These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Latest patching (Mining)

Author
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#81 - 2012-08-08 19:27:07 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yield with the Hulk my ass.... even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


*cough* hulk has more strips *cough* ccp works out the yield rates and the max yields are roughly the same *cough* idiot *hack*

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Anslo
Scope Works
#82 - 2012-08-08 19:29:29 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Tippia wrote:
…which is what the results say: 75% of the sample like PvP.


Again, along those lines of thinking, a vast majority prefer NON-PVP activity to PvP. Specifically, 70% missions, 60% mining, 60% industry. There is also no raw data indicating that those who checked off PvP actually pvp'd or just liked the idea. Also, there is no indication that the distribution of the sample for the post is accurate, making your argument poorly supported, save for a colorful graph.

Quote:
If you want to distrust the representativeness of the sample CCP picked, then that's your (or possibly CCP's) problem and has nothing to do with me.


It does when you use that representation as absolute truth when, in fact, it may very well not be.

Quote:
If you cannot grasp how the survey answers work, then that's entirely your problem and has nothing to do with either me or CCP.


In fact I believe I grasp the idea BEHIND sampling and surveying methodologies much better than you.


Forum derped and ate my post. However, that is not what that answer says, Anslo, and it is disingenuous to try to lump the four answers into 'People who like PvP' and 'People who enjoy other activities' as a binary choice, which you are doing.


My other points regarding data validity still stand, despite lumping interpretation. Until someone publishes the sample, that data can't be considered without bias.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#83 - 2012-08-08 19:30:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Anslo wrote:
Again, along those lines of thinking, a vast majority prefer NON-PVP activity to PvP.
No. Along those lines of thinking a very small minority (10%) dislike PvP and a slightly larger minority (15%) don't particularly care. The chart provides no data about preferences, only about how much each activity is enjoyed. The fact that PvP is the activity the largest number of people enjoy means that concluding that a vast majority enjoys non-PvP activities is pretty outrageous and requires some actual data to back it up. Data you don't have.

Quote:
Specifically, 70% missions, 60% mining, 60% industry.
…i.e. less than the 75% PvP gets. This makes PvP the most liked activity in EVE.

Quote:
It does when you use that representation as absolute truth
…which it is. My claim is that PvP is the most liked activity in EVE. At 75%, PvP wins that title with a 2pp margin over “nullsec” (whatever that means) and a 4pp magin over exploration.

Quote:
In fact I believe I grasp the idea BEHIND sampling and surveying methodologies much better than you.
As you have just demonstrated, no, you really don't. If you did, you wouldn't make such silly claims as saying that other activities are liked more, or that “190% of the population prefers doing things NOT related to PvP.” You are, quite literally, clueless about everything maths and statistics-related or you wouldn't be able to post such nonsense. Your continuous inability to provide any kind of facts or statistics beyond what you pull from your nether regions further reinforce this conclusion.

I'm sorry that the facts don't tell the story you wish they did, but you have to do better than failing at interpreting very simple charts to disprove them.

Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
And which, as stated, will have some mix and match. What is good for the miner is not necessarily bad for the PvPer. In fact, its relatively seperate.

I'm glad I do all four things! Gives me a lot of choice over what I want to do on any given day.
Same here. Of the activities listed, I only really dislike mining (because its horribly flawed design and mechanics) and incursions (bad for the economy and for versatility).
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#84 - 2012-08-08 19:32:09 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yeild my ass on the hulk.. even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


The ice you mine is not free. Consider doing something more profitable and buying your fuel.


I see your aptitude for economics is 2nd to your sarcasm

You must PvP for a living

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#85 - 2012-08-08 19:34:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberious Thessalonia
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yeild my ass on the hulk.. even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


The ice you mine is not free. Consider doing something more profitable and buying your fuel.


I see your aptitude for economics is 2nd to your sarcasm

You must PvP for a living


Im serious. If you are spending 9 hours a day mining fuel for your towers, you could save yourself a lot of time by buying that fuel and only spending, say... 5 hours a day running missions. You now have another 4 hours a day to do what you would like to do!

(Numbers here are made up)

Edit: Also Ha! PvP for a living? I'd never buy another ship.
Anslo
Scope Works
#86 - 2012-08-08 19:35:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
see above


See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers. For all we know, that's a survey of NC and the Goons loading in to swing something in their favor. A stretch of the imagination? Maybe, it's possible without the raw data. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.a. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Anslo
Scope Works
#87 - 2012-08-08 19:36:16 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yeild my ass on the hulk.. even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


The ice you mine is not free. Consider doing something more profitable and buying your fuel.


I see your aptitude for economics is 2nd to your sarcasm

You must PvP for a living


Im serious. If you are spending 9 hours a day mining fuel for your towers, you could save yourself a lot of time by buying that fuel and only spending, say... 5 hours a day running missions. You now have another 4 hours a day to do what you would like to do!

(Numbers here are made up)


He has a valid point, especially if you are able to run Level 5 Missions in relative security while multi boxing. You could have enough for fuel for a few weeks potentially with 5-7 hours of level 5 missions. That LP you get is beyond insane.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#88 - 2012-08-08 19:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Anslo wrote:
Tippia wrote:
see above


See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers. For all we know, that's a survey of NC and the Goons loading in to swing something in their favor. A stretch of the imagination? Maybe, it's possible without the raw data. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.a. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.


Goons make up 1% or something of the population. This survey was open the literally everyone so chances are the 99% provided more data.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#89 - 2012-08-08 19:37:45 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Tippia wrote:
see above


See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers. For all we know, that's a survey of NC and the Goons loading in to swing something in their favor. A stretch of the imagination? Maybe, it's possible without the raw data. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.a. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.


Show how it is invalidated. At the moment, it's what we've got to work with. If you have other numbers, post them.

As it stands, Im quite willing to believe that 75% of the game likes to PvP. Maybe they dont do it as a primary thing! Maybe they do! Either way, it's silly to say that the majority of the game is PvP averse until you have numbers to back yourself up.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#90 - 2012-08-08 19:38:45 UTC
Denidil wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yield with the Hulk my ass.... even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


*cough* hulk has more strips *cough* ccp works out the yield rates and the max yields are roughly the same *cough* idiot *hack*


The mack can mine as much ice as the Hulk, with just 2 strips compared to the hulks 3. [Check]

The Mackinaw gets a 1% reduction on cycle times per skill level [Check]

The Hulk gets 4% reduction per level [Check]

The mack lost a 100% Boost in yield with this patch [Check]

With all those checks.... thats still a full 80% shy of a 4th block per cycle.......

I dont give a flying rats ass that the Hulk and Mack ice yields are the same per cycle.... What I do give a crap about is the fact that I have to mine 30% longer per hour to get the same amount I used to with the old Macks.


Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Anslo
Scope Works
#91 - 2012-08-08 19:39:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Tippia wrote:
see above


See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers. For all we know, that's a survey of NC and the Goons loading in to swing something in their favor. A stretch of the imagination? Maybe, it's possible without the raw data. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.a. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.


Goons make up 1% or something of the population.


Sorry, I didn't mean to say ONLY GOONS. They just popped into my head, it's always their fault.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#92 - 2012-08-08 19:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yeild my ass on the hulk.. even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


The ice you mine is not free. Consider doing something more profitable and buying your fuel.


I see your aptitude for economics is 2nd to your sarcasm

You must PvP for a living


Im serious. If you are spending 9 hours a day mining fuel for your towers, you could save yourself a lot of time by buying that fuel and only spending, say... 5 hours a day running missions. You now have another 4 hours a day to do what you would like to do!

(Numbers here are made up)

Edit: Also Ha! PvP for a living? I'd never buy another ship.


Its 9 hours on a weekend...... not per day. The key here is that its done with massive fleets, and not by your lonesum.

I also see no point in buying something that I end up producing for next to nothing with some elbow grease.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#93 - 2012-08-08 19:41:37 UTC
Anslo wrote:
See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers.
…and as mentioned, your distrust of CCP is your problem. This are the data they collected and which they are acting on. If you want to collect “better” data, then go out and do so and see if you can get their attention.

Quote:
A stretch of the imagination?
Very much so, especially when you consider the swerve they took towards focusing on the issues that those groups are more interested in after having tried what you're asking them to try and getting a nice 10% reduction in subscription rates, a small short-term financial crisis, and a 20% reduction of staff as their only result…

Quote:
But then again, so is your interpretation.
No. It's not a stretch of the imagination. It's not even an interpretation. It's simply restating what CCP's own number says in words. It's not my data. It's theirs. What they're seeing is not what you hope, and that's too bad… for you. It's probably very good for the game.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#94 - 2012-08-08 19:41:37 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:

The mack can mine as much ice as the Hulk, with just 2 strips compared to the hulks 3. [Check]

The Mackinaw gets a 1% reduction on cycle times per skill level [Check]

The Hulk gets 4% reduction per level [Check]

The mack lost a 100% Boost in yield with this patch [Check]

With all those checks.... thats still a full 80% shy of a 4th block per cycle.......

I dont give a flying rats ass that the Hulk and Mack ice yields are the same per cycle.... What I do give a crap about is the fact that I have to mine 30% longer per hour to get the same amount I used to with the old Macks.




use the new rigs.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#95 - 2012-08-08 19:45:01 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Tippia wrote:
see above


See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers. For all we know, that's a survey of NC and the Goons loading in to swing something in their favor. A stretch of the imagination? Maybe, it's possible without the raw data. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.a. But then again, so is your interpretation. Your "data" cannot be validated.


If you need to resort to trying to invalidate the evidence, you've already lost the argument.

You aren't really very good at this, quit while you are... ermmm... not totally humiliated.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#96 - 2012-08-08 19:45:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:

The mack can mine as much ice as the Hulk, with just 2 strips compared to the hulks 3. [Check]

The Mackinaw gets a 1% reduction on cycle times per skill level [Check]

The Hulk gets 4% reduction per level [Check]

The mack lost a 100% Boost in yield with this patch [Check]

With all those checks.... thats still a full 80% shy of a 4th block per cycle.......

I dont give a flying rats ass that the Hulk and Mack ice yields are the same per cycle.... What I do give a crap about is the fact that I have to mine 30% longer per hour to get the same amount I used to with the old Macks.




use the new rigs.


I intend to.. but a 12% bonus to cycle time reduction per rig is not going to make up for that lost block per cycle....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Anslo
Scope Works
#97 - 2012-08-08 19:46:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Anslo wrote:
See my past statement. While you have data, there is no proof this data is an unbiased sample not loaded with nul sec/pirate answers.
…and as mentioned, your distrust of CCP is your problem. This are the data they collected and which they are acting on. If you want to collect “better” data, then go out and do so and see if you can get their attention.

Quote:
A stretch of the imagination?
Very much so, especially when you consider the swerve they took towards focusing on the issues that those groups are more interested in after having tried what you're asking them to try and getting a nice 10% reduction in subscription rates, a small short-term financial crisis, and a 20% reduction of staff as their only result…

Quote:
But then again, so is your interpretation.
No. It's not a stretch of the imagination. It's not even an interpretation. It's simply restating what CCP's own number says in words. It's not my data. It's theirs. What they're seeing is not what you hope, and that's too bad… for you. It's probably very good for the game.


It's a problem with you when you take that data as absolute truth. You just pick and choose what information suits your needs. If this was a full study, and I could see that there was an even distribution of polled players from newbie all the way to bitter vet nul-tard, then I'd say fine and be done with it. That would be a completely valid statistic.

But the big thing to question this is what follows, while they may LIKE to pvp and nul in the majority, why are there more people, FAR more in high sec than low and nul, where pvp is abundant. If the data were true, would we not see an abundance of players within the low and nul regions? Same can be said with the 70-odd% who like Nul. This is why I question the data. The fact that you just take it as face value makes your argument uneducated an moot.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#98 - 2012-08-08 19:48:46 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yeild my ass on the hulk.. even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


The ice you mine is not free. Consider doing something more profitable and buying your fuel.


I see your aptitude for economics is 2nd to your sarcasm

You must PvP for a living


Im serious. If you are spending 9 hours a day mining fuel for your towers, you could save yourself a lot of time by buying that fuel and only spending, say... 5 hours a day running missions. You now have another 4 hours a day to do what you would like to do!

(Numbers here are made up)

Edit: Also Ha! PvP for a living? I'd never buy another ship.


Its 9 hours on a weekend...... not per day. The key here is that its done with massive fleets, and not by your lonesum.

I also see no point in buying something that I end up producing for next to nothing with some elbow grease.


Because your time is worth nothing right? Big smile

If you can spend that same amount of time doing something that earns you more ISK than the cost of buying your fuel, you are currently LOSING money.

Unless you enjoy spending a lot of time mining... and if that is the case you have nothing to complain about.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

LeBeau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-08-08 19:49:05 UTC
Taken from the DEV Blog - http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73098

Max Yield with Rorqual fleet bonus

Ship

Veldspar/hour
Mercoxit/hour
Ice/hour

Hulk

2,035,290
3,217
85

Covetor

1,846,763
2,916
80

Mackinaw

1,761,350
2,781
79

Retriever

1,677,477
2,650
75

Skiff

1,615,918
2,557
72

Procurer

1,538,971
2,432
68


Max Yield with Orca fleet bonus

Ship
Veldspar/hour
Mercoxit/hour
Ice/hour



Hulk

1,739,139
2,749
73

Covetor

1,578,043
2,492
69

Mackinaw

1,505,059
2,377
68

Retriever

1,433,390
2,264
64

Skiff

1,380,788
2,185
61

Procurer

1,315,038
2,078
58

LeBeau

Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#100 - 2012-08-08 19:49:44 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Yea... I ran the numbers 2 nights ago and threw a tantrum across a few channels when I realized they nerfed ice mining cycle times on the mack.

To fuel my towers, my 6 hour mining fleets 4 times a month will now have to be extended to 9 hours.

And increased yeild my ass on the hulk.. even with its role bonuses and mining upgrade mods, its an estimated 50% -> 60% slower than the old mackinaw per block.


The ice you mine is not free. Consider doing something more profitable and buying your fuel.


I see your aptitude for economics is 2nd to your sarcasm

You must PvP for a living


Im serious. If you are spending 9 hours a day mining fuel for your towers, you could save yourself a lot of time by buying that fuel and only spending, say... 5 hours a day running missions. You now have another 4 hours a day to do what you would like to do!

(Numbers here are made up)

Edit: Also Ha! PvP for a living? I'd never buy another ship.


Its 9 hours on a weekend...... not per day. The key here is that its done with massive fleets, and not by your lonesum.

I also see no point in buying something that I end up producing for next to nothing with some elbow grease.


You dont produce it for next to nothing. You produce it with 9 hours of work. Im going to use minimum wage in Ontario, where I live, as an example, so your mileage may vary but...

9 hours x $10.50 an hour (last I checked) = $94.50. Thats how much your time should be worth to you. If you dont want to use real life as an example, thats fine too. Take how much you COULD be earning doing something else, and how much you would earn mining ice if you sold that ice on the market (I guarantee it's probably less). If it only takes you 5 hours to earn the ISK you would need to buy the fuel you need on the market, you should be doing that, all things being equal (By all means, if you ENJOY mining ice, go for it!)

It's called opportunity cost.