doing any other upgrades on the character/ship, and the ranges are now boosted by +3 km. Curiously, I'm wondering if the Survey Scanner could get a corresponding boost in range - (seems appropriate)? And yeah, as promised the CPU is tight (about what I calculated it would be from Fozzie's post).

One seeming bug I found almost right away, when viewing my own ship in space the camera doesn't seem to pivot with the center of the ship - the center of the camera pivot seems to be based on the front end of the ship. I don't remember it being that way previously. I'm sure that small nit has probably been noted already elsewhere in the appropriate queue.

Anything missed?
D.O.





Razor Azaph
Event Horizon Expeditionaries
The Watchmen.
#463 - 2016-09-14 09:35:28 UTC
I don't see the point of the upgrade / downgrade / nothing has really changed.

How about a real change, such as allowing miners to defend themselves using their mining lasers? It would be like defending yourself with a chainsaw, not the best weapon, hard to control, clumbsy, BUT awesome damage when it connects with it's target.

If a laser can crunch rocks, why can't we use it to shread an attacking ganker?
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#464 - 2016-09-14 09:52:41 UTC
Resa Moon wrote:
Vincent Pelletier wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
[this will not add to the enjoyment


You mean that it won't help you AFK as much.


Multi-boxing miners don't AFK.


Technically we could, just not longer than our cycle time. So for skiffs ice mining we had less than 7 minutes before we had to dump 2 loads into the orca, switch to the Orca pilot and move it to another bay, then do 2 more... all before the 15th cycle ends.

Assuming you had to pick a new youtube video, click the next email, or read patch notes for another game. These you could do. Now on the other hand, if you were a ganker, you warp the fleet into the belt, CTRL+Click your hard working victim, hit F1 on each pilot and after about 20 seconds click dock and go AFK for the remainder of your timer until the next vicitim is chosen. Seems to me if you want to be AFK and turn a profit you have to be a ganker or ratter.

"EVE - The pirate life isn't yours yet?"
Zorn Cosby
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#465 - 2016-09-14 14:17:33 UTC
So how is this supposed to improve gameplay?

This should be the FIRST question that devs should ask themselves before changing ANYTHING in the game. If devs are not asking this question, then management is doing a very poor job in providing oversight of the project. For this set of changes, and for a disturbing number of others, it is very hard to see that there is ANY overall management or oversight of this project/game.

In what way does this change improve gameplay at all? It increases the number of clicks necessary to mine effectively (not a plus), requires new fits to generally yield less with greater risk (since CCP did not adequately ensure that PG and CPU and cap recharge were sufficient to retain current yield without reducing the use of defensive modules to yield the same or less while mining), and it reduces the variance among ships (wow, let's just homogenize ships shall we, so that everyone gets closer to the same).

Making mining more fiddly is not improved gameplay. Increasing clicks is not better gameplay. Increasing risk without increased reward is not necessarily better gameplay.

I am dreading the changes to the Orca/mining fleet bonuses in November, I believe that this current change is a small taste of the pointless changes to be implemented which ignore gameplay as the PRIMARY focus. One thing for sure, my accounts will not get renewed until after I see the impacts on mining and mining fleets. Unfortunately the impacts really do appear (for miners at least) be to fairly hugely detrimental in outcomes and makes the whole process more fiddly with zero improvements for the player. As a multi-account player that has been questioning my financial commitment to the game, these sets of changes may just push me over the edge to let my accounts lapse.

Please CCP, enlighten us. Tell your player base exactly what purpose these changes were supposed to make and how they were beneficial to the game and players? I cannot see any, none at all.
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2016-09-14 15:39:36 UTC
FT Cold wrote:


Players should be encouraged to have to think, make choices, and be punished or rewarded for how much effort they put in.


We few, we proud, we aged bitter vets are slowly being replaced by the "I want it nao!" crew of keyboard monkeys who don't want to do any of those things.

They barely suffer consequences in real life. Why would they have to suffer them in a game?

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Enlightened Xax
Roid Popper Industries Inc
#467 - 2016-09-14 16:11:21 UTC
Zorn Cosby wrote:
So how is this supposed to improve gameplay?

Please CCP, enlighten us. Tell your player base exactly what purpose these changes were supposed to make and how they were beneficial to the game and players? I cannot see any, none at all.



I agree, how is this supposed to improve the game play? With so many other posts figuring the mining output is about the same as before, then why make the change. Just for the added graphics? How many people fly around zoomed all the way into their ship, just to see the graphics? When you are zoomed out all the way, those really are not that important. So basically, you just made some changes to the mining barges that did not need to be changed.

Having multiple accounts, and paying multiple subscriptions each month is seeming more like a down side with crap changes like these.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#468 - 2016-09-14 17:55:08 UTC
Guys guys guys.

You need to understand the present Risk vs Reward scenario...

Come the November changes, we RISK a 2-3 BILLION ship, on grid....

So that the players favoured by CCP can reap the REWARDS.

It's all about killmails now, nothing else. We get absolutely nothing out of it.

It's blatantly obvious that that's the direction the game is going, I suppose what we need to be thinking about is where it's going next.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Orlyonok
The Iron Corps
#469 - 2016-09-14 19:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Orlyonok
Interesting. It seems some multiboxers view this change as hostile. I prefer to view it as favoring active mining.

I have used multiple accounts in a minor way, as in running a miasmos to make a procurer more effective, and I am glad most of the 50-ship skiff fleets that would destroy an ice anomaly in 5 minutes are gone. Oh, yes the procurer still has its tank, but is now more expensive to outfit.

I still see multiboxers with fleets of 23 Macks blowing away an ice belt that folk in null have a jump brige to, in like 10 minutes, leaving the scraps they can't be bothered to clean up for the rest. I still remember talking to such multiboxers who are all proud they never pay real money for their multiple accounts, just PLEX.

So those who seem to be threatened by this cosmetic change (surely not substantive) could leave EVE with their multiple accounts and not affect the game with regard to revenue. There would be more ore and ice for more miners if they did, which is neither a good nor a bad thing.

But many do have a valid point, mining is boring enough that I look at those huge multiboxed fleets and wonder why anyone would go to all that trouble to NOT play the game he is probably not contributing any real money to. I see the same thing in rookie help where I contribute some time. Many questions are about how to automate not only targeting but shooting so their ship will move on to the next target without their intervention. Did someone forget this is a game where you gain pleasure by participating?

So, anyway, I am a casual, not an angry, miner. The changes seem cosmetic to me except my procurer will not have as large a loss mining a barely-present rock (I choose to tank instead of scan). More important, the balance between opportunistic PvP and the miners is maintained, with a delicious mix of braggadocio on both sides and stubborn clinging to maximize "profits" One side plays the role of protection racket criminals who are indignant that people treat them like criminals, and the other stiff-necked miners married to "more" so thoroughly that their non-play is entertaining. CCP seeks to maintain balance and somehow resists the push to popularize the game, which would open it to the exploiters among player and producer alike.

And I am impressed by the artistic license that allows a spaceship to imitate a fire-belching dragon, even though it suggests a terrible waste of energy and resources which would likely be recycled in a space environment.
Orlyonok
The Iron Corps
#470 - 2016-09-14 19:51:09 UTC
Razor Azaph wrote:
I don't see the point of the upgrade / downgrade / nothing has really changed.

How about a real change, such as allowing miners to defend themselves using their mining lasers? It would be like defending yourself with a chainsaw, not the best weapon, hard to control, clumbsy, BUT awesome damage when it connects with it's target.

If a laser can crunch rocks, why can't we use it to shread an attacking ganker?


LoL. The beam vaporizes some rock and accessory beams guide the vapors and condensates to the ship where further processing occurs. It is a lossy process but it essentially slowly drills a hole in a rock, with maybe enough modulation to make it wider than the beam.

The Amarr laser weapon has no guide beams so it does thernmal and em damage to a structure where the convection and kinetic components of expanding gas play a role in the damage. The energy levels employed are vastly different. The mining laser apparatus does not have the aplomb of the Amarr laser, and the Amarr laser lacks the finesse of the mining laser.

But I suppose miners might be accused next of bringing a chainsaw to a gunfight. That would be hilarious.
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
#471 - 2016-09-14 20:06:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dieter Ottenbach
I'm not certain of how people are coming up with "more clicks" result. If that could be explained I would appreciate that. You don't have to click the strip miner every time it cycles, hence with shorter cycle times you are actually saving time (in theory) during mining because it is a more efficient extraction of material from the asteroid. If you are trying to maintain a standard of "short cycling" by stopping a strip miner half way through it's cycle, I re-iterate, you don't have to do that. (on the other hand, in case you were never aware, a strip miner always completes it's cycle even if it has already extracted all the ore from an asteroid, this is where the wasted time comes from, in the event you choose not to short the cycle). So my suggestion is, if you are concerned about the number of clicks, then just don't short the cycle anymore.

Until someone can sufficiently explain why this modification is resulting in more clicks, I'm assuming that complaint is poppycock, or that person has a seriously flawed personal mining method, which they might need to think about more.

** and I will re-iterate, just to make it clear again, if you are thinking it is more clicks because you are choosing to short each cycle, that's not correct, because it remains your choice of how often and when to short each cycle.
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#472 - 2016-09-14 21:49:57 UTC
Dieter Ottenbach wrote:
I'm not certain of how people are coming up with "more clicks" result. If that could be explained I would appreciate that. You don't have to click the strip miner every time it cycles, hence with shorter cycle times you are actually saving time (in theory) during mining because it is a more efficient extraction of material from the asteroid. If you are trying to maintain a standard of "short cycling" by stopping a strip miner half way through it's cycle, I re-iterate, you don't have to do that. (on the other hand, in case you were never aware, a strip miner always completes it's cycle even if it has already extracted all the ore from an asteroid, this is where the wasted time comes from, in the event you choose not to short the cycle). So my suggestion is, if you are concerned about the number of clicks, then just don't short the cycle anymore.

Until someone can sufficiently explain why this modification is resulting in more clicks, I'm assuming that complaint is poppycock, or that person has a seriously flawed personal mining method, which they might need to think about more.

** and I will re-iterate, just to make it clear again, if you are thinking it is more clicks because you are choosing to short each cycle, that's not correct, because it remains your choice of how often and when to short each cycle.



Allow me to explain a few things that a rookie might mistake:

When we say "more clicks" what we mean is two separate points:
1) With one less strip on the Hulk and an extra on the Skiff, that means F1-click next-F2 as apposed to F1 (another click)....move on after depletion
2) With faster cycle times, you deplete that asteroid faster...Which means clicking the next rock faster. Hence, more clicking. This is both good and bad.
-Good: You don't waste 180+ seconds for the cycle to mine that last whopping 5 m3 from the roid because you're too lazy to scan and see it's almost gone to 'short-cycle'/avoid it all together and move on.
-Bad: Well, really it's only bad if you expect mining to be a 100% AFK activity, have kids, doing laundry, cooking, wife aggro, or any other thing that drives you away from your keyboard.
-Worse: Trying to solo mine against a fleet. You might get a few cycles in before they tear ALL of the roids right out from under you. Atleast with 160+second cycles you had a chance to 'short cycle' them once in a while.

With this known, just imagine:
D-Scanning on the booster
Hauling in a transport or freighter (depending on the size of your fleet)
Controlling two 2min30s cycle time strip miners on multiple clients (Let's say....4 to be modest)
* Alternatively if you use the silly little frigates, ~45 second cycle times

And being efficient is even harder than most think. You don't want to compete by mining the same thing as someone else but cut your cycle before they can) nor would you want to put all your strips on one roid--unless it's a >100 iceberg! Generally speaking, if you control multiple miners you'll want one mining veld, another on pyrox, and another on scord so you don't even step on your own toes. So, go ahead, give it a shot!

If anyone is wondering how much things changed since the patch (I only have the partial skiff data due to a power failure):
-= Old =-
ORE Skiff 1x 3192 m3 / 89.6 sec = 35.625 m3/second
ICE Skiff 1 / 30 sec = 30 seconds per cube

-= New =-
ORE Skiff 2x 1571 m3 / 117.1 sec = 26.831 m3/second
ICE Skiff 2 cubes / ?? sec = ?? seconds per cube

Personally, I'm waiting on extractors reasonably priced to extract Orca, boosting, and mining skills and move on. I only reply here because of my vast experience (albeit I forget percentages and exact numbers occasionally). But if you have questions EVEMail within the next year, likely I'll have forgotten anything about mining by then.

As for the 20+ crews that I see going around. Those are the types of people C0DE SHOULD have been going after! Not the solo or mini-me fleets that are everywhere. Oh well, such is life with an unregulated game...and that's what makes EVE interesting!
MrB99
Astral Mining
Astral Industries
#473 - 2016-09-14 21:54:04 UTC
Warlord Balrog wrote:
wife aggro


Priceless...
Mac Powers
Imperial Klingon Empire Corporation
#474 - 2016-09-14 22:04:59 UTC
Less strip miners is a bad thing i dont care what anyone says.
Dieter Ottenbach
Ottenbach Industries LTD
#475 - 2016-09-14 22:37:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dieter Ottenbach
Quote:
Warlord Balrog Wrote: 1) With one less strip on the Hulk and an extra on the Skiff, that means F1-click next-F2 as apposed to F1 (another click)....move on after depletion


I don't use the Skiff, I have only the Hulk so now I don't have a third turret to click. That counts for something. Additionally, I use a scanner to select the asteroids I want to mine (avoiding ones with less than a full cycle to begin with).

In your second item I would point out you admit, it is actually both good and bad. And I'm agreeing with that, that's why I don't see it as more "clicks". I'd have to change to a new asteroid (once the current one is depleated) in any case (regardless) so I don't see the "total clicks" increasing. I might agree that you might find the mining to be more efficient (and hence more clicking in a shorter time period) because you are finding out you have to refocus to the new asteroid sooner, but by the same token you are speeding up the whole mining process by the same amount.

On the other hand, I agree if the main goal is AFK mining, then yeah - you've got less time now between clicks (potentially). Less time between clicks doesn't equate to "more clicking" strictly but your point stands in the context of AFK. I don't have any activities I try to do between clicks ..... even if I did - the shortness of duration between clicking 3 strip miners on multiple accounts prevented any real AFK - even before these changes.
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#476 - 2016-09-15 05:31:13 UTC
Warlord Balrog wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
Vincent Pelletier wrote:
Resa Moon wrote:
[this will not add to the enjoyment


You mean that it won't help you AFK as much.


Multi-boxing miners don't AFK.


Technically we could, just not longer than our cycle time. So for skiffs ice mining we had less than 7 minutes before we had to dump 2 loads into the orca, switch to the Orca pilot and move it to another bay, then do 2 more... all before the 15th cycle ends.

Assuming you had to pick a new youtube video, click the next email, or read patch notes for another game. These you could do. Now on the other hand, if you were a ganker, you warp the fleet into the belt, CTRL+Click your hard working victim, hit F1 on each pilot and after about 20 seconds click dock and go AFK for the remainder of your timer until the next vicitim is chosen. Seems to me if you want to be AFK and turn a profit you have to be a ganker or ratter.

"EVE - The pirate life isn't yours yet?"


Ice is the slowest - try ore with Hulks, but even with ice good multi-boxers won't AFK not only because of the cycle time and housekeeping required, but because of the competition, the bumping and the gank attempts. Efficient multi-boxing requires attention unless you don't mind losing assets or being inefficient.

Ice mining can be a very competitive activity.
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#477 - 2016-09-15 05:35:36 UTC
....why does one crystal degrade faster than the others? This throws off jet can timing and cycle times.

CCP, was it your intention to jack up the operations of large scale fleets to reduce actual efficiency? Because that seems to be all you've accomplished with this pass
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
#478 - 2016-09-15 06:09:13 UTC
Gary Webb wrote:
....why does one crystal degrade faster than the others? This throws off jet can timing and cycle times.

CCP, was it your intention to jack up the operations of large scale fleets to reduce actual efficiency? Because that seems to be all you've accomplished with this pass


The forth coming balance passes to mining fleet boosts, one of options will be a link that reduces crystal degrade.
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#479 - 2016-09-15 19:13:06 UTC
Penance Toralen wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
....why does one crystal degrade faster than the others? This throws off jet can timing and cycle times.

CCP, was it your intention to jack up the operations of large scale fleets to reduce actual efficiency? Because that seems to be all you've accomplished with this pass


The forth coming balance passes to mining fleet boosts, one of options will be a link that reduces crystal degrade.



but each crystal would still degrade at different rates, albeit slower
Thane Kuvora
Shadowed Command
Tactical Narcotics Team
#480 - 2016-09-16 12:52:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Thane Kuvora
Don't like that you are messing with my Hulk. Nerfing it somewhat. It's better with 3 high slots. Why take away PWG and CPU? The extra low slot doesn't make up for what you lose. It's a rubbish trade off.