These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Suggestion to improve mining

Author
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#21 - 2017-04-15 23:19:41 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


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.

Oh no, some tiny rounding will occur....
You act like it's the edge of the world. If you need larger yield numbers then lets normalise all ore to 10m3 instead of 1m3. But the fact that all ore is a different size is nothing to do with adjusting volume for value or resource production. It's a hold out to the original EVE design which was bad.

And so not every ore has the same compression ratio, where does that have anything to do with the volume of uncompressed ore. Not to mention that again the different compression ratio's are again a hold out that got overlooked, since there is no reason to have different compression ratio's, in fact the compression ratio's being different actually makes particular types of ore the perfect hauler rather than just compressing an equal amount of all ores.
Cade Windstalker
#22 - 2017-04-16 04:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Oh no, some tiny rounding will occur....
You act like it's the edge of the world. If you need larger yield numbers then lets normalise all ore to 10m3 instead of 1m3. But the fact that all ore is a different size is nothing to do with adjusting volume for value or resource production. It's a hold out to the original EVE design which was bad.

And so not every ore has the same compression ratio, where does that have anything to do with the volume of uncompressed ore. Not to mention that again the different compression ratio's are again a hold out that got overlooked, since there is no reason to have different compression ratio's, in fact the compression ratio's being different actually makes particular types of ore the perfect hauler rather than just compressing an equal amount of all ores.


For small values "some tiny rounding error" can have pretty big economic implications, especially for the ores that would be shrinking in volume and for minerals with generally small quantities per refine.

The ore sizes aren't a holdout, they got rebalanced back when CCP went through and normalized the refine amounts to 100 units of ore each from the varying amounts they used to be. I'm having some trouble finding the thread for that change but if I recall correctly they specifically called out the ore volumes as a balancing parameter.

Also, again, yes there is a reason to have different compression ratios because the ore volume is used to balance mining amount while the compressed volume is used to balance how much ore you can transport in what volume. Those differing ratios are intentional because it makes certain ores more valuable in raw form than the value of their minerals might indicate.

Your definition of "unnecessary complexity" here is overly aggressive. There are distinct reasons for all of these, you just don't like them and view them as unnecessary, but if you lose or gain 1 out of 19 zydrine that's a 5% change in yield which is significant over the millions of units of ore that are mined every day.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#23 - 2017-04-17 18:37:33 UTC
manus wrote:
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.


No it's not. It's about enjoying the game. This isn't a job, it's entertainment
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#24 - 2017-04-17 22:41:06 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.

I think you might have a point here.

Giving people the m3 in the tooltip is inconsistent with the Survey Scanner.

CCP should change the tooltip. Remove the m3 and replace it with units.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#25 - 2017-04-17 22:47:02 UTC
The ideal isn't bad, I get what your wanting, however as most are pointing out, it is not needed because of an existing module that gives you the info all one need to is to understand the ore storage size to know this info.
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#26 - 2017-04-18 11:53:08 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.

Any posts regarding the upcoming changes they have planned regarding the actual mining mechanics? Would be awesome to see how they plan to update a 15 year old icon simulator.
manus
Subhypersonics
#27 - 2017-04-18 15:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
I had some cool ideas for how you could make mining a little more interesting. When you mine you get a "picture" of the roid. And you can clearly distinguish where the ore is. So you have to move your curser in that pattern. Its sort of like when you unlock your phone with a pattern. Do you know what i mean? But there should be a few more points and the lines should always be straight. Top to bottom, bottom to top, left to right. right corner to left corner etc. This way you feel like a samurai when mining. Every time you sliced a picture, a new one comes up and you have to slice that. Direction is random. The faster you are, the faster you mine. I imagine things like this will be hard to bot. And trust me, it sounds dull, but it will feel rewarding to slice ore manually if done right. You have to imagine you are removing the ore with surgical precision with the lasers. Maybe the more precise you are the more ore you get. I could see that being fun, instead of just activating a module and waiting. i mean it would be a combination between fruit ninja and dance arcade or guitar hero. Anyone remember how addicting guitar hero was, considering you just hit 4 different ******* buttons that fly across the screen?
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#28 - 2017-04-18 19:42:06 UTC
Minigames aren't fun after a while and would kill the profession outright. I doubt its a good idea doing any form of mining minigames.

What they need to try get into is delegation. Mining should be a form of higher level planning that takes time and effort and with more investment should yeald higher rewards. The current mining should be around but there needs to be a different type of mining that should yield more if you risk more.

Homeworld Cataclysm comes to mind where you had to move large chuncks of asteroids around or use drones in complicated networks like building an ant colony. Something that needs a bit more effort and brain cells. Its odd how much effort goes into PVE fixes when a fraction of the effort would fix mining.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#29 - 2017-04-18 21:36:29 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Minigames aren't fun after a while and would kill the profession outright. I doubt its a good idea doing any form of mining minigames.

What they need to try get into is delegation. Mining should be a form of higher level planning that takes time and effort and with more investment should yeald higher rewards. The current mining should be around but there needs to be a different type of mining that should yield more if you risk more.

Homeworld Cataclysm comes to mind where you had to move large chuncks of asteroids around or use drones in complicated networks like building an ant colony. Something that needs a bit more effort and brain cells. Its odd how much effort goes into PVE fixes when a fraction of the effort would fix mining.

Sounds like a minimax game. Once solved, there's no actual content.
Cade Windstalker
#30 - 2017-04-19 01:31:21 UTC
Xcom wrote:
Minigames aren't fun after a while and would kill the profession outright. I doubt its a good idea doing any form of mining minigames.

What they need to try get into is delegation. Mining should be a form of higher level planning that takes time and effort and with more investment should yeald higher rewards. The current mining should be around but there needs to be a different type of mining that should yield more if you risk more.

Homeworld Cataclysm comes to mind where you had to move large chuncks of asteroids around or use drones in complicated networks like building an ant colony. Something that needs a bit more effort and brain cells. Its odd how much effort goes into PVE fixes when a fraction of the effort would fix mining.


Mining already has higher risk = higher reward. High sec is safe, it gets slightly more dangerous and slightly more rewarding out to .5, then you jump into either Low, Null, or Wormholes where the risk is much greater. Beyond that you have the option of putting a more expensive ship on grid to further increase your potential profits by risking more on-grid.

And yeah, this:

Rawketsled wrote:
Sounds like a minimax game. Once solved, there's no actual content.


The general assumption with any sort of PvE content should be that the content will become "solved" faster than the Devs can either update it or create something new.

The problem with pretty much all "fix mining" suggestions involving significant core changes to the gameplay is that they're generally proposed by non-miners who don't like mining and want it be something else, often at the expense of the people who currently do mine and enjoy it for whatever reasons they have for that.
Xcom
US Space Force
Black Rose.
#31 - 2017-04-19 03:36:15 UTC
I don't think we should call mining a pc game when we are playing a game at 2017 and all you have to do is to sit still and wait for a timer to give you an icon to drag to another window. That stuff might have been an introductory mechanic back in 2003 when the game was launched. But by now its just awful and cringe worthy.

What the devs have is alot of time to figure out a method to make mining simple and cheep but with effort and cost it can be made complex and more profitable during the mining process and not just the location you choose to mine.

And regarding the definition of a minigame is a popup window similar to the hacking window in exploration. That is the actual reference to a minigame. A set of actions preformed in space might be called a minigame as well. But the same could be said about any action taken in space then. Thats why the actual reference to a minigame is a separate window that forces your attention be a minigame that has nothing to do with the regular mechanics of EvE online.

What miners shouldn't have is to limit there attention on d-scan, local and occasionally in there cargo hold when the ore trickles in. There attention should be in the actions they are preforming similar to PVE. There should be no limit to the number of load you can put on yourself. That will make the game be constraint by the player itself and the skill level the players have. The more load you take on the more risk but also more yield with a natural diminishing value. A mechanic that could be very simple and easy to manage but when you scale it up it gets exponentially more complex and rewarding just like PVE. Any system will naturally have its min/max points and people will find ways to exploit them. But that's just fear talking and nothing would get done with that mindset. Those could just as easily be patched just like any other mechanic ever introduced.
Anna-Elizabeth DeWitt
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2017-04-19 06:39:38 UTC
I have an honest and 100% serious question: Are you trolling?

First all that stuff about how CCP has no idea what they are doing and should follow your lead to make local more vivid and now a mining minigame?

manus wrote:
I had some cool ideas for how you could make mining a little more interesting. When you mine you get a "picture" of the roid. And you can clearly distinguish where the ore is. So you have to move your curser in that pattern. Its sort of like when you unlock your phone with a pattern. Do you know what i mean? But there should be a few more points and the lines should always be straight. Top to bottom, bottom to top, left to right. right corner to left corner etc. This way you feel like a samurai when mining. Every time you sliced a picture, a new one comes up and you have to slice that. Direction is random. The faster you are, the faster you mine. I imagine things like this will be hard to bot. And trust me, it sounds dull, but it will feel rewarding to slice ore manually if done right. You have to imagine you are removing the ore with surgical precision with the lasers. Maybe the more precise you are the more ore you get. I could see that being fun, instead of just activating a module and waiting. i mean it would be a combination between fruit ninja and dance arcade or guitar hero. Anyone remember how addicting guitar hero was, considering you just hit 4 different ******* buttons that fly across the screen?

Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2017-04-19 08:07:55 UTC
manus wrote:
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


Not needed, there are better things CCP can do before doing such a thing.

-1
manus
Subhypersonics
#34 - 2017-04-19 16:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
Tabyll Altol wrote:
manus wrote:
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


Not needed, there are better things CCP can do before doing such a thing.

-1


Such as? Besides this feature is not that complicated and doesent look like it will take alot of time to do.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#35 - 2017-04-19 16:47:27 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein 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?
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.



You know, the idea that "you can just use a calculator" is a really odd argument.

I mean, should we take away calculators because we could do the math by hand? Making things easier to do for something like this is generally a good idea. It saves the player time, it doesn't change balance, and it's seems like a pretty easy implementation (they already convert units to m3 in a bunch of other places).

It's a good idea.
TheGuy Akachi
Maniacal Miners INC
The Legends In The Game
#36 - 2017-04-21 12:57:06 UTC
I think this is fine small addition if they make it. Doesn't provide any combat advantage, nor allows necessarily mine faster. But I can also live without it.
Previous page12