These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Ore. Simplified.

Author
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#1 - 2012-09-17 00:15:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
I would like to suggest simplification of a system in order to streamline out some complexity which has no function. Right now, when we mine ore, every ore has a different volume per unit. Additionally, different ores require different numbers of units of ore in order to refine them, however, our mining lasers and drones mine ore based solely on volume and our ships carry ore solely based on volume.

There's built in confusion here that serves no purpose. I suspect that the complexity of the ore system is related to some sort of planned feature that never actually got implemented.

What I would suggest is that the entire ore measurement system get drastically simplified:

1) Instead of each single unit of ore being (x) cubic meters, make the standard measure of every ore 1m3.
2) Instead of each ore having a different volume requirement for refining, make the minimum refining volume 100m3 for all ores.
3) Keep the refining numbers per m3 of ore the same as they give per m3 now.

For example:

Veldspar is normally 0.1m3 per unit. It would instead be 1m3 per unit.
Veldspar normally requires 333 units to refine. It would instead require 100 unit. 100m3.
A refining unit of Veldspar is currently 333 units at 0.1m3 each, so 33.3m3. The output from 100m3 of refined Veldspar would be 3x of the output from an old 333 unit chunk of Veldspar.

You might ask: "Why make this change" The simple answer is that it's simply a pruning of unnecessary complexity. I have been around, off and on, for a long time. I cannot count the number of times I've heard miners grumbling about all the math we have to juggle in our head when we are trying to estimate the values of our mixed yield mining. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I've had to explain to new players how the ore volume / refining process works.

Don't change ANY of the functional output from miners. Simply change the way it's presented to the players. An Iteron V full of 33,000 m3 of Veldspar with current units should yield exactly the same as an Iteron V full of 33,000 m3 of Veldspar with proposed 1m3 units.

The difference, is elegance, efficiency, and clarity.

I edited this to change the minimum refining value to 100m3 because is does make sense to have some sort of rational limit on the volume of ore that a refiner would want to process.

There has been extensive complaining about how ugly a lookup table would be for this system, so I made a sample, which is decidedly NOT ugly. If fact it's cleaner and more elegant than any other EVE lookup table I've ever seen because it ignores the completely unnecessary oddball volumetric and refinery limitations junk and concentrates on meaningful data. I might have made some math errors. I used rough current mineral values in Domain on 18SEP2012

http://tinypic.com/m/ftfrrm/2

Paikis brought up a point that does need to be covered. The freakishness of ore volume contortions sometimes yields good opportunities for arbitrage. Some noob makes a wrong calculation and thinks that the open order for veldspar for *input stupid price here* is a great deal, and sells their whole day's yield at a quarter of the value.

This is great for the predator trader, and bad for the noob. Simplifying the ore system would have the side effect of making this sort of arbitrage on ore less likely. However, with all of the much more experienced miner/industrialists out there who know how to mine and know how to build, but have no clue how to price goods, well, the arbitrage market is not going away any time soon. It might shift a bit away from ore handling though.

I don't think that the loss of a few potential profits for traders at the expense of miner noobs is worth preserving the current system of ore handling. It is a valid concern worth considering though, so I wanted to at least mention it here.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#2 - 2012-09-17 00:50:44 UTC
I like this idea, +1

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt

Dennis Gregs
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-09-17 02:02:40 UTC
I believe this does add unnecessary complexity to new miners, so I support this thread.
kerradeph
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-09-17 02:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: kerradeph
Cheopis wrote:

1) Instead of each single unit of ore being (x) cubic meters, make the standard measure of every ore 1m3.
2) Instead of each ore having a different minimal refining value, make the minimum refining amount 1m3.
3) Adjust the refining numbers so that every m3 of ore mined yields exactly the same minerals that they give per m3 now.

yes on the first point, but leave the refining amounts effectively where they are. so it would be that you need equal M³ worth of ore as you do now (rounded to the nearest 1). that would make it something like this:
Veldspar 33 M³
Scordite 50 M³
Pyroxeres 100 M³
Plagioclase 117 M³
Omber 300 M³
Kernite 480 M³
Jaspet 1,000 M³
Hedbergite 1,500 M³
Hemorphite 1,500 M³
Gneiss 2,000 M³
Dark Ochre 3,200 M³
Arkonor 3,200 M³
Bistot 3,200 M³
Crokite 4,000 M³
Spodumain 4,000 M³
Mercoxit 10,000 M³

all the information for that was taken from here

EDIT: actually, looking at that, it would seem most of those are nice clean numbers, so what they could do is round to some other cleaner number on veld and plag and just rebalance the minerals on those to make sense since those are still fairly easy to move around without breaking too much. so they could do something like veld is a 25M³ refine and plag is a 125M³ or a 100M³ refine.
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#5 - 2012-09-17 02:51:56 UTC
Kerradeph, while your method would certainly reduce some complexity, it also seems to keep some unnecessary complexity.

What is the purpose of requiring different volumes to refine?

If you think that 1m3 to refine is too little, then maybe make it 100m3, or 1000m3?

I'd still argue to keep the m3 for refining the same for every ore.




King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#6 - 2012-09-17 03:05:35 UTC
Supported, also see no reason why you shouldn't be able to refine just a single unit.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-09-17 03:15:53 UTC
It doesn't change game mechanics and increases the gaming experience! + Attention "this is a job for the papercut team"

although the change on refining must be studied!
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#8 - 2012-09-17 04:18:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
King Rothgar wrote:
Supported, also see no reason why you shouldn't be able to refine just a single unit.


I actually like the little stacks of ore left over after refining (they help me remember which station to go to) so I wouldn't want to completely eliminate them. Saying that, however, there's no reason why you couldn't make the number of m3 of ore to refine very low. 5m3 ?

1m3 might just be "Too Clean" since it's the smallest unit of measure for ore, that would mean perfect use* of ore.


*Not to be confused with perfect refining...
Pipa Porto
#9 - 2012-09-17 06:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Arkonor produces
.09375 Tritanium per 1 m3
.051875 Zydrine per 1 m3
.1040625 Megacyte per 1 m3

Mercoxit produces
.053 Morphite per 1 m3

To show that I'm not picking on the high end ores,

Kernite produces
.804166(repeating) Tritanium per 1 m3
1.6104166(repeating) Mexallon per 1 m3
.804166(repeating) Isogen per 1 m3

How do you propose to deal with ores that produce less than 1 unit of mineral per m3 of ore? If we ignore the 1 m3 proposal, how do you propose to deal with ores that produce less than 1 unit of mineral per unit of ore (like Ark with Zydrine)?

If you round down, you'll cause many people to have to calculate how many units to put in the stack they want to refine to avoid losing material. If you round up, you'll allow people to generate a vast amount of extra minerals simply by refining one unit at a time.

Given that the refining interface does all the math for you, the average user is entirely unaffected by the minimums and such (besides the small stacks of ore that remain after a refining job).

Now for a short history lesson to explain why Ore Sizes and Batch Sizes exist:

When the world was young *ahem* When EVE was released, there were no strip miners, only various flavors of Miner modules. Harder to acquire ores were designed to be extracted less efficiently (or not at all) by the miners of lower skilled pilots (if your yield is 79m3 per cycle and the ore's block size is 40m3 you only get 1 block per cycle, if your yield is 32m3 per cycle and the ore's block size is 40m3 you get squat). The problem with this is that CCP didn't necessarily want the minerals yielded by the ore to have the relationship with the size of the ore that a whole number relationship between ore units and mineral units would entail (see above about rounding and the problems that causes). So CCP decided on a ratio of minerals to ore that they liked and found some common multiplier to allow a batch of ore to always produce a whole number of minerals(including 5% and 10% ores).


PS: Take a look at your mining module's yield per cycle. It's almost certainly not a whole number. If CCP implemented this change, you'd produce less ore than you do now for any ore with a non-whole number size, as any amount of yield that doesn't produce a full block is wasted.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#10 - 2012-09-17 07:22:09 UTC
Good points Pipa, please consider this response:


I would suggest always rounding down for all refining jobs. You will never lose more than 1 of anything in any refining batch. If you are refining 1m3 500 times that's painful. If you are refining a LOT m3 once, it's negligible.

I'd give up less than 1 of each mineral for any size refining job in order to have a more elegant and simple ore handling system.



As for the 1m3 yields being broken up, that's simple to fix:

If you would normally mine, say, 1000.5 m3 per cycle, you have a 50% chance on every full cycle to get 1001 ore, and a 50% chance to get 1000 ore. Statistics takes care of the rest.
Pipa Porto
#11 - 2012-09-17 07:40:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Cheopis wrote:
Good points Pipa, please consider this response:


I would suggest always rounding down for all refining jobs. You will never lose more than 1 of anything in any refining batch. If you are refining 1m3 500 times that's painful. If you are refining a LOT m3 once, it's negligible.

I'd give up less than 1 of each mineral for any size refining job in order to have a more elegant and simple ore handling system.


It's two (maybe 3, I forget if there's a confirm button) mouse clicks. What could be more simple or elegant?

The interface does all the math for you. You don't have to do any.

As for deciding which Ore to mine to maximize your income, if you're unwilling to do some arithmetic (or look at a simple 3rd party chart) to maximize your income, maybe EVE Online: Spredsheets In Space isn't the right game for you.

Quote:

As for the 1m3 yields being broken up, that's simple to fix:

If you would normally mine, say, 1000.5 m3 per cycle, you have a 50% chance on every full cycle to get 1001 ore, and a 50% chance to get 1000 ore. Statistics takes care of the rest.


That's ignoring the reason that ores have sizes in the first place. You're supposed to only get 1 block of Mercoxit when you're running a Miner 1 with a nominal yield of 79m3/cycle. Your drones are supposed to have the same issues with regards to larger ores. I grant that, with the introduction of Mining Barges and their Strip miners, that concern has faded in importance, but the same thing applies to them. You will mine fewer M3 of a large ore than you would of Veldspar because the size results in wasted capacity. This is intentional.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#12 - 2012-09-17 09:54:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Good points Pipa, please consider this response:


I would suggest always rounding down for all refining jobs. You will never lose more than 1 of anything in any refining batch. If you are refining 1m3 500 times that's painful. If you are refining a LOT m3 once, it's negligible.

I'd give up less than 1 of each mineral for any size refining job in order to have a more elegant and simple ore handling system.


It's two (maybe 3, I forget if there's a confirm button) mouse clicks. What could be more simple or elegant?

The interface does all the math for you. You don't have to do any.

As for deciding which Ore to mine to maximize your income, if you're unwilling to do some arithmetic (or look at a simple 3rd party chart) to maximize your income, maybe EVE Online: Spredsheets In Space isn't the right game for you.

Quote:

As for the 1m3 yields being broken up, that's simple to fix:

If you would normally mine, say, 1000.5 m3 per cycle, you have a 50% chance on every full cycle to get 1001 ore, and a 50% chance to get 1000 ore. Statistics takes care of the rest.


That's ignoring the reason that ores have sizes in the first place. You're supposed to only get 1 block of Mercoxit when you're running a Miner 1 with a nominal yield of 79m3/cycle. Your drones are supposed to have the same issues with regards to larger ores. I grant that, with the introduction of Mining Barges and their Strip miners, that concern has faded in importance, but the same thing applies to them. You will mine fewer M3 of a large ore than you would of Veldspar because the size results in wasted capacity. This is intentional.


When a new player is trying to learn how to play the game and is bombarded with all of the utterly meaningless absurdity involved in ore calculations it's only a bad thing. There is enough complexity that actually holds value and means something EVE already. No good whatsoever can come from having an unnecessarily obtuse resource gathering system. Us older miners that float around and pull nearly 6000 m3 per cycle in our exhumers don't really care about the numbers. We've been doing it long enough that all we need to know is the rough price of minerals and we know what to mine. For new players it's a completely different scenario. They are trying to figure out how to make money, or how to get the right number of minerals to build a cruiser, or whatever. The obnoxious structure of the current mining and refining systems only drives new, potential miners and builders away.

Additionally, if CCP values the wastage inherent in weird sized blocks of ore, then don't do the statistical calculations, just allow the wastage as designed. It would certainly be very possible to create additional waste while still maintaining non-maddening units of ore measurement.
Sigras
Conglomo
#13 - 2012-09-17 09:57:22 UTC
youre forgetting that the complexity does serve a purpose.

Since the lasers round down to the nearest whole unit of ore, it changes the efficiency of different lasers against different rocks.

For instance, 3 miner 2s mine the same amount as one strip miner 1 on paper, but when mining arkonor, which is 16 m^3, the miner 2s would pull in 9 every minute for a total of 27 every 3 minutes The strip miner on the other hand would pull in 540 / 16 = 33 units every three minutes.

This also gets extrapolated into drone yield etc etc etc.

This also means that in some cases, the 3% bonus the hulk gets for training exhumer level 4 to 5 is actually more than 3% because it may be just enough to get you an additional unit of ore.

Its funny, I was actually thinking it would be interesting if they made it more complex
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#14 - 2012-09-17 10:08:31 UTC
Sigras wrote:
youre forgetting that the complexity does serve a purpose.

Since the lasers round down to the nearest whole unit of ore, it changes the efficiency of different lasers against different rocks.

For instance, 3 miner 2s mine the same amount as one strip miner 1 on paper, but when mining arkonor, which is 16 m^3, the miner 2s would pull in 9 every minute for a total of 27 every 3 minutes The strip miner on the other hand would pull in 540 / 16 = 33 units every three minutes.

This also gets extrapolated into drone yield etc etc etc.

This also means that in some cases, the 3% bonus the hulk gets for training exhumer level 4 to 5 is actually more than 3% because it may be just enough to get you an additional unit of ore.

Its funny, I was actually thinking it would be interesting if they made it more complex


If the entire purpose of the complexity is to create waste, then they can get rid of the complexity entirely, and still create waste by giving different mining lasers and crystals different mining efficiency ratings for different ores.

The complexity then moves from figuring out all the ore volumes and refining numbers, to looking at the efficiencies of different lasers on different ores.

If you want a high amount of wastage trying to mine arkanor with miner 2's, then put it on the laser itself, don't built it into some obnoxious Rube Goldberg ore volume and refining calculation system.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#15 - 2012-09-17 10:27:37 UTC
Isn't industry mostly a mind game? You know, offering challenge and rewards to those who are good with numbers. The fundamental process of mining, extracting and manufacturing are so simple, that if you simplify the system too much it might become just too easy and boring?


.

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#16 - 2012-09-17 10:32:21 UTC
Roime wrote:
Isn't industry mostly a mind game? You know, offering challenge and rewards to those who are good with numbers. The fundamental process of mining, extracting and manufacturing are so simple, that if you simplify the system too much it might become just too easy and boring?




Industry is not a mind game. Trade is. Artificial complexity is not difficulty, or challenge, it's drudgework.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#17 - 2012-09-17 10:41:37 UTC
Trade is a gut game, industry requires more math :)

Are differences in ore material content really that artificial, or are they in a way realistic, in the RL sense?

.

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#18 - 2012-09-17 11:05:10 UTC
Roime wrote:
Trade is a gut game, industry requires more math :)

Are differences in ore material content really that artificial, or are they in a way realistic, in the RL sense?



Ore material content is not what I'm worried about. The return per m3 of all the ores is just fine.

It's the unnecessary complexity that irritates and aggravates new players that try mining.

If this complexity is intentionally designed to create inefficiency, why not just create inefficiency with the modules rather than by some Rube Goldberg ore volume and refining quantity system?



Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#19 - 2012-09-17 12:50:36 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
If this complexity is intentionally designed to create inefficiency, why not just create inefficiency with the modules rather than by some Rube Goldberg ore volume and refining quantity system?


The system of variable sizes for ore recovery is much less complicated than having mining lasers that operate differently based on ore type. If you don't want to bother with the maths, just point lasers at rocks and wait for the magic to happen.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#20 - 2012-09-17 14:42:56 UTC
I would recommend making all units 1,000m3, kind of like we do for ice products.

More challenging ore would simply take longer to cycle through, modified by crystal quality and skill with the ore.

Now, post refine mineral content can't be tied down the same way, without disregarding either refining skill or the turn around time as it exists currently.
I would suggest that ore refining have a time factor that reflects the skills of the character attempting it. Percentage of ore loss combined with processing time can then let you get refined minerals which could take up perhaps an equally fixed size.

(I dunno so much on that part, CCP I think would need to play with this aspect for balance. It simply is not as simple as it might look at first glance for the refined aspect)
123Next pageLast page