These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EON #028 - The Future Of Mining
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zetaomega333
High Flyers
#41 - 2012-06-23 11:35:05 UTC
Will CCP revamp the way Nullsec Industry system is maintained and set? Some tweaks are shurely needed for after the level 3 belt it stays the most profitable.

WIll CCP tweak the nullsec Local belts to produce better and bigger astroid rocks? The current nullsec local belts are limited to being worth mining in, in only a few select regions. Or is thier intention to stick with grav sites as rewards for miners out in nullsec.
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
#42 - 2012-06-23 15:44:33 UTC
Just a comment, rebalanced Exhumers will probably be the biggest change to high sec mining since Orcas came up.

Hopefully it gives miners some good variation and tanking options.
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#43 - 2012-06-24 08:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jita Bloodtear
I haven't gone through this entire thread yet, but obviously specifics on intended changes to skiffs, mackinaws, hulks.

Will skiffs, mackinaws, hulks each be able to mine everything (gas clouds, mercoxit, ice, ore)?
Are mackinaws going to become worse at ice mining?
Are hulks going to become better at ice mining than mackinaws?

Need rorqual changes:

There are some much needed changes to rorquals to allow low/nullsec ice mining to be more agreeable than the highsec botting alternative.

- Rorquals need for compressed ice blocks to be 1/10th their size, and to compress at 10x their current rate.
- Ice compression in a rorqual is terribly slow, allowing a rorqual to only keep up with 4 mackinaws. (By contrast, rorquals are able to keep up with 20+ ore miners in terms of compression)
- Only a small fraction of compressed ice types are smaller in compressed form than their refined products.


Are there any plans to add a decent source of low-end minerals to low/nullsec?
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#44 - 2012-06-24 09:43:22 UTC
Jita Bloodtear wrote:
I haven't gone through this entire thread yet, but obviously specifics on intended changes to skiffs, mackinaws, hulks.

Will skiffs, mackinaws, hulks each be able to mine everything (gas clouds, mercoxit, ice, ore)?
Are mackinaws going to become worse at ice mining?
Are hulks going to become better at ice mining than mackinaws?

Need rorqual changes:

There are some much needed changes to rorquals to allow low/nullsec ice mining to be more agreeable than the highsec botting alternative.

- Rorquals need for compressed ice blocks to be 1/10th their size, and to compress at 10x their current rate.
- Ice compression in a rorqual is terribly slow, allowing a rorqual to only keep up with 4 mackinaws. (By contrast, rorquals are able to keep up with 20+ ore miners in terms of compression)
- Only a small fraction of compressed ice types are smaller in compressed form than their refined products.


Are there any plans to add a decent source of low-end minerals to low/nullsec?


Requests for changes to mining often ask for changes that will result in significant increases to yield throughout New Eden. These kind of changes are NOT required even after recent iterations such as removal of drone compounds etc. Mineral prices,in terms of high sec ores at least, have reached a level where imo mining is now an economically viable career.

The number one concern with the proposed changes to mining is the idea to reduce EHP on Covetors & Mackinaws. I'm not a suicide ganker but I personally feel that EHP on Covetors and Hulks is about right atm and does not need to increase either. If you are not afk and have fitted some tank then you will be relatively safe. New Eden is about risk and I think even speaking as a miner it is about right atm. Smile If miners feel the need to fly something more sturdy and the changes for the Procurer go through then they will something more to their taste to mine in.

Provided this change to Covetors and Hulks can be quashed then the new dev blog won't completely ruin where mining is atm.
Dave Stark
#45 - 2012-06-24 09:53:27 UTC
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Requests for changes to mining often ask for changes that will result in significant increases to yield throughout New Eden. These kind of changes are NOT required even after recent iterations such as removal of drone compounds etc. Mineral prices,in terms of high sec ores at least, have reached a level where imo mining is now an economically viable career.

The number one concern with the proposed changes to mining is the idea to reduce EHP on Covetors & Mackinaws. I'm not a suicide ganker but I personally feel that EHP on Covetors and Hulks is about right atm and does not need to increase either. If you are not afk and have fitted some tank then you will be relatively safe. New Eden is about risk and I think even speaking as a miner it is about right atm. Smile If miners feel the need to fly something more sturdy and the changes for the Procurer go through then they will something more to their taste to mine in.

Provided this change to Covetors and Hulks can be quashed then the new dev blog won't completely ruin where mining is atm.


minerals in high sec are getting crazy. pyrox (high sec ore) is worth more per m3 than crokite (0.0 ore), yes, granted abm ores are still the top 3 ores per m3 (not that it means much for mercoxit but whatever roll with it). i just don't think high sec ores should be more profitable than null sec ores, it just feels wrong. like meeting a cute chick just to slide your hand down and finding some thing that makes you jealous.

where do people keep getting the idea hulks/macks are getting less ehp? what have i missed? nowhere does it say they will be reducing the ehp of anything, infact "Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them." says the direct opposite.
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#46 - 2012-06-24 14:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Celgar Thurn
Cry Forum just ate my post. Straight

Brief reply to above criticism:

Nul sec minerals (Megacyte etc.) have always been priced higher than high sec minerals (Mexallon etc) and I see nothing wrong with that. Pyroxeres is mainly more expensive than the mainstream ores becuse it contains a trace amount of Nocxium in it once refined. But Pyroxeres is only available in some races high sec space and in very sparse amounts in Minmatar & Gallente high sec systems.

The 'resilience' spoken of in the latest ship balancing dev blog relates largely to plans for the Procurer which is rarely used by the mining community. If you read on to the section on Covetors & Hulks you will find it says they will be given 'little to average EHP'. This implies that CCP will decrease the amount of EHP on both the Covetor & Hulk under the mistaken belief that placing them in a fleet with some combat ships will protect Hulks from being ganked. Logic dictates this approach will fail miserably.
Dave Stark
#47 - 2012-06-24 18:39:12 UTC
Celgar Thurn wrote:
Cry Forum just ate my post. Straight

Brief reply to above criticism:

Nul sec minerals (Megacyte etc.) have always been priced higher than high sec minerals (Mexallon etc) and I see nothing wrong with that. Pyroxeres is mainly more expensive than the mainstream ores becuse it contains a trace amount of Nocxium in it once refined. But Pyroxeres is only available in some races high sec space and in very sparse amounts in Minmatar & Gallente high sec systems.

The 'resilience' spoken of in the latest ship balancing dev blog relates largely to plans for the Procurer which is rarely used by the mining community. If you read on to the section on Covetors & Hulks you will find it says they will be given 'little to average EHP'. This implies that CCP will decrease the amount of EHP on both the Covetor & Hulk under the mistaken belief that placing them in a fleet with some combat ships will protect Hulks from being ganked. Logic dictates this approach will fail miserably.


considering the exact same blog says they want to make all mining ships more resilient i keep having to call bullshit on people thinking the hulk's tank is going to be nerfed. mainly because it's baseless and the blog states the direct opposite.

also, pretty sure pyrox is in caldari high sec too?
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#48 - 2012-06-24 20:06:39 UTC
Celgar Thurn wrote:

Requests for changes to mining often ask for changes that will result in significant increases to yield throughout New Eden. These kind of changes are NOT required even after recent iterations such as removal of drone compounds etc. Mineral prices,in terms of high sec ores at least, have reached a level where imo mining is now an economically viable career.

The number one concern with the proposed changes to mining is the idea to reduce EHP on Covetors & Mackinaws. I'm not a suicide ganker but I personally feel that EHP on Covetors and Hulks is about right atm and does not need to increase either. If you are not afk and have fitted some tank then you will be relatively safe. New Eden is about risk and I think even speaking as a miner it is about right atm. Smile If miners feel the need to fly something more sturdy and the changes for the Procurer go through then they will something more to their taste to mine in.

Provided this change to Covetors and Hulks can be quashed then the new dev blog won't completely ruin where mining is atm.

I'm not looking for any increases in mining yields. I'd actually prefer that mining yields dropped. The most important changes I want to see are changes to rorqual compress that I mentioned above. Much faster, and possibly smaller (but faster is much more important)
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#49 - 2012-06-25 12:55:30 UTC
Yes. Pyroxeres is widely available in Amarr, Ammatar, & Caldari high sec systems. Minmatar & Gallente get Plagioclase instead.

I can only go by what is written in the dev blog so until CCP clarify further what they intend to do to mining it does appear that Hulks & Coveters will get a decrease in EHP. The idea being that Hulks & Covetors will fleet up with haulers & combat vessels to 'protect' them. A wholly unsatisfactory turn of events and we as mere pilots in New Eden have little sway in what will happen.
Jelizza Arlath
Darkfall Helix
#50 - 2012-06-25 13:25:45 UTC
A Hulk with reduced EHP compared to the current model would be pretty pointless to fly.

Are you gonna dump 250-350million ISK into a hull with 10-15k EHP when everyone with a week to spare and a bored mind can already suicide the Hulks today?

A broken Hulk with less EHP just means Retrievers will be the preferred mining ship due to 1) better EHP, 2) Larger ore bays.

Also, the "don't afk mine then" argument doesn't hold water.

I can take out my Domi with sentry drones and AFK "mine" missions (as long as there are no acceleration gates, then again, Hulk has to be flown to and from station, or move ore from cargo to a hauler). If we are going to compare stuff like this then I say, sure, let Domi's AFK "mine" missions, but reduce their EHP enough that a 1 week old alt in a Cata can suicidegank it. Cause afterall, you should always be at risk in EVE, even from the absolutely minimally trained alts.

Only reason miners get suicided so much is because:

1) People are bored and ...
2) It takes so little effort and ISK to actually do it
3) Miners are easy to find (they're in the belts, where else?) compared to mission runners.
4) People feel they can justify suiciding miners because miners don't really play the game, they are just AFK or bots, leaving the whole game on autorun and making ISK they didn't earn.

I'm looking forward to getting my miner an ORE ship with improved EHP. The simple truth is, it takes alot more attention and micromanagement (checking D-scans, keeping aligned, watching local, editing local contacts and so on) when I am mining than it takes when I am running missions. As started above, with the missions I just enter the grid, deploy sentries, aggro the rats... and go AFK. I have never, not once, been worried about my mission runner getting ganked. With my miner I have to keep on my toes all the time.

And sure, I can just relax with the miner and put my guard down, but then I'll just have myself to blame for the ORE ships having papertanks (even with hardeners and tank) and being sitting ducks in the middle of an area that anyone can just slide past in a minute of boredom, then blow it up with zero consequence.

Running missions - AFK all the time, never any risk to getting ganked.
Mining in a belt - Have to constantly pay attention to not have your 300mill hull (mods not included) being popped by a 2 mill gankfit.

It all makes sense.
Dave Stark
#51 - 2012-06-25 13:27:34 UTC
Jelizza Arlath wrote:

A broken Hulk with less EHP just means Retrievers will be the preferred mining ship due to 1) better EHP, 2) Larger ore bays.

where do people keep getting this "hulk will have less ehp" thing from?
Malerter
Doomheim
#52 - 2012-06-25 14:14:51 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Jelizza Arlath wrote:

A broken Hulk with less EHP just means Retrievers will be the preferred mining ship due to 1) better EHP, 2) Larger ore bays.

where do people keep getting this "hulk will have less ehp" thing from?



•Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP.

•Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge.

•Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.

Maybe the bolded parts where it says the Hulk will have litle to average EHP?
Dave Stark
#53 - 2012-06-25 14:24:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Malerter wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Jelizza Arlath wrote:

A broken Hulk with less EHP just means Retrievers will be the preferred mining ship due to 1) better EHP, 2) Larger ore bays.

where do people keep getting this "hulk will have less ehp" thing from?



•Procurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP.

•Retriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge.

•Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.

Maybe the bolded parts where it says the Hulk will have litle to average EHP?


doesn't imply that the hulk will have less ehp than it has now, in the slightest. especially after the part that says they want to increase the ehp of mining barges. it just states that the hulk will be the lowest of the 3, infact it could have the same as the mackinaw.

edit; infact, if people think that the hulk has low ehp right now, the blog saying the hulk will have "little to average" would imply it's going up.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#54 - 2012-06-25 18:11:20 UTC
Emma Royd wrote:
Some randomness in mining would be an idea, have the standard asteroids, but introduce a 'Mystery' rock where you don't know what minerals you're going to get until it's refined.

Also, make it possible to mine ice in things other than barges / exhumers by introducing a miner for it and reducing the lump size but increasing the quantity needed for refining, eg instead of being 1,000 m3 and needing 1 lump, make it 50m3 and need 20 units to refine.

Give the rorqual some love, reduce the time taken to compress ice. On the other hand, if they get rid of off grid boosting then it needs a dreadnought type tank when in deployed mode, it costs more than a dread so needs the ability to defend itself against subcaps proper


Do CCP have serious plans to remove off-grid boosting?
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#55 - 2012-06-25 18:17:11 UTC
Why were differently-coloured mining beams removed, and can we have them back please?
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
#56 - 2012-06-25 18:55:37 UTC
No offense Zap but you guys publish things in EON far too early and before they are final. Several times there have been things printed about industry and mining that have just not come to pass. I like the magazine and think you guys do a great job, I just wish you didnt throw things out there until they have been approved so I stop waiting for them to happen.
Ditra Vorthran
Caldari Imports and Exports
#57 - 2012-06-25 22:40:17 UTC
My question is less specific to the ORE ship changes (looking good so far), but more conceptual to mining itself.

Currently there is a large discrepancy between the amount of effort needed to mine in 0.0 space vs. ratting.

In order to mine anything of significance in 0.0, you need mining ships, hauling ships, storage space, compression/manufacturing, refining, and if possible, a booster ship (Orca/Rorqual).

In order to rat, all one needs is a single ship and you can make untold millions of ISK per hour, outstripping the most skilled and dedicated of miners.

Add to that the apparent disparity of Low/Null sec resource values vs. their High Sec counterparts (Gnesis and Spodumain, among others) and the risk inherent in obtaining them, many miners choose to stay out of Low/Null sec space.

Given that background, what are CCPs plans to create a more level playing field insofar as mining in 0.0 is concerned? Obviously, in a player driven economy, they can’t change the prices of minerals, but they can change the minerals that are acquired by changing their refining lot sizes (333 vs. 500) and the refining yield into more valuable mineral types.

"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus
Katja Faith
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-06-25 23:26:51 UTC
I'd read EON if it wasn't so freakin' expensive. Or had an iPad version that wasn't virtually impossible to subscribe to...

And no, I didn't read the OP. Something about the new ORE gank-bait ship. Er something...
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#59 - 2012-06-25 23:48:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Jita Bloodtear wrote:
Need rorqual changes:

There are some much needed changes to rorquals to allow low/nullsec ice mining to be more agreeable than the highsec botting alternative.

- Rorquals need for compressed ice blocks to be 1/10th their size, and to compress at 10x their current rate.
- Ice compression in a rorqual is terribly slow, allowing a rorqual to only keep up with 4 mackinaws. (By contrast, rorquals are able to keep up with 20+ ore miners in terms of compression)
- Only a small fraction of compressed ice types are smaller in compressed form than their refined products.

I think it would be a good idea to increase the number of compression lines. I always thought 4 was arbitrarily chosen. I don't see why it can't be higher like 10 (the Industrial Core requires Advanced Mass Production 4 to fit).

I also agree that compressed ice volume needs to be further reduced.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#60 - 2012-06-26 22:45:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Dave stark wrote:
........
where do people keep getting the idea hulks/macks are getting less ehp? what have i missed? nowhere does it say they will be reducing the ehp of anything, infact "Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them." says the direct opposite.

From the Dev blog

"Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP,..."

Currently with reasonable fits

Skiff EHP: 13000
Mac EHP: 18000
Hulk EHP: 23000

Average EHP: 18000

So the Hulk will have a tank that is equal to or less than 18000 EHP.

Which brings the question for CCP: When you say the new Hulk will have an average EHP, average of what? Current Exhumers? Marauders? Titans?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction