These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes

First post First post
Author
Captain Jordan Reinsma
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#501 - 2017-06-03 09:09:17 UTC
Can i please get my money back for my 2 one year subscriptions. thanks
Tessa Sage
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
Sending Thots And Players
#502 - 2017-06-03 09:17:02 UTC
Cali Sazabi wrote:
I had so many friends spend so much money on plex to skill inject into a rorqual and now your killing the game for them...



I would argue not to rush into an Industrial Capital, and certainly not through skill injection. I took months to finally squeeze into one, and that was during the last big nerf. It became an ore hauler (miasmos + jd) then a station spinning decal, then repackaged for resale on the market in less time than a fresh toon can pop another extractor candy. I got all my ISK on that build back. It's a lot harder / more tedious to do the same for any ISK spent on sp.
Kaidokpi
Extremely Frequent Failures Inc.
#503 - 2017-06-03 09:24:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaidokpi
I apologize for the super long post but there's way too much whining and misinformation in this thread and not nearly enough math. Allow me to fix that.

Assumptions used in the following calculations:
-Rorqual is fit with a t2 industrial core, 2x Drone nav comp II's, and 3x drone mining augmenter Is.
-Rorqual is assumed to be %75 efficient to account for cycle down time, travel time between rocks, and drones returning to deposit ore.
-Mining anomolies quantities and makeup are based on info from this post by Fozzie

1. How much is the rorq actually getting nerfed?

The raw reduction is 9%, the speed is a bit trickier. Pre nerf drone speed is 510m/s, post nerf speed is 453m/s. Assuming a max return distance of 15km we can look at an average return distance of 7.5km.

7500 / 510 = 14.7 return time pre nerf
7500 / 453 = 16.6 return time post nerf

76.6 / 74.7 = %3 average increase in cycle time due to speed adjustment.

The end result is a yield reduction of 10-12% per hour. Variation is due to rorq piloting becoming inherently more efficient post nerf as you will need to transition between rocks less frequently.

2. How much is my isk/hour going to be affected?

If you were to mine a large, enormous, and colossal anom you would mine roughly 51million m3 of ore resulting in 13.4billion isk worth of compressed ore: evepraisal link That works out to an average ore value of 263/m3. Pre nerf our rorq would mine 600,000m3/hour. Post nerf 528,000m3/hour

600,000*263= 157.8 million isk/hour average
528,000*263= 138.9 million isk/hour average

This nerf will equate to a loss of 19 million isk per hour.


3. How many rorqs will be able to mine in a given system?

click here for fun and exciting spreadsheets!

Starting with a fresh system 11 rorqs could kill the colossal, then the enormus, then the large, wait 11 minutes for the colossal to respawn and then repeat the process until downtime. That's 11 minutes of downtime every 8.5 hours.

The actual numbers of rorquals you can run before you hit the saturation point is going to depend on a wide variety of factors and will rely heavily on coordinated or at the very least conscientious mining. The idea is that once you start mining an anom you want to kill it as quickly as you can to start it's respawn timer. Use too many rorqs and they start fighting over roids, use too few and you wont cycle the anom quickly. It will be very beneficial for large groups to find their own balance and to promote good mining practices. Not leaving partially finished anoms and helping to kill the last few ocher rocks instead of warping off to the next one ect.

TL;DR 11 rorqs per system

4. "LOL @ Goonie tears, delve is getting nerfed!"

Sorry to ruin your narrative but we're probably the best positioned alliance to deal with these changes. It's no big secret that we mined 6.7trillion isk in April. People seem to think that because we mine so much we won't be able to find space for all our rorqs.

6.7T / 157.8mill/hour = 42,458 hours of rorq mining in delve in April.

We'll bump that up to 50,000 to account for less than perfect fit rorqs and other shenanigans that cut into mining time.

50,000 hours / 30 days = 1,667 hours / day
1,667 hours per day = average of 69 rorqs mining at any time in delve

According to eve offline the PCU is usually about twice the average user count. Lets assume a worst case scenario of 4x the average or about 280 rorqs mining in delve. From a personal observation that number is a bit high but more or less accurate. This means that using the 11 rorqs per system answer we came up with in question 3 that means goons only need 26 systems to maintain our current mining numbers.

I'm not going to show you a map of where we can and can not defend our rorquals. I will tell you that the number of systems we can defend is several times the number we need to maintain constant mining even during our peak time zones.

End of part 1
Kaidokpi
Extremely Frequent Failures Inc.
#504 - 2017-06-03 09:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaidokpi
5. The 1 system renters are getting hosed over right?

It really depends on how many people they're trying to cram into 1 system. 10 will be fine. 15 will be a little annoying for those involved. 20 would be a bit overkill but you could still mine for 5 hours straight during your corps prime time netting you 16+ billion isk worth of ore. Possibly as high as 30b per day if you keep rolling the anoms all day long.

You'll have to ask the renters if it's still worth renting under those conditions.

6. Summary and final thoughts

It's a %12 nerf to rorqual yield that will require alliances that stack their miners in 1 or 2 systems to spread out. It brings the rorqual isk/hour down to the point where it's comparable to nullsec carrier ratting. This is probably a good thing as the rorqual will no longer be the automatic end goal for new players looking to make isk in nullsec. Untimely this new nerf may be annoying for us miners but is an appropriate adjustment.

My only complaint is the price of excavators. Their yield has been drastically cut since they were introduced but they still cost 1 billion isk each. It now takes 57 hours of mining in a rorqual to pay for the hull+fit+drones, an absurdly high ROI time compared to something like a carrier (17 hours) which makes similar isk/hour. It also poses a very high barrier of entry to people looking to get into their first rorqual. 3 billion for the hull and fittings + 5 billion isk for the drones is a very high price for a ship that makes less than 2x 300 million isk hulks.

My suggestion would be to leave the cost of the excavators as they are but double the mining amount of t2 drones. This would give rorq pilots a lower risk/reward option but still incentivize people who can afford excavators to continue using them.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#505 - 2017-06-03 09:38:38 UTC
Oh dear.....

There is only one, sensible, practicable and completely reasonable change that should be made...

- REMOVE the Excavator Drones.

Tweak the mining drone bonii on the Rorqual so that it mines as much as a fully skilled Hulk.

Probably reduce the Industrial Corp cycle time to match Boosters.

Reimburse drones at 1b each.

And don't be so silly next time.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Shurdo
Sanity Forgotten
#506 - 2017-06-03 09:53:55 UTC
From CCP, The risk to bring the Rorqual in grid for boost will be offset with the reward . Reward is gone. What does CCP do? Nerf the reward even more. At this point KMA.
Logan Jakal
Northern Freight Unlimited
Young Miners Christian Association
#507 - 2017-06-03 10:07:20 UTC
It's pretty nice to see 26 pages of people disagreeing with Fozzie and not having one single post of CCP to try to discuss about the issue.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#508 - 2017-06-03 10:09:13 UTC
Lustig Allas-Rui wrote:
Why don't we try to cure the market by increasing demand instead of (trying to) reducing supply? With explosions and lost ships. This is EVE Online after all and not Mining Online.


Says the person in the bluest of blue-balls boring AF alliances going. The only people that are going to push Eve to a more active 'war is fun' style of play are the players. From the attitudes of players in yours and similar corporations it is clear the general playerbase are more concerned with their stacks of ISK and resources than they are with actually having any fun.

Why don't you suggest to your bosses that they unblue some people and let you have a bit of fun blowing people up. There is no sense in blaming CCP for your cowardice and boring attitude.

Do you know why Goonswarm joined Eve originally? None of your management seem to.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

JonasML
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#509 - 2017-06-03 10:49:22 UTC  |  Edited by: JonasML
Regan Rotineque wrote:
I think that mining overall has gotten too powerful - that you have made it too easy and too fast and creating one type of ship that excels way over any other combination is simply bad design choice

The whole argument about the Rorqual was to get it out of the shield and change it from just a booster to a contributor.

The Rorqs/Orca/Porpoises of the world are the mining coordinators not miners themselves. Giving them overpowered mining abilities to justify their existence on grid was i believe a bad design choice.

Instead I think they should have lowered the overall costs of these ships so that the risk/reward ratio was more in line with putting them at risk on grid.

Right now nobody wants to lose a 2+ billion isk mining ship which is just their boosting/compressing
But if the ship was 500-750m it might be a different trade off and would not have required the massive "mining drone menace" which now dominates null sec.

People would still use them, the boosts are great, and would not be as adverse to losing one if it were not as insanely expensive. Boosting is boring - well then don't do it . Let them use the existing mining drones and tweak those using hull based bonuses. Or keep the giant mining drones but massively reduce their costs/abilities and bring mining back to the barge based systems.

But the reality of this is that we have this massively overpowered mining ship now and CCP is going to spend the next few years nerfing it into the ground - angering players in general who don't like to have the batteries taken out of their favorite toys.

Nobody likes a nerf, nobody wants things to change, and creating super weapons, super miners, super anything is always imho going to lead to the nerf bat coming out after something is released.

The anom changes are well - to be expected - since you can mine out even the colossal belt quickly and get an instant new one. No surprise there when you create a ship that can mine at the rates they now can.



The problem isn't the hull. Even reducing it to a 1bil-1.5bil hull would still leave a huge expense of A) the drones, which are running up around 1bil each, and B) the skills, which most people injected but I fortunately didn't have to resort to.

The anom changes are total bulls**t. Trying to build a mechanic to force people to move is a load of crap. As I said before, so much for "sandbox". That it comes so close to someone losing 30+ rorqs, and then moving to a system they couldn't be suprise attacked in, seems like a hell of a coincidence. Yes CCP, we know that you are once again trying to nerf Goons. I didn'f find it amusing before I joined them, I find it less so now. If the only way CCP will take us seriously is if we stop trying to use the CSM and just flood them with RL email, then so be it. To those waiting for CCP to respond to this, they don't have the balls. The ISD removing posts of people who said they will quit is to keep people from getting the idea of dropping subs en-mass. That this was posted right before the weekend was for a reason, when they get back to the office on Monday it will be 40+ pages, no way they will wade through it. Email CCP directly for a response if you think they will give you one.

Oh look, a video clip of space games that will have better graphics, devs who might listen to their players, and don't have monthly subs. I think I'll go check that out, I might be needing it soon.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#510 - 2017-06-03 11:30:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Kaidokpi wrote:
snip

Really nice math - I'd disagree with your max numbers per system though because running Colossal > Enormous > Large and repeat is NOT the most efficient way to do this.

Using your numbers, run Colossal > Large > Enormous > Large and repeat which would support 15 miners in a system



0 - 2h48 Colossal (start 5h Colossal timer)
2h48-4h13 Large (3h35 left on Col, start 2h Large)
4h13 - 6h20 Enormous (1h32 left on Col, Large respawned, start 4hr Enormous)
6h20 - 7h45 Large (7m left on Col, 2h35 left on Enorm, start 2h Large)

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Krynn Fennir
Systems High Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#511 - 2017-06-03 11:46:31 UTC
Hans Isu wrote:
what the hell haha, why nerf anomalies if rorquals are the problem, you've just ****** over hulk miners because you don't know how to balance rorquals. let me tell you something, the m3/hour isn't the problem, it's the ease of multiboxability.

do you guys even play your own game?

do you know there are guys with 50 rorquals out there?

i thought greyscale left, mining fatigue shouldn't be a thing


That's kinda obvious, so CCP is likely unaware.
Gian Hakaari
Doomheim
#512 - 2017-06-03 12:15:03 UTC
Kaidokpi wrote:
I apologize for the super long post but there's way too much whining and misinformation in this thread and not nearly enough math. Allow me to fix that.

...

4. "LOL @ Goonie tears, delve is getting nerfed!"

Sorry to ruin your narrative but we're probably the best positioned alliance to deal with these changes. It's no big secret that we mined 6.7trillion isk in April. People seem to think that because we mine so much we won't be able to find space for all our rorqs.

6.7T / 157.8mill/hour = 42,458 hours of rorq mining in delve in April.

...


A well thought out and honest post by Kaidokpi and worth reading, however the part of real interest is the last line I have included and the key points of the entire issue. As we have seen from the stats from April a grand total 6.7T was mined in Delve. A wee bit more than anywhere else no?

Even before the initial Rorqual release it was made perfectly clear that CCP would monitor the impact of these changes and make adjustments as required. They have been upfront about this from day 1 and have kept to their word with a series of balances. It was always perfectly clear in which direction these changes would go.

So I am afraid that pages and pages of Crocodile tears simply cannot wipe away these simple facts: these changes are needed and were completely to be expected.
Texas Queens
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#513 - 2017-06-03 12:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Texas Queens
Gian Hakaari wrote:

A well thought out and honest post by Kaidokpi and worth reading, however the part of real interest is the last line I have included and the key points of the entire issue. As we have seen from the stats from April a grand total 6.7T was mined in Delve. A wee bit more than anywhere else no?


Sorry for playing the game.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#514 - 2017-06-03 13:02:33 UTC
Texas Queens wrote:
Gian Hakaari wrote:

A well thought out and honest post by Kaidokpi and worth reading, however the part of real interest is the last line I have included and the key points of the entire issue. As we have seen from the stats from April a grand total 6.7T was mined in Delve. A wee bit more than anywhere else no?


Sorry for playing the game.

No-one's suggesting you stop except yourselves

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Inactive Seller
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#515 - 2017-06-03 14:12:37 UTC
Regan Rotineque wrote:
I think that mining overall has gotten too powerful - that you have made it too easy and too fast and creating one type of ship that excels way over any other combination is simply bad design choice





No, barges and exhumers are in very bad shape now

All character bazaar done. Finally 39 pilot and 3 can be killed later. This account will be used only for forum interaction, fly safe.

Sharnhorst von Deathwish
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#516 - 2017-06-03 14:13:37 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Texas Queens wrote:
Gian Hakaari wrote:

A well thought out and honest post by Kaidokpi and worth reading, however the part of real interest is the last line I have included and the key points of the entire issue. As we have seen from the stats from April a grand total 6.7T was mined in Delve. A wee bit more than anywhere else no?


Sorry for playing the game.

No-one's suggesting you stop except yourselves



She meant to say "Sorry for playing the game better than you."
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#517 - 2017-06-03 14:42:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
Sharnhorst von Deathwish wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Texas Queens wrote:
Sorry for playing the game.

No-one's suggesting you stop except yourselves

She meant to say "Sorry for playing the game better than you."

I think afk mining is stretching the term 'playing' but yes probably that's what she meant.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Curant Thanger
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#518 - 2017-06-03 15:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Curant Thanger
Kaidokpi wrote:


Assumptions used in the following calculations:
-Rorqual is fit with a t2 industrial core, 2x Drone nav comp II's, and 3x drone mining augmenter Is.
-Rorqual is assumed to be %75 efficient to account for cycle down time, travel time between rocks, and drones returning to deposit ore.



Pretty sure this isn't how most people fit their Rorquals, hence part of the problem, most people don't have the luxury of mining with 10 other rorquals for defense with supers ready to drop right around the corner. They need those 2 mid slots and usually two of those rig slots to make a balanced defense. Which is what makes these complaints, the vast majority of rorqual pilots start with lower yield than this, and it's only getting lower, but the ship still requires a minimum 8bn isk investment.

Excavators need to be cheaper.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
Dead Terrorists
#519 - 2017-06-03 15:20:01 UTC
In before goon tears...
Errr nm, i was to late Oops

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

Trevize Demerzel
#520 - 2017-06-03 15:24:04 UTC
After reading 20+ pages.... It seems there are 2 basic issues.

#1 - The huge rorq fleets in Delve mine more then what CCP wants to be mined

#2 - Those not in Delve (ie. the solo Rorq miner) are being hit really hard by this change.


Those in group 1 as can be seen by the post above won't be effected all that much, while those in group 2 are being hit hard with the hammer. Now if I read between the lines here... CCP desires to hit group 1 with the nerf bat and not group 2. It appears from the math however, that exactly the opposite is happening..

IMO - reduce the mining amount of the excavator drones and make them fly faster (not slower!) reduce the mining amount by enough to achieve what ever the desired result is. Making them fly slower just increases the already insane risk those in group 2 are already in. Also, reduce the cycle time and water usage of the industrial core. A 10bil isk glorified hulk the rorq has become and with these huge nerfs to reward the risk needs to be reduced to stay in line. Also, with the reduced cycle time it will be easier to move around in smaller belts. That will ease the pain of the [stupid] cool down timers of the anoms.

Doing a pretty good job at driving people away from the game CCP. Please reconsider...


-