These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Suggestion to improve mining
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
manus
Subhypersonics
#1 - 2017-04-15 09:05:11 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
There is a discrepancy between miner tooltip and survey scanner results which could be fixed by adding volume of ore to the scan results.

Picture explains pretty well i think.

Link

CCP pretty please
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-04-15 09:10:30 UTC
You have an ore scanner fit. Just use it.

God forbid, mining takes even the slightest bit of effort. Any effort at all is too much.

May as well just ask to stay docked and CCP just put ore in your hanger without doing anything.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
manus
Subhypersonics
#3 - 2017-04-15 09:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?


You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well.
Vokan Narkar
Doomheim
#4 - 2017-04-15 10:37:49 UTC
manus wrote:
First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?


You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well.

welcome in the eve forums, above is the usual response to anything you write here

+1 to the idea, its not like this information was hidden and as long as it requires to use survey scanner its fine
Sitting Bull Lakota
Poppins and Company
#5 - 2017-04-15 11:45:53 UTC
manus wrote:
First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?


You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well.

/sips drink

Incidentally, did they ever change nos to read in gj instead of "points?"
In any case mining is on CCP's horizon as is pve content. We've got the moon mining changes and some kind of dynamic pve thing coming in the next year or so, and CCP is acutely aware of both the mundanity of mining and the botballs that strip belts by the system.
Expect a change to mining that will make it very difficult to afk in the not too distant future.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#6 - 2017-04-15 12:03:24 UTC
manus wrote:
First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
She has a point, there's very little effort involved in opening up the ingame calculator and doing a little maths.

Quote:
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well.
Why? You already have the tools needed to calculate this.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
manus
Subhypersonics
#7 - 2017-04-15 13:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Cant tell if you are serious or not. Calculating volume by hand every time you scan is redicolous. You would think basic things like that the Survey Scanner would do, the information is not hidden anyway.
manus
Subhypersonics
#8 - 2017-04-15 13:39:09 UTC
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
manus wrote:
First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?


You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well.

/sips drink

Incidentally, did they ever change nos to read in gj instead of "points?"
In any case mining is on CCP's horizon as is pve content. We've got the moon mining changes and some kind of dynamic pve thing coming in the next year or so, and CCP is acutely aware of both the mundanity of mining and the botballs that strip belts by the system.
Expect a change to mining that will make it very difficult to afk in the not too distant future.


Thanks for the heads up. Why am i concerned they will screw it up?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#9 - 2017-04-15 14:10:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
manus wrote:
Cant tell if you are serious or not. Calculating volume by hand every time you scan is redicolous.
Totally serious, in fact you only have to do it once for each ore. Make a note using the ingame notepad of how many units of each kind of ore you get in a cycle, and how many cycles it takes to fill the hold for that ore type and refer to it.

Or is that too much effort to expend in what can be an otherwise pretty effortless task?

Quote:
You would think basic things like that the Survey Scanner would do, the information is not hidden anyway.
The survey scanner works just fine, your lack of willing to expend effort processing the information it gives is the problem.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#10 - 2017-04-15 16:13:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Deveron
Sigh, lets see........

Proc = 750 units, 12,000 m3
Skiff = 937 units, 15,000 m3

I know this from experience, i do not need a calculator.
I know at what point to pull my strips.
I know exactly how many Cycles are needed for a full load.
I know exactly how many loads per hour can be maintained boosted.
I know exactly how many loads per hour can be maintained unboosted.
I know exactly how many Miners and boosters and Haulers need to be in a Fleet.
I know exactly how many Man Hours is required for a project.
I know exactly how much that Project is worth.
I know exactly how much the cost is going to be for payroll.

Who needs a Calculator?
And you definitely do not need this, it comes with the territory and all the above is learnable in 30 days or less.

And btw, Mining Missions? who cares about that unless you are doing them for just LP.
PvPr's need to be fed, that comes from miners mining real rocks so that I can do my job, cook the food.
Cade Windstalker
#11 - 2017-04-15 18:08:12 UTC
manus wrote:
Cant tell if you are serious or not. Calculating volume by hand every time you scan is redicolous. You would think basic things like that the Survey Scanner would do, the information is not hidden anyway.


You don't need to calculate it every time you run the scanner, you just need to know how much M3 your miner mines per cycle and know what amount of ore is below that volume. Like Max. Big smile
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#12 - 2017-04-15 19:08:33 UTC
Life doesn't end if you don't min/max your mining yield, FYI.
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#13 - 2017-04-15 19:10:00 UTC
Sure, go ahead with your plan. Push for cargo expanders to affect your ore holds. I'll laugh as every single barge becomes easier to gank as a result.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#14 - 2017-04-15 19:21:06 UTC
+1 to OP. It's one more column, and a minimal bit of clientside math, convenient, and affects pretty much nothing.

It would just be a little, nice thing.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#15 - 2017-04-15 19:28:00 UTC
This is a problem best solved another way, though I don't disagree with your survey scanner issue.
However they should just normalise the ore volumes to 1m for all ore. There is no good reason for different volumes of ore when the volume is far smaller than even the frigate ore holds. It simply adds mess to the system for no value.
Yes, some of you know it by memory anyway, but it's bad complexity, not good complexity.
Cade Windstalker
#16 - 2017-04-15 20:17:36 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
This is a problem best solved another way, though I don't disagree with your survey scanner issue.
However they should just normalise the ore volumes to 1m for all ore. There is no good reason for different volumes of ore when the volume is far smaller than even the frigate ore holds. It simply adds mess to the system for no value.
Yes, some of you know it by memory anyway, but it's bad complexity, not good complexity.


Yes there is, it's to prevent ore compression issues and to tweak the volume of ore mined per minute.

Different ores have different yields, and not having them all be 1m3 gives CCP another balance lever to pull to regulate yield as well as preventing some ores from being amazing for ore compression and thus ore transport.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#17 - 2017-04-15 20:40:18 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Yes there is, it's to prevent ore compression issues and to tweak the volume of ore mined per minute.

Different ores have different yields, and not having them all be 1m3 gives CCP another balance lever to pull to regulate yield as well as preventing some ores from being amazing for ore compression and thus ore transport.

Except it doesn't, because the ore compression ratio's have nothing to do with the ores base volume, and can again be very easily normalised to maintain any existing ratio.
And yield can be normalised to maintain existing rates, I'm not suggesting that the larger ores should suddenly refine to 16 times as much and the smaller ores to 1/10th of their current value. The size of the ore however is not a sensible lever to ever adjust for yield balance, when you can simply directly adjust yield.

So no the ore volume is not anything to do with yield balance or compression balance.
Cade Windstalker
#18 - 2017-04-15 20:54:16 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Except it doesn't, because the ore compression ratio's have nothing to do with the ores base volume, and can again be very easily normalised to maintain any existing ratio.
And yield can be normalised to maintain existing rates, I'm not suggesting that the larger ores should suddenly refine to 16 times as much and the smaller ores to 1/10th of their current value. The size of the ore however is not a sensible lever to ever adjust for yield balance, when you can simply directly adjust yield.

So no the ore volume is not anything to do with yield balance or compression balance.


Except if you actually look at the ore volumes vs the yield you'll find that you don't get clean numbers if you just normalize all volume to 1. For example Hedbergite has a volume of 3m3 and provides (among a lot of other things that don't divide cleanly by 3) 19 Zydrine. So yes, it absolutely makes sense to adjust volume to modify value per time for mining because it gives you finer control, especially for small and mid-range values, than just setting everything to a fixed volume per unit.

On top of that the size of the ore impacts how valuable compression is in transporting it because not every ore has the same compression ratio or compressed volume.
manus
Subhypersonics
#19 - 2017-04-15 21:06:08 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Life doesn't end if you don't min/max your mining yield, FYI.


Im not saying it does. But when it comes to mission running everything is about min/maxing.
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2017-04-15 21:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
This is one to put in CCP kakurs little things thread, unfortunately put any little thing idea, in the "wild" forums and whatever it is and no matter how good, the response is as you have just seen. That thread is a lot more "refined"
12Next page