These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining barge changes [now with feedback]
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave stark
#461 - 2012-07-28 19:59:39 UTC
Unit757 wrote:

It very well could be a typo on CCP's part, because it doesn't make any sense for the covetors hold to be bigger then the hulks. IMO, with the reduction is the overall tank on all of them, and if they bump the hulk back up to 500, They will be in a pretty solid position.


very strong posibility.
Inspiration
#462 - 2012-07-28 20:03:37 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
1. being distracted is not an excuse, and if you're distracted faster cycles is going to hurt more.
2. yes you can.

what do you mean made worse, you just hit f1 and wait for the asteroid to pop. there's really nothing to micromanage.
i'd love to see your maths on that 15% by the way.

ok
1. you don't need 2 cycles of ore space
2. by having less yield and faster cycles you make the current crystal situation worse and all this micromanaging you speak of really doesn't exist.
3. the hulk isn't nerfed at all. it's yield is the same. it's fittings and bonuses are unchanged.
honestly where are you getting this **** from?

i've just seen the word micromanagement again, i give up. you seem to have made up pretty much everything in your post so far, if i wanted to read bad fiction i'd borrow a copy of 50 shades of gray.


Essentially you are telling me here, without realizing it, that you were dropped stupendously hard on your head right at birth! Need I go on?

Just log onto the test server, fit a few ships, compare results with main server and between the various ships. Also go mine anywhere for a few months to see how it really works.

Then you can come back for mining discussions as honestly no miner here will believe you ever touched one in your life!

I am serious!

Aestivalis Saidrian
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#463 - 2012-07-28 20:03:47 UTC
Unit757 wrote:

I will repeat myself again, the vast majority of PVP ships CANNOT carry every single type of ammo they have avalible to them, with the exception of amarr ships.



People use other ammo types? I mean...

Hybrids have Null/Void

Projectiles have Barrage EMP/PP/Fusion

Missiles are Scourge.

Lasers are Scorch. Maybe INMF.

Back on topic:

The Orca's untouched. As it stands, you can have a Fleet Command Ship giving bonuses and not miss the Orca at all. What?
Unit757
North Point
#464 - 2012-07-28 20:08:02 UTC
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:
Unit757 wrote:

I will repeat myself again, the vast majority of PVP ships CANNOT carry every single type of ammo they have avalible to them, with the exception of amarr ships.



People use other ammo types? I mean...

Hybrids have Null/Void

Projectiles have Barrage EMP/PP/Fusion

Missiles are Scourge.

Lasers are Scorch. Maybe INMF.

Back on topic:

The Orca's untouched. As it stands, you can have a Fleet Command Ship giving bonuses and not miss the Orca at all. What?


Was more just pointing out they cant if they wanted to, I know they rarely ever carry more then 2 types.

Quote:
Essentially you are telling me here, without realizing it, that you were dropped stupendously hard on your head right at birth! Need I go on?

Just log onto the test server, fit a few ships, compare results with main server and between the various ships. Also go mine anywhere for a few months to see how it really works.

Then you can come back for mining discussions as honestly no miner here will believe you ever touched one in your life!


How about you get your head out of your ass, and offer some constructive feedback, rather then insulting anyone who even mildly disagrees with you? If Dave got dropped on his head, then you must have fallen down a flight of stairs and hit a concrete wall.
Dave stark
#465 - 2012-07-28 20:09:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
1. being distracted is not an excuse, and if you're distracted faster cycles is going to hurt more.
2. yes you can.

what do you mean made worse, you just hit f1 and wait for the asteroid to pop. there's really nothing to micromanage.
i'd love to see your maths on that 15% by the way.

ok
1. you don't need 2 cycles of ore space
2. by having less yield and faster cycles you make the current crystal situation worse and all this micromanaging you speak of really doesn't exist.
3. the hulk isn't nerfed at all. it's yield is the same. it's fittings and bonuses are unchanged.
honestly where are you getting this **** from?

i've just seen the word micromanagement again, i give up. you seem to have made up pretty much everything in your post so far, if i wanted to read bad fiction i'd borrow a copy of 50 shades of gray.


Essentially you are telling me here, without realizing it, that you were dropped stupendously hard on your head right at birth! Need I go on?

Just log onto the test server, fit a few ships, compare results with main server and between the various ships. Also go mine anywhere for a few months to see how it really works.

Then you can come back for mining discussions as honestly no miner here will believe you ever touched one in your life!

considering i'm one of the 3 people who in this thread worked out the new ice mining yields... try again

my point; if you missed it, which i'm sure you did... is that when i present a number i back it up with calculations rather than just making it appear out of thin air.
Inspiration
#466 - 2012-07-28 20:19:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Unit757 wrote:
ITT - lazy miners want max yield/easy mode hulk.
Quote:
Please change the Hulks Exhumer 3% ore yield bonus into a 3% reduced cycle time and capacitor use (like how it works with ice mining). Without this change for many detailed reasons, using the Hulk over a Mackinaw does not make a whole lot of sense.

Yes that includes its described role too!

You have orca bonuses for that, use it. Hulks bonuses are fine.


You fail at practical math application as you seem to miss every intrinsic consequence of such a change.

It keeps the theoretical output of the ship the same as it now on TQ, but it reduces the gap between theoretical and practical output., so the difference becomes meaningful. As such it is beneficial in a way the Orca is not...the Orca just compounds the problem by speeding the cycles up, thus creating a micromanaging hazard.

The hulk needs to have a real positive distinctive feature or else it won't be any better (in fact worse) then the Mackinaw which has clear, big advantages.


mining really doesn't have any micromanaging other than making sure lasers are on, and drones are on the closest asteroid. if the micromanaging was even remotely an issue it wouldn't even be considered the most afkable activity in eve.


Considered by whom?
People that never did never did any mining at all?


Simple exercise, bear with me, this is mining lesson 1...you up for it rookie?

1. A rock has 11750 Veldspar in it
2. Per cycle, you extract 16000 velspar
3. Your cycle time is 3 minues.

Questions:

1. After how much time is it a good idea to switch off the strip miner and activate it on the next rock?
2. If you wait the full 3 minutes, how much yield per minute did you just downgrade your Hulk to?

Ore mining does not equal Ice mining, where there the ice cubes are essentially endless and always of identical size.
With Ore mining if let alone you sometimes waste a full cycle just to gain 63 units of Veldspar!

That is, if you do not monitor your progress using a scanner and keep track of how much the rocks have left, and that for multiple accounts obviously, else mining is a dumb thing to do.

Not seeing the micro-management and thinking its is an AFK profession, just means one of four things:

1. Your a troll.
2. Your head was hit hard at birth when you dropped from the stairway (not your fault).
3. You never mined at all.
4. You mined, but are extremely bad at it.
5. You could obviously just be plain stupid (not your fault either).

Why are you even posting here, when you obviously know nothing at all about the intricacies of mining?
Let alone, why are you even arguing with people if you know you know nothing about mining?

I am serious!

Inspiration
#467 - 2012-07-28 20:26:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
1. being distracted is not an excuse, and if you're distracted faster cycles is going to hurt more.
2. yes you can.

what do you mean made worse, you just hit f1 and wait for the asteroid to pop. there's really nothing to micromanage.
i'd love to see your maths on that 15% by the way.

ok
1. you don't need 2 cycles of ore space
2. by having less yield and faster cycles you make the current crystal situation worse and all this micromanaging you speak of really doesn't exist.
3. the hulk isn't nerfed at all. it's yield is the same. it's fittings and bonuses are unchanged.
honestly where are you getting this **** from?

i've just seen the word micromanagement again, i give up. you seem to have made up pretty much everything in your post so far, if i wanted to read bad fiction i'd borrow a copy of 50 shades of gray.


Essentially you are telling me here, without realizing it, that you were dropped stupendously hard on your head right at birth! Need I go on?

Just log onto the test server, fit a few ships, compare results with main server and between the various ships. Also go mine anywhere for a few months to see how it really works.

Then you can come back for mining discussions as honestly no miner here will believe you ever touched one in your life!

considering i'm one of the 3 people who in this thread worked out the new ice mining yields... try again

my point; if you missed it, which i'm sure you did... is that when i present a number i back it up with calculations rather than just making it appear out of thin air.


No, your just indulge yourself (and others) with you assumptions. If you want to know how it will be, go to the test server and measure....that is what you will get, not what your own match tells you. By arguing math explanations, you just turn the discussion into a long winded distraction.

Of course it can always be that the test server is incorrect and you found a bug (there is one i know of), but when that version is moved to the live server, it won't suddenly behave according to your math. Hence making your demand for formulas pointless.

I am serious!

Dave stark
#468 - 2012-07-28 20:27:31 UTC
Inspiration wrote:

Considered by whom?
People that never did never did any mining at all?


Simple exercise, bear with me, this is mining lesson 1...you up for it rookie?

1. A rock has 11750 Veldspar in it
2. Per cycle, you extract 16000 velspar
3. Your cycle time is 3 minues.

Questions:

1. After how much time is it a good idea to switch off the strip miner and activate it on the next rock?
2. If you wait the full 3 minutes, how much yield per minute did you just downgrade your Hulk to?

Ore mining does not equal Ice mining, where there the ice cubes are essentially endless and always of identical size.
With Ore mining if let alone you sometimes waste a full cycle just to gain 63 units of Veldspar!

That is, if you do not monitor your progress using a scanner and keep track of how much the rocks have left, and that for multiple accounts obviously, else mining is a dumb thing to do.

Not seeing the micro-management and thinking its is an AFK profession, just means one of four things:

1. Your a troll.
2. Your head was hit hard at birth when you dropped from the stairway (not your fault).
3. You never mined at all.
4. You mined, but are extremely bad at it.
5. You could obviously just be plain stupid (not your fault either).

Why are you even posting here, when you obviously know nothing at all about the intricacies of mining?
Let alone, why are you even arguing with people if you know you know nothing about mining?


your attempts at being condescending are cute.
i'm not doing your maths for you; if you can't do it yourself stop throwing out made up numbers.
also even if you do know the exact moment when you *should* turn off your mining lasers, in practice you'll never do it.

"must be 1 of 4 options" *lists 5 options* and there's my confirmation that your maths is all bollocks; you can't even count to 5 properly.

why am i posting here? i've already contributed more in this thread than you have. i clearly know more than you about mining based on the fact that i can actually do the maths that the subject is based on.
please; stop projecting.
Dave stark
#469 - 2012-07-28 20:29:29 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
1. being distracted is not an excuse, and if you're distracted faster cycles is going to hurt more.
2. yes you can.

what do you mean made worse, you just hit f1 and wait for the asteroid to pop. there's really nothing to micromanage.
i'd love to see your maths on that 15% by the way.

ok
1. you don't need 2 cycles of ore space
2. by having less yield and faster cycles you make the current crystal situation worse and all this micromanaging you speak of really doesn't exist.
3. the hulk isn't nerfed at all. it's yield is the same. it's fittings and bonuses are unchanged.
honestly where are you getting this **** from?

i've just seen the word micromanagement again, i give up. you seem to have made up pretty much everything in your post so far, if i wanted to read bad fiction i'd borrow a copy of 50 shades of gray.


Essentially you are telling me here, without realizing it, that you were dropped stupendously hard on your head right at birth! Need I go on?

Just log onto the test server, fit a few ships, compare results with main server and between the various ships. Also go mine anywhere for a few months to see how it really works.

Then you can come back for mining discussions as honestly no miner here will believe you ever touched one in your life!

considering i'm one of the 3 people who in this thread worked out the new ice mining yields... try again

my point; if you missed it, which i'm sure you did... is that when i present a number i back it up with calculations rather than just making it appear out of thin air.


No, your just indulge yourself (and others) with you assumptions. If you want to know how it will be, go to the test server and measure....that is what you will get, not what your own match tells you. By arguing math explanations, you just turn the discussion into a long winded distraction.

Of course it can always be that the test server is incorrect and you found a bug (there is one i know of), but when that version is moved to the live server, it won't suddenly behave according to your math. Hence making your demand for formulas pointless.


it's only an assumption until it's proven, which it was proven by the fact that two other people also got the same results as me.
except, we didn't find a bug. the maths matched the reality. having the formulas proves whether it is or is not a bug as the maths will match reality or it won't.
Inspiration
#470 - 2012-07-28 20:37:26 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
your attempts at being condescending are cute.
i'm not doing your maths for you; if you can't do it yourself stop throwing out made up numbers.
also even if you do know the exact moment when you *should* turn off your mining lasers, in practice you'll never do it.

"must be 1 of 4 options" *lists 5 options* and there's my confirmation that your maths is all bollocks; you can't even count to 5 properly.

why am i posting here? i've already contributed more in this thread than you have. i clearly know more than you about mining based on the fact that i can actually do the maths that the subject is based on.
please; stop projecting.


Your absolutely delusional in your response....you are not contributing anything in our discussion, that is for sure. All you done and continue to do is ignore facts and then throw even more sand.

And i got news for you, this subject is NOT about math, time to widen your world view and deal with practical matters for a change. You seem to live in a theoretical world, full with assumptions about me being lazy and not turning of my miners to keep as efficient as possible for example. In fact, your approach completely ignores the possibility and its effects. Yet you still claim to have proven you know more about mining.

You are like an EFT warrior claiming to know how to win every fight as his math (as done by EFT) dictates his solution has the highest tank and gank numbers possible. Yet still dies in the first 40 seconds of a dual, never having a chance in hell.

That is what you can do with math!

I am serious!

Dave stark
#471 - 2012-07-28 20:44:57 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
your attempts at being condescending are cute.
i'm not doing your maths for you; if you can't do it yourself stop throwing out made up numbers.
also even if you do know the exact moment when you *should* turn off your mining lasers, in practice you'll never do it.

"must be 1 of 4 options" *lists 5 options* and there's my confirmation that your maths is all bollocks; you can't even count to 5 properly.

why am i posting here? i've already contributed more in this thread than you have. i clearly know more than you about mining based on the fact that i can actually do the maths that the subject is based on.
please; stop projecting.


Your absolutely delusional in your response....you are not contributing anything in our discussion, that is for sure. All you done and continue to do is ignore facts and then throw even more sand.

And i got news for you, this subject is NOT about math, time to widen your world view and deal with practical matters for a change. You seem to live in a theoretical world, full with assumptions about me being lazy and not turning of my miners to keep as efficient as possible for example. In fact, your approach completely ignores the possibility and its effects. Yet you still claim to have proven you know more about mining.

You are like an EFT warrior claiming to know how to win every fight as his math (as done by EFT) dictates his solution has the highest tank and gank numbers possible. Yet still dies in the first 40 seconds of a dual, never having a chance in hell.

That is what you can do with math!



it was past tense; reading is as good as your maths i see.
when your argument was based around % values that you didn't back up; and still haven't backed up. then yes, it is about maths. you made it that way.

oh please, i do consider the practical applications. however going "i will dock up less in a mackinaw" means nothing unless you know how many times you dock up, how long that will take, etc so you can calculate [woops, more maths again] which ship is truly more viable. for example for short sessions the mackinaw is superior to the hulk, however if you've got an orca that you can use to haul and you're able to stay out in the belt for a couple of hours the hulk becomes the highest yield ship even when solo mining regardless of the mackinaw's logistical bonus.

we're not talking about fights that have random variables such as human responses; it's mining where a rock has x ore and my ship mines y yield. there's no variables to consider that don't have a quantity. some are harder to measure than others; but they are measurable.

anyway; care to contribute to the thread rather than making a fool of yourself?
Unit757
North Point
#472 - 2012-07-28 20:48:54 UTC
Dave, either Inspiration is really, really, REALLY dumb, or you are being trolled. Either way, it's time to move on ;)
Dave stark
#473 - 2012-07-28 20:49:38 UTC
Unit757 wrote:
Dave, either Inspiration is really, really, REALLY dumb, or you are being trolled. Either way, it's time to move on ;)

but i pity trolls, it's not often they get out from under their bridge.
Inspiration
#474 - 2012-07-28 20:57:49 UTC
Here some facts with screen dumps so you can comprehend it too!

Hulk, dual with dual MLU: http://clip2net.com/s/29Ryz

Every 3 minutes, 3 x 1593 m3 = 4779 m3 theoretical peak


Mackinaw with tripple MLU: http://clip2net.com/s/29Rz1

Every 3 minutes, 2 x 2068 m3 = 4136 m3 theoretical peak


Both fits can use 5 T2 mining drones on top of these yields, and given they mine just as fast/good on each ship the percentage difference would be skewed to a smaller number if included. We are just going to compare the strip miner numbers here.

4779 / 4136 = 1.1554 = 15.54% more theoretical output on the strip miners on the hulk in a perfect world.

Since all fleet bonuses are just percentages and both ships are affected identical the difference expressed in percentage after bonuses applied, remain the same. The you got where the number comes from!

I am serious!

Dave stark
#475 - 2012-07-28 21:04:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Inspiration wrote:
Here some facts with screen dumps so you can comprehend it too!

Hulk, dual with dual MLU: http://clip2net.com/s/29Ryz

Every 3 minutes, 3 x 1593 m3 = 4779 m3 theoretical peak


Mackinaw with tripple MLU: http://clip2net.com/s/29Rz1

Every 3 minutes, 2 x 2068 m3 = 4136 m3 theoretical peak


Both fits can use 5 T2 mining drones on top of these yields, and given they mine just as fast/good on each ship the percentage difference would be skewed to a smaller number if included. We are just going to compare the strip miner numbers here.

4779 / 4136 = 1.1554 = 15.54% more theoretical output on the strip miners on the hulk in a perfect world.

Since all fleet bonuses are just percentages and both ships are affected identical the difference expressed in percentage after bonuses applied, remain the same. The you got where the number comes from!


very nice but your 15% was referenced to your idea of changing the yield bonus to a cycle time bonus, not comparing one ship to another.
Inspiration wrote:
Changing the bonus will accomplish three things:
[snip]
2. By having less yield per cycle, but faster cycles, the potential for wasted cycles and the need to micromanage a lot just to come close to theoretical max yield is reduced by 15%.[snip]



could you proof read and make sure you're actually being coherent before hitting "post" please?
Inspiration
#476 - 2012-07-28 21:10:47 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
it was past tense; reading is as good as your maths i see.
when your argument was based around % values that you didn't back up; and still haven't backed up. then yes, it is about maths. you made it that way.

oh please, i do consider the practical applications. however going "i will dock up less in a mackinaw" means nothing unless you know how many times you dock up, how long that will take, etc so you can calculate [woops, more maths again] which ship is truly more viable. for example for short sessions the mackinaw is superior to the hulk, however if you've got an orca that you can use to haul and you're able to stay out in the belt for a couple of hours the hulk becomes the highest yield ship even when solo mining regardless of the mackinaw's logistical bonus.

we're not talking about fights that have random variables such as human responses; it's mining where a rock has x ore and my ship mines y yield. there's no variables to consider that don't have a quantity. some are harder to measure than others; but they are measurable.

anyway; care to contribute to the thread rather than making a fool of yourself?


No, there is nothing we can measure about real rock status on the live server. It changes every day and hence the importance to reason in concepts as well as numbers. Most reasoning can be perfectly done without numbers, in fact nearly all reasoning is done without any numbers as all in our life.

In the meantime I posted the details where that 15.5% came from, and if you had the will to be constructive, you would have immediately understood where i was coming from. Just like another did when I explained in excruciating detail why the Mackinaw is so much better and the Hulk not really a fleet ship like they intended it to be.

You pretty much ignored me at every step of the way, just acting more ignorant after every post. If you trying to make up for that now, fine, but realize you never even tried to understand anything i wrote. This makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about, and i stand by that.

If you cannot take the heat, don't ignite the fire!

I am serious!

Dave stark
#477 - 2012-07-28 21:20:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
it was past tense; reading is as good as your maths i see.
when your argument was based around % values that you didn't back up; and still haven't backed up. then yes, it is about maths. you made it that way.

oh please, i do consider the practical applications. however going "i will dock up less in a mackinaw" means nothing unless you know how many times you dock up, how long that will take, etc so you can calculate [woops, more maths again] which ship is truly more viable. for example for short sessions the mackinaw is superior to the hulk, however if you've got an orca that you can use to haul and you're able to stay out in the belt for a couple of hours the hulk becomes the highest yield ship even when solo mining regardless of the mackinaw's logistical bonus.

we're not talking about fights that have random variables such as human responses; it's mining where a rock has x ore and my ship mines y yield. there's no variables to consider that don't have a quantity. some are harder to measure than others; but they are measurable.

anyway; care to contribute to the thread rather than making a fool of yourself?


No, there is nothing we can measure about real rock status on the live server. It changes every day and hence the importance to reason in concepts as well as numbers. Most reasoning can be perfectly done without numbers, in fact nearly all reasoning is done without any numbers as all in our life.

In the meantime I posted the details where that 15.5% came from, and if you had the will to be constructive, you would have immediately understood where i was coming from. Just like another did when I explained in excruciating detail why the Mackinaw is so much better and the Hulk not really a fleet ship like they intended it to be.

You pretty much ignored me at every step of the way, just acting more ignorant after every post. If you trying to make up for that now, fine, but realize you never even tried to understand anything i wrote. This makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about, and i stand by that.

If you cannot take the heat, don't ignite the fire!


yes, there is. magical module called a survey scanner. you know exactly how much has respawned. you can measure it.
reasoning is not proving.
actually, it's not. there's a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to it, it's called statistics. just because you can't use maths to back up your arguments doesn't mean it holds true for intelligent people.

no, you didn't post where the 15% came from. as i pointed out.
i would have understood where you were coming from if your posts weren't as coherent as a woman in a shoe sale.
you haven't put any detail in a single post yet.

i haven't ignored anything; most of it simply doesn't make sense so there's no way to respond to it.
i tried very hard, but it was full of unsupported claims that came from nowhere and things that were just plain incorrect.

if this is an ignited fire, i want a refund on the firewood. it's not even warm in here.
anyway, stop posting. this is about new mining barges not your short comings.
Inspiration
#478 - 2012-07-28 21:27:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Dave stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Here some facts with screen dumps so you can comprehend it too!

Hulk, dual with dual MLU: http://clip2net.com/s/29Ryz

Every 3 minutes, 3 x 1593 m3 = 4779 m3 theoretical peak


Mackinaw with tripple MLU: http://clip2net.com/s/29Rz1

Every 3 minutes, 2 x 2068 m3 = 4136 m3 theoretical peak


Both fits can use 5 T2 mining drones on top of these yields, and given they mine just as fast/good on each ship the percentage difference would be skewed to a smaller number if included. We are just going to compare the strip miner numbers here.

4779 / 4136 = 1.1554 = 15.54% more theoretical output on the strip miners on the hulk in a perfect world.

Since all fleet bonuses are just percentages and both ships are affected identical the difference expressed in percentage after bonuses applied, remain the same. The you got where the number comes from!


very nice but your 15% was referenced to your idea of changing the yield bonus to a cycle time bonus, not comparing one ship to another.
Inspiration wrote:
Changing the bonus will accomplish three things:
[snip]
2. By having less yield per cycle, but faster cycles, the potential for wasted cycles and the need to micromanage a lot just to come close to theoretical max yield is reduced by 15%.[snip]



could you proof read and make sure you're actually being coherent before hitting "post" please?


Oh, that 15%...I been making many posts, mostly about how little reason there is to use a Hulk over the Mackinaw given the advantages of the Mackinaw and the small difference in yield, that is even theoretical. The change I propose is to make the theoretical difference more real.

As for the 15% in this particular context, it is the current yield bonus of 3% multiplied by 5 levels I want to see changed. If you mine 15% less per cycle (in which the loss can occur due to not enough ore in the rock for a full cycle), then the maximum potential loss is reduced by 15% as well. Say there was only one unit of Veldspar and you run a full cycle to get it, but your cycles are faster and have 15% less yield, then your loss is 15% less, assuming your not AFK. The number changes as the percentage of the actual m3 of ore left in relation to the yield per cycle.

If you would have say 64 m3 ore per cycle and a matching cycle time and activation cost, there would be next to zero loss! Again, provided you put the miner to good work after that and are not AFK.

A bit of trying to understand would've have come a long way, don;t you think?
Reading it back, i do not even think i worded it wrong actually.

I am serious!

Dave stark
#479 - 2012-07-28 21:39:10 UTC
all you do by reducing cycle time is increase crystal consumption, though.
it's easier to avoid potential loss with longer cycles as you're more likely to cancel the cycle closer to when you need to cancel it if you're not doing a full cycle. at least, i find it easier to judge when to stop a strip miner than a miner I.
faster cycles are only more efficient if you are afk and aren't bothering to manually cancel cycles if a roid is about to pop.

for example, if there was 1 unit of veld left and i had a 3 min cycle and a 1min cycle, the 1 min cycle would finish sooner so i'd have my laser shooting a full asteroid sooner. this change simply benefits afk people and burns through crystals which is already a problem. there's no reason to go against how the entire system is currently built for a needless and almost non existent "bonus" for afkers.
Inspiration
#480 - 2012-07-28 21:45:31 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
it was past tense; reading is as good as your maths i see.
when your argument was based around % values that you didn't back up; and still haven't backed up. then yes, it is about maths. you made it that way.

oh please, i do consider the practical applications. however going "i will dock up less in a mackinaw" means nothing unless you know how many times you dock up, how long that will take, etc so you can calculate [woops, more maths again] which ship is truly more viable. for example for short sessions the mackinaw is superior to the hulk, however if you've got an orca that you can use to haul and you're able to stay out in the belt for a couple of hours the hulk becomes the highest yield ship even when solo mining regardless of the mackinaw's logistical bonus.

we're not talking about fights that have random variables such as human responses; it's mining where a rock has x ore and my ship mines y yield. there's no variables to consider that don't have a quantity. some are harder to measure than others; but they are measurable.

anyway; care to contribute to the thread rather than making a fool of yourself?


No, there is nothing we can measure about real rock status on the live server. It changes every day and hence the importance to reason in concepts as well as numbers. Most reasoning can be perfectly done without numbers, in fact nearly all reasoning is done without any numbers as all in our life.

In the meantime I posted the details where that 15.5% came from, and if you had the will to be constructive, you would have immediately understood where i was coming from. Just like another did when I explained in excruciating detail why the Mackinaw is so much better and the Hulk not really a fleet ship like they intended it to be.

You pretty much ignored me at every step of the way, just acting more ignorant after every post. If you trying to make up for that now, fine, but realize you never even tried to understand anything i wrote. This makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about, and i stand by that.

If you cannot take the heat, don't ignite the fire!


yes, there is. magical module called a survey scanner. you know exactly how much has respawned. you can measure it.
reasoning is not proving.
actually, it's not. there's a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to it, it's called statistics. just because you can't use maths to back up your arguments doesn't mean it holds true for intelligent people.

no, you didn't post where the 15% came from. as i pointed out.
i would have understood where you were coming from if your posts weren't as coherent as a woman in a shoe sale.
you haven't put any detail in a single post yet.

i haven't ignored anything; most of it simply doesn't make sense so there's no way to respond to it.
i tried very hard, but it was full of unsupported claims that came from nowhere and things that were just plain incorrect.

if this is an ignited fire, i want a refund on the firewood. it's not even warm in here.
anyway, stop posting. this is about new mining barges not your short comings.


You are just insulting here, not the real intelligent person you claim to be in this post. Again you write a lot of nonsense statements and even more blames. Fact is, that you simply did not have any intuition with the numbers, if you understood the concept, the 3*5 would have directly hit you in the context it was provided.

Now you are attempting to shift your own failure at meaningful reading on me being not clear enough for you. Bringing in statistics and survey scanner on top of it is just a distraction to have something of an argument for arguments sake. Point is, you cannot scan every rock out here and build up some reliable statistics, nor can i. There are too many variables involved and time is one of them. All we know for sure from experience is that rocks come not in perfect bites!!! So just keep it out of the discussion, let alone use it to elevate yourself to intelligence godhood or something special and better then me.

Wake up...stop being ignorant, stop pretending your the epic part of humanity in this discussion...you made an error, so pardon me if I take insult to you pinning it on me!

I am serious!