These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#721 - 2017-03-06 21:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Iminent Penance wrote:


Usually the average distance you will achieve is 1000m give or take and that's ignoring a TON of travel time and other factors that decimate the yield i mentioned (drone sharpshooting can add 1km optimal... more travel)

The actual travel time + the orbit radius + average distance being beyond 0 (which it will be until asteroid tractor beams exist, and they wont)allows drones to return from a 4000 range up to 11km away, If they have to hit that scenario more often due to the shortened cycles, it amplifies the effect.

So the math isn't wrong, it is just the "optimal case" perspective people are choosing over realistic cases

also check sisi. Rock sizes have... indeed changed https://i.gyazo.com/e88e90afcebf3a0fb4a6a8651dd3b575.jpg



Ya, I can see, but until it goes live I can't speak for the sizes we'll see is all I'm saying. I was jsut giving an example to the nerf the travel time adds to the yield with current values.

CCP likes goes with paper values ignoring all other factors it seems which is why I gave the examples in the way I did. I even indicated on paper, meaning I know they aren't realistic.

And yes, if the changes go live we are likely going to be seeing a 5-15 second travel time on the larger spod rocks. But CCP likes dealing with optimal for some unknown reason rather than averages which is how it's done everywhere in the industry with min/max values and trying to reduce the difference between the two rather than increase that gap.

In other words, decreasing the value between min/max allows for easier balancing, however reduces effect of skill/positioning. That is why mining lasers can be more easily fine tuned, where as drones cannot.

-> This is why if we could go back to the original drawing board I'd have argued for short range capital mining lasers, not drones. I'm not a masochist when it comes to game development and like things I can balance without several uncontrollable factors.

-> go further back I'd have made all mining based off lasers and a type of minigame similar to hacking. The more successful you are the more ore you get up to a max value. Which is repeatable until the asteroid is depleted.
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#722 - 2017-03-06 22:17:34 UTC
Those larger rock sizes would be an absolutely massive additional nerf to rorqual yield AND an increase in mining risk. If the drones wind up several KM away from the rorqual mid-cycle, that will dramatically increase time spent "returning" between cycles due to their slow speed (even with a T2 core and nav comps), and it will also increase the opportunity for hunters to shoot/boosh the drones if they can get the drop on a mining operation.

If rocks this size goes live, it will be way, way, way worse than the nerfs originally posted in this thread.
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#723 - 2017-03-06 22:39:55 UTC
Here's a rough chart of how bad the nerf could be, depending on the average distance from your rorqual your drone is (which will depend on exactly how big the rocks are, and how close your rorqual is to the edge of the rock):

http://i.imgur.com/ymLlHZO.png
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#724 - 2017-03-06 23:39:23 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Because Caps using cap guns run on a different scale vs sub-caps for balance reasons. For those same balance reasons those same cap-guns deal massively reduced damage to sub-caps, to the point that you're better off being in a Battleship than trying to shoot a Battleship with cap-guns.

This isn't equivalent to the Rorqual. The equivalent case for a mining ship would be if there was some ore that the Rorqual had a specific bonus to mining. Sub-caps could still mine it, but the Rorqual had special drones oor something that were way more efficient but only against that ore. Since there's nothing like that I'm going to use HAWs for the comparison here because those operate on the same scaling as sub-caps.

If you'd like we could also compare T1 Cruisers to T1 Battleships, where you're looking at roughly double the DPS more or less for something like a 10x cost multiplier.



Even at the 10x cost of the multiplier, you're still way below what the price diff is between a rorq and a hulk especially if you're looking at a viable survivable fit for the expected attacker.

Dolly Varden
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#725 - 2017-03-06 23:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dolly Varden
I really laugh when these things happen. Why can a ship made for boosting mine better than the top tier ship made for mining. Why did a rorqual mining 5x a hulk ever get implemented! Of course everyone that is able is going to switch to rorqual mining! Even now if it is about 2x the mining of a hulk everyone who is able is going to use a rorqual. If Devs want hulks to mine then they actually need to be the best mining ship.
Also i've been gone from the game for a while and why oh why is the command boost range so laughably small for mining. I guess you slightly made up for it by letting an orca mine a lot with drones but still such a dumb change.
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#726 - 2017-03-07 00:43:07 UTC
This is what it will be like to mine the largest Spodumain rock in a colossal anom after March 14th:

http://i.imgur.com/C884F6T.png

Huge nerf for mining the big spod rocks - although many/most rocks are quite a bit smaller.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#727 - 2017-03-07 00:50:41 UTC
Dolly Varden wrote:
I really laugh when these things happen. Why can a ship made for boosting mine better than the top tier ship made for mining. Why did a rorqual mining 5x a hulk ever get implemented! Of course everyone that is able is going to switch to rorqual mining! Even now if it is about 2x the mining of a hulk everyone who is able is going to use a rorqual. If Devs want hulks to mine then they actually need to be the best mining ship.
Also i've been gone from the game for a while and why oh why is the command boost range so laughably small for mining. I guess you slightly made up for it by letting an orca mine a lot with drones but still such a dumb change.



Because the rorqual is a capital mining vessel which can boost. This was their intention with the patch. It just had a more welcomed reception than they expected with the existence of injectors. They were expecting one number of rorq pilots, and got 100x that. Now they're preaching market stability and nerfing it repeatedly.

They want null sec to be self sufficient yet rely on other regions for moon/ice materials. Yet when we are suddenly on the brink of such a thing it's quickly being snatched away. It's like they are caught in a catch-22 situation. They have a goal for null space in mind, but in obtaining that goal it will innately destroy a HS income source, and they want to prevent that from happening.
Cade Windstalker
#728 - 2017-03-07 02:41:19 UTC
Iminent Penance wrote:
I know you are trying to be an edgy dimwit.

But travel time is a factor unless the rorqual literally teleports to 0 on rocks instantly and never ever moves.

Seriously. You don't know nullsec. You don't know industry.

But you can PRETEND to know if you at least *tried* to think before spouting your baseless arguments.

...


You literally said "BEFORE travel time issues" so either your math is bad or your phrasing is bad. Either way the issue isn't on my end...

Also your math is still questionable because with 4k one way travel and 350m/s travel time I'm getting 68% of pre-patch yield, which is a far cry from a 55% reduction, and still comes out to 51% of yield at release.

Nasar Vyron wrote:
That is Cade you're talking to. He would like everyone to believe he has any actual game development experience. I have a feeling he interned somewhere when he was younger (if even this much, likely just likes reading up on it) and thinks that gives anything he says credence.
...


I did, in fact intern, it also says "Game Design and Dev" on my degree. I decided not to get into it because I don't want to have to put up with crap like this for a living, and because I wanted more stable employment.

That said, I'm not saying that you should listen to anything I say because I have any kind of game dev experience, I only even bring it up in the sense of "this is how game dev works" and that's just knowledge anyone could get by reading Gamasutra. My general approach to anything I post on here is if you think I'm wrong then please, prove it. Preferably with numbers or some other reproducible example, because in any of these threads you can argue personal experience and intangibles until your bovine of choice comes home.

Nasar Vyron wrote:
...

However, where devs seem to love ignoring is that even sitting at 0 on an asteroid we will never see those numbers. Asteroids have a size in space, orbits occur around the outside of that radius, not the center point, which means their plans to increase the size of the asteroids means wider orbits for the drones. Wider orbits means even sitting at zero like we do now, the drones themselves will have futher to travel to get back to our ships before returning back to the asteroid again to begin their mining cycles.

...

CCP likes goes with paper values ignoring all other factors it seems which is why I gave the examples in the way I did. I even indicated on paper, meaning I know they aren't realistic.

And yes, if the changes go live we are likely going to be seeing a 5-15 second travel time on the larger spod rocks. But CCP likes dealing with optimal for some unknown reason rather than averages which is how it's done everywhere in the industry with min/max values and trying to reduce the difference between the two rather than increase that gap.


Two reasons for this.

One, optimal to optimal is a better comparison, because actual to actual is going to vary from person to person, sometimes heavily. Besides it's what CCP are actually changing, they're adjusting the hard value that the drones mine.

Two, from CCP's own words, they don't like dictating what's optimal and how things are supposed to be used. If they went out and said "we got these numbers moving this often and with this ping and ect" then they've now essentially dictated how they want the ship used.

They'd also be inviting a lot of hanging up over fiddly bits when what they're actually doing is saying "here are our numbers, anyone have any glaring errors or things we might have missed?"

Unfortunately about half the time the only thing offered up is "OMG nerf!" I think CCP realize it's a nerf guys... Roll

Soko99 wrote:
Even at the 10x cost of the multiplier, you're still way below what the price diff is between a rorq and a hulk especially if you're looking at a viable survivable fit for the expected attacker.


Yes, but 10 is by no means a hard and fast rule, it's just the example I was able to produce from existing numbers.

Also most of the cost of the Rorqual is in the drones, not the hull and those are only as expensive as they are due to player demand and a few enterprising individuals playing "how high can we push the market" when they first came out. The Hull of a Rorqual is worth about 2.2b in minerals, another b for a generous fitting, and if you go by prices for those components when the Rorq was announced about 1.2-1.5b for a full flight of drones, which puts it around 5b and pretty darned close to 10x cost for a nicely fitted Hulk plus implants.

The real point here though is that, generally speaking, cost scales exponentially while benefit scales linearly. A ship that can mine multiples of what a Hulk can while being better in almost every way should cost quite a few times what a Hulk does. As with anything in Eve the more you can get out of each individual pilot the better off you are.
Cade Windstalker
#729 - 2017-03-07 02:49:00 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
This is what it will be like to mine the largest Spodumain rock in a colossal anom after March 14th:

http://i.imgur.com/C884F6T.png

Huge nerf for mining the big spod rocks - although many/most rocks are quite a bit smaller.


See, if you want to bring something to CCP's attention this is the way to do it. Go out, test something, show your numbers.

This is fantastic, more of this please.

Anyone got the rough ISK/Hour numbers with this change compared to Super Ratting and how long it would take you to earn a Super through mining vs ratting?

I'm figuring there's probably a ratio here that's a healthy target, but given how easy Rorquals are to multibox I'm seriously wondering how low that'd have to go in actual terms.

Nasar Vyron wrote:
Because the rorqual is a capital mining vessel which can boost. This was their intention with the patch. It just had a more welcomed reception than they expected with the existence of injectors. They were expecting one number of rorq pilots, and got 100x that. Now they're preaching market stability and nerfing it repeatedly.

They want null sec to be self sufficient yet rely on other regions for moon/ice materials. Yet when we are suddenly on the brink of such a thing it's quickly being snatched away. It's like they are caught in a catch-22 situation. They have a goal for null space in mind, but in obtaining that goal it will innately destroy a HS income source, and they want to prevent that from happening.


Heh, more welcomed reception is an understatement.

The problem here wasn't self sufficiency, the problem is that Null mineral mining suddenly started wrecking other areas of the game, and there are in fact other areas of the game besides Null where people play and have fun. Null hit the point of mineral self sufficiency and then boiled over, and the next thing CCP knew they had bits of Ore stuck to the ceiling in Jita... Lol

The original goal for the Rorqual, if you look at Fozzie's own comments and the original Rorqual thread, was mainly to convince people to get the things out of POS shields. The vast majority of the feedback in the original changes thread was "OMG CCP you are never going to get this thing out of my POS shield. Selling Rorqual if you go through with this!" so CCP made a big big carrot to get people to go out and use and lose Rorquals.

Unfortunately they made it so big that all the Carrier Ratters went for it, and the next thing you know there's Ore everywhere...Ugh
Iminent Penance
Your Mom's Boyfriends
#730 - 2017-03-07 02:59:56 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Iminent Penance wrote:


Usually the average distance you will achieve is 1000m give or take and that's ignoring a TON of travel time and other factors that decimate the yield i mentioned (drone sharpshooting can add 1km optimal... more travel)

The actual travel time + the orbit radius + average distance being beyond 0 (which it will be until asteroid tractor beams exist, and they wont)allows drones to return from a 4000 range up to 11km away, If they have to hit that scenario more often due to the shortened cycles, it amplifies the effect.

So the math isn't wrong, it is just the "optimal case" perspective people are choosing over realistic cases

also check sisi. Rock sizes have... indeed changed https://i.gyazo.com/e88e90afcebf3a0fb4a6a8651dd3b575.jpg



Ya, I can see, but until it goes live I can't speak for the sizes we'll see is all I'm saying. I was jsut giving an example to the nerf the travel time adds to the yield with current values.

CCP likes goes with paper values ignoring all other factors it seems which is why I gave the examples in the way I did. I even indicated on paper, meaning I know they aren't realistic.

And yes, if the changes go live we are likely going to be seeing a 5-15 second travel time on the larger spod rocks. But CCP likes dealing with optimal for some unknown reason rather than averages which is how it's done everywhere in the industry with min/max values and trying to reduce the difference between the two rather than increase that gap.

In other words, decreasing the value between min/max allows for easier balancing, however reduces effect of skill/positioning. That is why mining lasers can be more easily fine tuned, where as drones cannot.

-> This is why if we could go back to the original drawing board I'd have argued for short range capital mining lasers, not drones. I'm not a masochist when it comes to game development and like things I can balance without several uncontrollable factors.

-> go further back I'd have made all mining based off lasers and a type of minigame similar to hacking. The more successful you are the more ore you get up to a max value. Which is repeatable until the asteroid is depleted.


Tested on singularity. 700m froma spod rock = excavators travel nearly 15km away.

THAT ADDS UP TO 60 SECONDS OF TRAVEL PER BAD CYCLE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY HUGE
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#731 - 2017-03-07 03:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Coelomate Tian
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Anyone got the rough ISK/Hour numbers with this change compared to Super Ratting and how long it would take you to earn a Super through mining vs ratting?


Right now, a perfect rorqual mines enough ore to build a supercarrier in roughly ~45 hours (that's quite rough math, but it's a close approximation, and I'll show my work if anyone gets significantly different numbers). No need to even think about isk per hour, because it's ore, and ore builds supers (technically you eat 1-2 billion in build fees and need the BPCs, though).

Post-nerf and pre-asteroid resizing, it would be more like ~60 hours of mining to have enough ore for a super. If asteroids are resized this way, but it'll be 20%+ slower on the big spod rocks, and maybe no slower on rocks that didn't get a huge size increase (at a guess, I'd say 20% of the rocks in the asteroid field will be larger enough to significantly reduce yield?). For simplicity's sake, let's say it slows mining down by an average of 10%, which would put you around ~65 hours to build a super (again, just to get the ore for it, not including time/BPCs/refining fees/build fees).

(Worth mentioning that this is accounting for super mineral requirements being reduced with the introduction of ECs and EC rigs)

I'm less certain of a fair value for expecting income from supercarrier ratting, but I'd guess something like 350 million per hour would be a fair guess, and perhaps even on the low end. If somebody is more confident of numbers here, I'm all ears.

Super prices have been volatile, but 20 billion for a hull isn't a crazy number to throw out. Build price is much lower, public keepstar supers are often more expensive, but that's in the ballpark. That would be 57 hours of super ratting to have the isk to buy a carrier (and cover the producer's BPC/build costs + profit).

If you're just looking at how much you can sell the ore for, super ratting will probably earn 2-3x as much isk as rorqual mining produces value in ore. But it's trivial to multibox 2-3 rorquals, so... it'll be kinda balanced?
Cptcarter
State War Academy
Caldari State
#732 - 2017-03-07 05:11:10 UTC
Wrong and your high...Rorq does not mine 1 super in 40hrs..damn so so wrong. Please provide me with proof of you mining a super in 40hrs with one Rorq. Max, max a rorq could mine 250m isk /hr of ore and that is high, that means it would take you 70hr to 80 hrs to build a super.
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#733 - 2017-03-07 05:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Coelomate Tian
Cptcarter wrote:
Wrong and your high...Rorq does not mine 1 super in 40hrs..damn so so wrong. Please provide me with proof of you mining a super in 40hrs with one Rorq. Max, max a rorq could mine 250m isk /hr of ore and that is high, that means it would take you 70hr to 80 hrs to build a super.


SPOILER ALERT: As I made extremely clear in the prior post, the time estimation was for using the ore to build the super, not selling the ore for isk with which to purchase a super.

A supercarrier only takes something like 11-12 billion isk worth of ore to build these days (prices are volatile bla bla bla, but it's around there)
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#734 - 2017-03-07 06:07:51 UTC
Iminent Penance wrote:


Tested on singularity. 700m froma spod rock = excavators travel nearly 15km away.

THAT ADDS UP TO 60 SECONDS OF TRAVEL PER BAD CYCLE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY HUGE


Yes I saw and replied to you. You are pointing out the extreme nerf that I was hinting at that could be caused be increasing the size of the asteroids.

If you haven't caught on, I'm not for that change in the least. I think it's a horrible decisions to solve a perceived problem by CCP which could have been solved by giving asteroids brackets again.

I'm curious how many people actually mine with more than their local and overview showing on the side of Netflix, let alone actually looking at the roid spin in space for more than a minute before questioning their life choices.
Br4inz
J909 Industrial Services
#735 - 2017-03-07 07:29:34 UTC
Please let Orca's also use Excavator's, this will provide content in High sec as gankers can kill the excavators and create a killmail.

Twisted
Huydo
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#736 - 2017-03-07 11:17:49 UTC
http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png ~46mio/h

So i tested it on the test server now. And with almost the same fitting (only tank is different ) i got less than 50mio per hour on mining.


Rorq content is official DEAD now. As no one will want to risk a 15b ship in a Belt for less than 50mio per hour.
Rachel Syne
Killing with pink power
Penguins with lasorz
#737 - 2017-03-07 14:09:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rachel Syne
Does this change affect ice rocks too?Because if not people can just switch to iceBig smile

Also maybe drone speed rigs will help?
Cade Windstalker
#738 - 2017-03-07 14:26:31 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Cptcarter wrote:
Wrong and your high...Rorq does not mine 1 super in 40hrs..damn so so wrong. Please provide me with proof of you mining a super in 40hrs with one Rorq. Max, max a rorq could mine 250m isk /hr of ore and that is high, that means it would take you 70hr to 80 hrs to build a super.


SPOILER ALERT: As I made extremely clear in the prior post, the time estimation was for using the ore to build the super, not selling the ore for isk with which to purchase a super.

A supercarrier only takes something like 11-12 billion isk worth of ore to build these days (prices are volatile bla bla bla, but it's around there)


Which is what I was after, because that's part of what drove smart players toward Rorquals and away from ratting. If a player is just going to use their ISK to buy ships anyway then I may as well go for the most time efficient option to acquire those ships. Most major alliances and even a few indy corps doing public contracts offer discounts for Bring Your Own Minerals, which puts a pretty significant multiplier on the Rorqual's value per time spent.

Rachel Syne wrote:
Does this change affect ice rocks too?Because if not people can just switch to iceBig smile


It does not, but that would require you to have access to an ice belt, and would result in significant downtime between Ice Belt spawns.

Nasar Vyron wrote:
Iminent Penance wrote:


Tested on singularity. 700m froma spod rock = excavators travel nearly 15km away.

THAT ADDS UP TO 60 SECONDS OF TRAVEL PER BAD CYCLE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY HUGE


Yes I saw and replied to you. You are pointing out the extreme nerf that I was hinting at that could be caused be increasing the size of the asteroids.

If you haven't caught on, I'm not for that change in the least. I think it's a horrible decisions to solve a perceived problem by CCP which could have been solved by giving asteroids brackets again.

I'm curious how many people actually mine with more than their local and overview showing on the side of Netflix, let alone actually looking at the roid spin in space for more than a minute before questioning their life choices.


In fairness here we are talking about one of the lower end rocks and the largest cases of those rocks. So not every rock is going to have 60 seconds of travel to it. Also not every drone is going to end up out at that 15km point, some will end up right next to your ship.

That said, as much as I like the idea of ore belts no longer looking like feeble strings of marbles, I think it might be worth buffing the speed on the Excavators just a little to compensate for what is basically intended as a cosmetic change. Bumping the max speed by 25% would leave them still quite slow but reduce the frustration factor a little and make them slightly harder to 'boosh'.
Sarah Flynt
Red Cross Mercenaries
Silent Infinity
#739 - 2017-03-07 14:57:09 UTC
Huydo wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png ~46mio/h

So i tested it on the test server now. And with almost the same fitting (only tank is different ) i got less than 50mio per hour on mining.


Rorq content is official DEAD now. As no one will want to risk a 15b ship in a Belt for less than 50mio per hour.

Wow, that's good news. Now remove the siege timer and the PANIC module and the Rorqual will finally be where it should have been in the first place.

Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#740 - 2017-03-07 15:13:14 UTC
Can we get CCP confirmation that these changes are intended and going live March 14th? The original post said it was going to be explored but unlikely included in the suite of changes this patch.

If they are intended, would you consider a corresponding increase in drone flight time, or is this a purposeful nerf?