These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Celeste Benal
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#461 - 2013-04-29 20:38:37 UTC
I was perusing the new T2 component changes when I noted that the values listed do not agree with what is in Evelopedia. Nanoelectrical Microprocessors for example. wiki shows the current values at 13, 1, and 6. This doesn't jive with the changes. Math errors, wiki errors, or all is well, just use the new values?

Just wondering if I made a math error somewhere that needs to be corrected.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#462 - 2013-04-29 21:13:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cygnet Lythanea
Celeste Benal wrote:
I was perusing the new T2 component changes when I noted that the values listed do not agree with what is in Evelopedia. Nanoelectrical Microprocessors for example. wiki shows the current values at 13, 1, and 6. This doesn't jive with the changes. Math errors, wiki errors, or all is well, just use the new values?

Just wondering if I made a math error somewhere that needs to be corrected.



Math errors on the part of CCP? Perish the Thought! (Until GSF reveals how much money they made off it.)

Let's be realistic: CCP have been trying to force players out of high sec ofr years, doing what they could to make game-play there either unfun or unprofitable. And there always has been and always will be that sub-segment of nullsec and lowsec players that demands that easy targets be spoon fed to them so they can inflate their KB score just a little larger.

The reality is though, that this is going to **** the in game economy in ways that we cannot predict at this time. It violates one of the basic elements that the eve o economy is based on, and does so in a manner that blatantly favors a certain style of play.


The most hilarious part is how they ignore the lessons that were learned from goonswarm's cornering the market on gallante ice. Let's introduce a new mechanic where they can corner the market on ALL ice. Isn't that a great idea!
Iosue
League of Gentlemen
The Initiative.
#463 - 2013-04-29 21:27:53 UTC
not sure i understand the reasoning behind moving the ice from belts if they will be just as easy to locate? why not just keep the ice in belts and let them respawn on the same timers?

fwiw, i would have liked to see ice moved to grav sites that require probing to find, instead of being insta locatable. in addition, would have been nice to make them spawn at random in potentially all systems instead of being concentrated in just a few.
Taki Natsu
Minor Inconvenience Inc.
#464 - 2013-04-29 21:31:03 UTC
Loney Slave wrote:
Master Account wrote:
Horny Guy wrote:
Loney wrote:
COPY AND REPLY TO THIS IF YOU THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA SO THE DEVS WILL TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT IT

Overall I like all the changes suggested in the Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog... However I have a suggestion related to the ICE mining.

If CCP is reducing the ICE in HIGHSEC and giving more ORE incentive for players to move players to LOWSEC or NULLSEC then you need to do something about the COMPRESSION game mechanics.

Suggestions

1. Buff the RORQUAL stats for compression.
a. Increase the ICE/ORE HOLD by 100%.
b. Increase the COMPRESSION FACTORY SLOTS by 100%
c. Decrease the COMPRESSION TIME by 50%.

If my numbers are not realistic (I think they are) please do your own calculations and adjust them as necessary.

...


+1


I like this idea... Doing this would give much more incentive for moving to 0.0 and mining since its a pain in the @$$ to haul the ice/ore... even when if one chooses to refine it before hauling!


I like the idea of making more options for compression instead of just the Rorqual as the bottleneck factor, but I think if they just change some of the stats on the Rorqual there would not be a need for other things like a POS or Station compression mechanics.

...


Just to add some numbers to prove the compression bottleneck:

Current Rorq-Hulk Compression Ratio:
PE10 = 39sec per run
Runs Per Job: - assumes cargo expanded and t1 rigged Rorqual (126k m3)
126 blocks * 39secs = 4914sec or 81.9mins or 1hr 21.9mins

…with 4 production slots:
504 blocks per compression cycle


Now let’s have a look at a very conservative fleet size of 5 hulks (the number 1 Rorqual can hold in transit).
Perfect Hulk + Roqual Boosts (no Yeti implant): Laser cycle time = 126.4secs

No. of Laser cycles per compression cycle ~= 39cycles (rounding up 38.88 for the purists)

39cycles * 5 hulks * 3 Lasers Each = 585 blocks

So currently there is a deficit in the rate of acquisition to the rate of compression assuming no interruptions in the compression cycle. This puts the current optimal Rorq-Hulk Ratio at:

~ 1 : 4.3

Post patch this will be ~ 1 : 2.15 which is a scary prospect in 0.0 unless the system has a Minmatar Station on hand...
Grippa Dets
Doomheim
#465 - 2013-04-29 21:39:20 UTC
My RL profile isa 40's male with desk job and family. 3 accounts - sometimes paid for by ice mining semi-afk, while at work - hidden being browser (not while watching a movie, or facebooking or surfing net). It's my essential game play, albeit hidden; it allows me to keep my subscriptions off the "ledgers."

I like to just exist in EVE - listen to music and get immersed in graphics, and it has worked for me since 2009. Realistically I cannot dedicated focused time to EVE - and group time, even less. Although group play keeps retention up for youngsters (teens, 20's <35), pushing to adopt group play is not going to retain me - it's will do the opposite.

Does CCP think that Solo older players with heavy RL time constraints will enjoy mining ice. I dont understand why they thought this was broken in the first place?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#466 - 2013-04-29 23:16:52 UTC
Iosue wrote:
not sure i understand the reasoning behind moving the ice from belts if they will be just as easy to locate? why not just keep the ice in belts and let them respawn on the same timers?

fwiw, i would have liked to see ice moved to grav sites that require probing to find, instead of being insta locatable. in addition, would have been nice to make them spawn at random in potentially all systems instead of being concentrated in just a few.

My guess is the asteroid spawn mechanic is buried so deep in old code that it would be a pain to change, and could break alot of the game if they tried. The anomaly spawn mechanic would do whats needed, so they used it.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Crexa
Ion Industrials
#467 - 2013-04-29 23:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Crexa
Iosue wrote:
not sure i understand the reasoning behind moving the ice from belts if they will be just as easy to locate? why not just keep the ice in belts and let them respawn on the same timers?

fwiw, i would have liked to see ice moved to grav sites that require probing to find, instead of being insta locatable. in addition, would have been nice to make them spawn at random in potentially all systems instead of being concentrated in just a few.



To be sure, a golden opportunity is being squandered.


Why? Because its all stick and no carrot. Had they said, we are moving ice to belts that have to be scanned down, but adding in random, harder to scan down, "make you rich", new type of ice belts, I think many, (not all )would have ignored the nerf bat.

"F=ma, so obviously they're putting mouths against arses to produce a force." "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?"
Infinite Force
#468 - 2013-04-30 00:01:07 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Cathrianne wrote:
Making mining sites so they have to be scanned down, and not static, I like that. Making it so that they are found with the on board scanner; hmmmm... while in High, Low, and Null sec this makes little difference as to how quickly a miner can be found. It does however appear to be able too foil the bot miners. In Wild space, this will spell certain doom for miners. It is already difficult to mine in Wild space. With no static belts, and only 'random' spawn of grav sites. The only chance miners have in wildspace is the off chance they catch probes or unknown ships on the D scanner. With targeting being what it is in EVE even having a combat fleet on standby in the grav site with the miners will not stop them from meeting death should someone with less than noble intentions suddenly show their face. It's not like you can sit someone on the gates to the system and know when people come in. Sure you can sit scouts on the known worm holes. But the random incoming holes, the only defense against those is the D scanner. Making mining now more like anomaly sites takes away that slim chance that miners currently have in wildspace.

Mining in WHs is not worth it, but for completely other reason. Refine rate.
As this change obviously increases risk, I advocate to increase reward as well. Time to rethink yeilds of refining array, CCP.

While I applaud the changes, putting Grav sites a simple d-scannable anoms is just plain nuts. Talk about putting a nail in a coffin for many.

In regards to the refinery changes ---- go here and support.

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Quindaster
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#469 - 2013-04-30 00:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Quindaster
Nice, players in zero space even don't had scambling frigates in zero space...people in lowsec ALWAYS had them.


I think noone will mine ice in lowsec in anomalies and scan them because it's very dangerous, even alliances who live in lowsec on own territory for years. And if even this alliances will not mine it - neutral corporations and solo miners ofcouse will not, because everyone will try to kill them. And you cannot organize any defence for miners, because it will not worth time for defenders, only for own alts maybe.
And for this isotop prices will be over 5000 isk I think, and pos fuel prices will be crazy high.
Even now not worth to have POSes on cobalt or any other moon under P64 because for many of them you need to have large pos. So I don't know who will be able to have POSes after patch, maybe only zero space alliances like always, because of low fuel usage.
For this changes we will not have more people in lowsec.

So CCP like always didn't think enough and they did crazy things.

P.S.: If you want people move to lowsec - buff lowsec missions, because now all people move to zero space for botting in anomalies. And in lowsec live only old skilled pilots who will leave eve soon because of ccp stupid patches like 90% of them before.
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2013-04-30 03:34:39 UTC
OkaskiKali wrote:
OkaskiKali wrote:
Quote:
Creating a new home for these miners also provides opportunities for pilots interested in PVP, as mining is an activity that can be both disrupted and protected by small gangs of ships.


This simply is not true. it is too easy to counter.


Quote:
We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their ship’s built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance.


This I love. I said it about a year ago that hidden mining belts created a massive disadvantage to hunters.

It's not a disadvantge. It is a counter measure. Those of us miners who learned the scanning skills have a counter to gankers, i.e., we can see the probes on Dscan. As it will be, the miners counter measure has been emliminated. This is the real disadvantge in this equation.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#471 - 2013-04-30 04:35:08 UTC
Grippa Dets wrote:
I like to just exist in EVE - listen to music and get immersed in graphics, and it has worked for me since 2009. Realistically I cannot dedicated focused time to EVE - and group time, even less. Although group play keeps retention up for youngsters (teens, 20's <35), pushing to adopt group play is not going to retain me - it's will do the opposite.

Why dont you switch to roid mining? In a station-less system rocks could be really big, so you dont need to switch too often. And since you say you were mining for a long time - it was ok for you to pay attention once in a while, before they revamped Exhumers, to drop ice into Orca. So it should be ok after Odyssey, to relock rocks once in a while. You are even prompted to do that by "asteroid depleted" warning! So I cannot agree with your statement that afk-mining is no longer possible. At the same time, I'd wanted to warn CCP to refrain from completely obsoletizing current relaxed mining style when they introduce more engaging "prototype mining".
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#472 - 2013-04-30 04:45:33 UTC
Urgg Boolean wrote:
It's not a disadvantge. It is a counter measure. Those of us miners who learned the scanning skills have a counter to gankers, i.e., we can see the probes on Dscan. As it will be, the miners counter measure has been emliminated. This is the real disadvantge in this equation.

Counter measure was always using an intel channel and paying attention on local. (WH is a different story.)
Unless we take afk-cloakers into this equation. I guess it's the right time to get rid of them.
Knorkor
Ministry of Silly Walk
#473 - 2013-04-30 04:47:58 UTC
Please do also a rework of the ores descriptions. Many are already outdated and need clarification.
Also, not all of the special compressed ores contain the modifier in their description.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#474 - 2013-04-30 04:53:26 UTC
Captain Semper wrote:
Mining very very very boring process. You could mine hour and nothing will happen. For example i use 5 accounts for mining and they all have mackinaws. W\o bonuses it take 30 min to fill 100% ore bay. So i can be still at PC, working or watching moves and cheking every few minutes local for enemy. Becuase i know that it will take a time to find me.
...
In other words - nobody want to sit down and watch how cool barge drill asteroids, only because of fear of potential enemy. And you will be rewarded less then NPC hunting. You need new mining mechanic for make this work. I mean interesing mining, not boring mining.

You have to use 1 accout to protect from rats, right? So use it for ratting while your Macks fill up their holds.
Your being lazy and un-inventive insults me, mkay?
Doukyou
Deafening Silence Syndiate
#475 - 2013-04-30 05:09:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tippia wrote:
One question and one immediate observation:

How much ice will actually be in the new belts? On of the main problem with the current design is that they simply are too large — even at a decent depletion rate, they'd stick around forever.


Ice anom sizes are tuned so that high sec is capable of providing about 80% of the ice needs of New Eden right now, if fully mined.



Thanks alot Fozzie you just shut down my pos. This Ice change is totally retard3d. skip the anomalies, Make ort clouds.

Also, I hate the fact that grav sites no longer need to be scanned down. Not quite as big a mistake as the ice but totally takes the fun out of my exploration skills.

CEO of Evil

Doukyou
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#476 - 2013-04-30 06:11:02 UTC
Doukyou wrote:
Thanks alot Fozzie you just shut down my pos.

Ah, you're also planning to switch doing all your nasty things at outpost, right?
Oh wait, you mean you prefer to crumble and die? What a wise way of dealing with challenge!
Grippa Dets
Doomheim
#477 - 2013-04-30 06:25:58 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Grippa Dets wrote:
I like to just exist in EVE - listen to music and get immersed in graphics, and it has worked for me since 2009. Realistically I cannot dedicated focused time to EVE - and group time, even less. Although group play keeps retention up for youngsters (teens, 20's <35), pushing to adopt group play is not going to retain me - it's will do the opposite.

Why dont you switch to roid mining? In a station-less system rocks could be really big, so you dont need to switch too often. And since you say you were mining for a long time - it was ok for you to pay attention once in a while, before they revamped Exhumers, to drop ice into Orca. So it should be ok after Odyssey, to relock rocks once in a while. You are even prompted to do that by "asteroid depleted" warning! So I cannot agree with your statement that afk-mining is no longer possible. At the same time, I'd wanted to warn CCP to refrain from completely obsoletizing current relaxed mining style when they introduce more engaging "prototype mining".


that "warning" comes at the end of a cycle so you loose that cycles yield and since roids don't deplete at the same time you end up having to adjust your beams 3 or 4 times per miner -- trust me there is a reason people AFK ice, not roids.

The point is this semi-passive income is gone in exchange for "more conflict" drivers. Besides I was lost 4 mackinaws so it wasn't without risk. There was no problem with ICE and POS fuel; there was a small profit margin for the miner but stable supply for empires - win/win.

If the result is to be POS coming down to fuel costs, then put more invention slots in stations so we cal all participate in advanced building gameplay.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#478 - 2013-04-30 06:49:46 UTC
Grippa Dets wrote:
that "warning" comes at the end of a cycle so you loose that cycles yield and since roids don't deplete at the same time you end up having to adjust your beams 3 or 4 times per miner -- trust me there is a reason people AFK ice, not roids.

3-4 times per minute?! You should definitely try mining in 0.5 system without station. Rocks there are big enough to withstand several cycles, I guarantee it.
As for optimal timing of cycles, I think it's fair that those, who pay attention, get more ore - dont you agree?
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#479 - 2013-04-30 09:40:07 UTC
CCP Eterne wrote:
I have removed some personal attacks on CCP from this thread.

22 pages of explanation why the belts-as-anoms is not really good for a couple of cases, issues with the 4 hour respawn time of ice belts, and the utterly **** compression performance of the rorq (it's already bad. with the -50% ice harv cycletime change, it'll be even more worse). and this is the only thing you can say, CCP? really? couldn't you just take some care of your players? like to answer our concerns or something?
Tas Nok
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#480 - 2013-04-30 09:44:03 UTC
ok, after ALOT of tears and whining and bad posting in this thread (finally read all 24 pages) I took a shower and can finally comment.

First off its very unlikely these changes are set in stone, if Ice or R64 goo runs off the rails I'd expect an 'adjustment' similarly if it has no discernible effect apart from tears, they will 'tune' the ice a bit more.

1. WH/Null mining is not dead, but does take a serious hit, the few miners in null will need to pay attention, and those in null will need to to sacrifice efficiency for a prober/extra caution (never understood why losing 1 damn cycle causes many miners fits of rage)

2. I saw the 80% ICE from HS figure in the blog and only two posts here thought to ask "HOW MUCH DOES HS PRODUCE NOW" an answer from a dev to this one question would quiet/confirm most of our speculation (as well as the markets)

3. although it would be very useful to know, I'm not sure CCP would answer the follow-up which would be "what percentage of ice per racial isotope is produced in HS" its almost a given that Gall/Caldari will be higher than Matar/Amarr but knowing by how much would be helpful.

4. Just slightly concerned over the mechanics of re-spawns, if its done poorly and one toon sits at the belt cloaked or not, will it despawn and start the timer? or will that be a new griefing mechanic?

5. will systems that have more than 1 ice belt get more than 1 anom?

Everything else looks like its headed in the right direction, good job to CCP for shaking the sandbox a bit.