These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ore. Simplified.

Author
Juniorama
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2012-09-19 02:34:50 UTC
tl;dr

OP thinks current refining system is complex. Comes up with a less elegant idea.

People point out his idea is less elegant, and current system is not that complex.

OP is sad no one likes his idea.

OP starts to troll well reasoned and thoughtful posts that disagree with him.

OP brainstorms and retools his idea in the hopes of having a good one this time.

New idea simplifies refining while making the mechanics of mining much more complex.
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#82 - 2012-09-19 03:01:20 UTC
Juniorama wrote:
tl;dr

OP thinks current refining system is complex. Comes up with a less elegant idea.

People point out his idea is less elegant, and current system is not that complex.

OP is sad no one likes his idea.

OP starts to troll well reasoned and thoughtful posts that disagree with him.

OP brainstorms and retools his idea in the hopes of having a good one this time.

New idea simplifies refining while making the mechanics of mining much more complex.


Until now we were remarkably free of trolls.

If you would like to delete your troll, I will happily delete my response to it.

Take a look at the likes, and think again.
Pipa Porto
#83 - 2012-09-19 04:02:52 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Here's what I imagine a lookup table would look like for this system. Ya, terribly complex. Really.

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

No, I did not finish the chart. I think it makes my point.


You didn't finish the chart because you got to the point where 1000m3 is unworkable because you no longer have whole numbers of minerals. You couldn't use 10000m3 because that makes the numbers for the low ends unwieldy.

The addition of a value estimate is simple to add to any frequently updated chart, but is better kept separate because it's referenced more often. You're free to use Grismar's or Cerlestis, both of whom combine the current chart with a value/m3 readout from an API pull.

Finally, how is that chart any less complex or any easier to understand than this one? Interestingly and unsurprisingly, really, EVE University does me some better by explaining the system in 2 sentences plus a one sentence example.

Before you go on about the metric system being logical and not arbitrary, do you know why the SI Second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom"*? It's all because the original definitions of SI units are fairly arbitrary ones defined hundreds of years ago and the SI definitions are simply replicating those earlier definitions in a more consistently repeatable way.

The advantage of the metric system over the imperial system not in the units (which were ultimately just as arbitrary as imperial units), it was that converting between one unit and a bigger/smaller unit of the same measure was easy (multiply by 10^X). And that's where your comparison to the metric system really falls apart. We never do those conversions with Ore. There are no Hogsheads of Ore to replace with the cubic metre of Ore. There are no bushels of Ore to replace with the cubic metre of Ore. There are no Pints of Ore to replace with the Litre of Ore. We just count out the pieces of ore.

*I kid you not, that's the definition. Nine Billion, One Hundred Ninety Two Million, Six Hundred Thirty One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy periods. Such an elegant number. Why that number you ask. Because that's how many times that caesium atom transitions in a second. In fact, it's how many times it transitioned in a specific second a half century ago. Can't get more arbitrary a basis for a unit of measure than "the specific second that we happened to be counting."

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#84 - 2012-09-19 04:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Here's what I imagine a lookup table would look like for this system. Ya, terribly complex. Really.

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

No, I did not finish the chart. I think it makes my point.


You didn't finish the chart because you got to the point where 1000m3 is unworkable because you no longer have whole numbers of minerals. You couldn't use 10000m3 because that makes the numbers for the low ends unwieldy.

The addition of a value estimate is simple to add to any frequently updated chart, but is better kept separate because it's referenced more often. You're free to use Grismar's or Cerlestis, both of whom combine the current chart with a value/m3 readout from an API pull.

Finally, how is that chart any less complex or any easier to understand than this one? Interestingly and unsurprisingly, really, EVE University does me some better by explaining the system in 2 sentences plus a one sentence example.

Before you go on about the metric system being logical and not arbitrary, do you know why the SI Second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom"*? It's all because the original definitions of SI units are fairly arbitrary ones defined hundreds of years ago and the SI definitions are simply replicating those earlier definitions in a more consistently repeatable way.

The advantage of the metric system over the imperial system not in the units (which were ultimately just as arbitrary as imperial units), it was that converting between one unit and a bigger/smaller unit of the same measure was easy (multiply by 10^X). And that's where your comparison to the metric system really falls apart. We never do those conversions with Ore. There are no Hogsheads of Ore to replace with the cubic metre of Ore. There are no bushels of Ore to replace with the cubic metre of Ore. There are no Pints of Ore to replace with the Litre of Ore. We just count out the pieces of ore.

*I kid you not, that's the definition. Nine Billion, One Hundred Ninety Two Million, Six Hundred Thirty One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy periods. Such an elegant number. Why that number you ask. Because that's how many times that caesium atom transitions in a second. In fact, it's how many times it transitioned in a specific second a half century ago. Can't get more arbitrary a basis for a unit of measure than "the specific second that we happened to be counting."


Sorry, at this point I am firmly convinced that you have absolutely no interest at all in any change simply because it is change. You no longer have to deal with the freak weirdness of ore calculations from the point of view of a noob. You also apparently don't bother helping noob miners, or else you would hear those questions every single day. Since it doesn't affect you anymore, and you don't bother helping noobs (apparently) you don't think anything should change.

If you bother to look at the data, you will see that almost every single value I provided has a fractional remainder. That's the point behind using the 1000m3 calculation for refining. I simply left off the fractional bit on the refining quantities because it's so small once you get to 1000m3 refining that it's irrelevant. If you wanted to do the chart for 10,000m3 it would be fine too, and tell you the exact same thing.

That chart is less complicated because it's the ONLY chart you need. You don't need all the stupid refining minimum fluff, because every ore has a refining minimum that is the same, whether that's 1, 10, 100, or whatever. You don't need all the m3 calculations per unit ore because they no longer exist. So, in short, this style chart tells you what to mine for money, and what to mine when you need specific minerals. Done. There is no other need to accommodate because all the stupid junk has been removed from consideration.

((Just as a side note - this style chart can work right now. The refining rate per m3 of ore is maintained.))

The metric system is logical, not because the base unit is inherently more logical than any other unit, but rather because all of the units are tied together in a sensical manner. The decimal system is a wonderful thing. Conversions from one unit of measurement to another are simple and straightforward. How many teaspoons are in a gallon? How many inches in a mile? How many acres in a square mile? How many ounces in a ton? Any significant change to units of measure in the old standard system units of measure require arithmetic computation unless you are a person with a mathematical gift.

You say that we have no "Hogsheads of ore" I introduce to you, the single unit of Mercoxit, which is 40m3 and the single unit of Veldspar is 0.1m3. Scordite is 0.15m3 per unit. A Scordite is 50% bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 400x bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 266.67 times bigger than a Scordite. A refining volume of Mercoxit is 300.3x larger than a refining volume of Veldspar. Tell me that this does not seem a lot like the crazy units of the old standard system.

You are correct in one thing though - even though you don't seem to understand that the very fact that you agree with me on this point means that you should agree that the freak volumetric units that EVE subjects young miners to shouldn't exist at all - good miners don't use the stupid little units and freak refining numbers to calculate what they are going to do. They just use m3 and time - the only units of measurement that we should be using at all in any part of the ore processing system once one can use strip miners, IMHO

Again, get rid of the meaningless volumetric contortions of EVE ore mining and processing that only affects noobs, and only affects them negatively.
Pipa Porto
#85 - 2012-09-19 05:43:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Cheopis wrote:
Sorry, at this point I am firmly convinced that you have absolutely no interest at all in any change simply because it is change. You no longer have to deal with the freak weirdness of ore calculations from the point of view of a noob. You also apparently don't bother helping noob miners, or else you would hear those questions every single day. Since it doesn't affect you anymore, and you don't bother helping noobs (apparently) you don't think anything should change.


I'm opposed because you are trying to fix something that is not broken. Your attempt would, if implemented, actually make it worse.

Quote:
If you bother to look at the data, you will see that almost every single value I provided has a fractional remainder. That's the point behind using the 1000m3 calculation for refining. I simply left off the fractional bit on the refining quantities because it's so small once you get to 1000m3 refining that it's irrelevant. If you wanted to do the chart for 10,000m3 it would be fine too, and tell you the exact same thing.

That chart is less complicated because it's the ONLY chart you need. You don't need all the stupid refining minimum fluff, because every ore has a refining minimum that is the same, whether that's 1, 10, 100, or whatever. You don't need all the m3 calculations per unit ore because they no longer exist. So, in short, this style chart tells you what to mine for money, and what to mine when you need specific minerals. Done. There is no other need to accommodate because all the stupid junk has been removed from consideration.


((Just as a side note - this style chart can work right now. The refining rate per m3 of ore is maintained.))


So your solution is to replace an accurate chart with an inaccurate one? That's brilliant! Straight

Did you even look at the chart I linked? It is also the only chart you need. It only skips the ISK/m3 column because it's a static chart and market data isn't static.

Quote:
The metric system is logical, not because the base unit is inherently more logical than any other unit, but rather because all of the units are tied together in a sensical manner. The decimal system is a wonderful thing. Conversions from one unit of measurement to another are simple and straightforward. How many teaspoons are in a gallon? How many inches in a mile? How many acres in a square mile? How many ounces in a ton? Any significant change to units of measure in the old standard system units of measure require arithmetic computation unless you are a person with a mathematical gift.

You say that we have no "Hogsheads of ore" I introduce to you, the single unit of Mercoxit, which is 40m3 and the single unit of Veldspar is 0.1m3. Scordite is 0.15m3 per unit. A Scordite is 50% bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 400x bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 266.67 times bigger than a Scordite. A refining volume of Mercoxit is 300.3x larger than a refining volume of Veldspar. Tell me that this does not seem a lot like the crazy units of the old standard system.


If you could convert Veldspar into Mercoxit, you'd have a point. If you were suggesting significant changes to the mineral yields of various ores (1 unit of X ore becomes Y units of Z mineral in some regular ratio), you'd also have a point (and have to deal with significant balance issues). But you can't and you aren't, so, like I said, you simply do not do the type of conversions that decimalization improves in EVE's refining system.

Quote:
You are correct in one thing though - even though you don't seem to understand that the very fact that you agree with me on this point means that you should agree that the freak volumetric units that EVE subjects young miners to shouldn't exist at all - good miners don't use the stupid little units and freak refining numbers to calculate what they are going to do. They just use m3 and time - the only units of measurement that we should be using at all in any part of the ore processing system once one can use strip miners, IMHO

Again, get rid of the meaningless volumetric contortions of EVE ore mining and processing that only affects noobs, and only affects them negatively.


Again, show me the newbie who is confused by a system that can be explained in 2 to 5 sentences written to a 1st grade reading level.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#86 - 2012-09-19 06:16:15 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Sorry, at this point I am firmly convinced that you have absolutely no interest at all in any change simply because it is change. You no longer have to deal with the freak weirdness of ore calculations from the point of view of a noob. You also apparently don't bother helping noob miners, or else you would hear those questions every single day. Since it doesn't affect you anymore, and you don't bother helping noobs (apparently) you don't think anything should change.


I'm opposed because you are trying to fix something that is not broken. Your attempt would, if implemented, actually make it worse.

Quote:
If you bother to look at the data, you will see that almost every single value I provided has a fractional remainder. That's the point behind using the 1000m3 calculation for refining. I simply left off the fractional bit on the refining quantities because it's so small once you get to 1000m3 refining that it's irrelevant. If you wanted to do the chart for 10,000m3 it would be fine too, and tell you the exact same thing.

That chart is less complicated because it's the ONLY chart you need. You don't need all the stupid refining minimum fluff, because every ore has a refining minimum that is the same, whether that's 1, 10, 100, or whatever. You don't need all the m3 calculations per unit ore because they no longer exist. So, in short, this style chart tells you what to mine for money, and what to mine when you need specific minerals. Done. There is no other need to accommodate because all the stupid junk has been removed from consideration.


((Just as a side note - this style chart can work right now. The refining rate per m3 of ore is maintained.))


So your solution is to replace an accurate chart with an inaccurate one? That's brilliant! Straight

Did you even look at the chart I linked? It is also the only chart you need. It only skips the ISK/m3 column because it's a static chart and market data isn't static.

Quote:
The metric system is logical, not because the base unit is inherently more logical than any other unit, but rather because all of the units are tied together in a sensical manner. The decimal system is a wonderful thing. Conversions from one unit of measurement to another are simple and straightforward. How many teaspoons are in a gallon? How many inches in a mile? How many acres in a square mile? How many ounces in a ton? Any significant change to units of measure in the old standard system units of measure require arithmetic computation unless you are a person with a mathematical gift.

You say that we have no "Hogsheads of ore" I introduce to you, the single unit of Mercoxit, which is 40m3 and the single unit of Veldspar is 0.1m3. Scordite is 0.15m3 per unit. A Scordite is 50% bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 400x bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 266.67 times bigger than a Scordite. A refining volume of Mercoxit is 300.3x larger than a refining volume of Veldspar. Tell me that this does not seem a lot like the crazy units of the old standard system.


If you could convert Veldspar into Mercoxit, you'd have a point. If you were suggesting significant changes to the mineral yields of various ores (1 unit of X ore becomes Y units of Z mineral in some regular ratio), you'd also have a point (and have to deal with significant balance issues). But you can't and you aren't, so, like I said, you simply do not do the type of conversions that decimalization improves in EVE's refining system.

Quote:
You are correct in one thing though - even though you don't seem to understand that the very fact that you agree with me on this point means that you should agree that the freak volumetric units that EVE subjects young miners to shouldn't exist at all - good miners don't use the stupid little units and freak refining numbers to calculate what they are going to do. They just use m3 and time - the only units of measurement that we should be using at all in any part of the ore processing system once one can use strip miners, IMHO

Again, get rid of the meaningless volumetric contortions of EVE ore mining and processing that only affects noobs, and only affects them negatively.


Again, show me the newbie who is confused by a system that can be explained in 2 to 5 sentences written to a 1st grade reading level.


Give me enough time and I can explain the operation of a internal combustion engine to a first grader. Does that mean it's simple? As I mention before, there is a big difference between simple components, and a simple whole. You are ignoring this fact.

You argue both to preserve waste, AND to prevent it. You pretend to believe that there is inherent value in an overly complex system with meaningless units of measure, despite acknowledging that experienced players utterly ignore it. You refuse to acknowledge that many completely unrelated simple facts when combined into one system can yield unnecessary complexity. Just on the off chance you haven't understood this yet, I'll hammer it in again. A system can be BOTH simple AND unnecessarily complex. Unnecessary complexity leads to confusion as players attempt to assign meaning to it, or frustration as they attempt to understand that which cannot be understood because it has no meaning.

We do NOT need two completely different units of measure for each and every ore. This adds ZERO to gameplay.

We do NOT need refining to require arbitrary quantities of ore. This adds ZERO to gameplay.

If removing these unnecessary things means we have to lose all fractional ore quantities when refining. Boo Hoo.

If removing these things means we need to implement some sort of laser-based efficiency system that works exactly like the weapons-vs-resistances system already in place for the combat system, oh darn. Mercoxit has a 50% reduction against Mining Laser I's? Guess that's a bad choice.
Pipa Porto
#87 - 2012-09-19 07:44:29 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Give me enough time and I can explain the operation of a internal combustion engine to a first grader. Does that mean it's simple? As I mention before, there is a big difference between simple components, and a simple whole. You are ignoring this fact.


2 to 5 sentences. All of roughly the grammatical and lexographic complexity of "See Spot Run." This isn't an example of spending a large amount of time explaining a complex process in simple terms. This is a simple process that can be explained simply.

Quote:
You argue both to preserve waste, AND to prevent it. You pretend to believe that there is inherent value in an overly complex system with meaningless units of measure, despite acknowledging that experienced players utterly ignore it. You refuse to acknowledge that many completely unrelated simple facts when combined into one system can yield unnecessary complexity. Just on the off chance you haven't understood this yet, I'll hammer it in again. A system can be BOTH simple AND unnecessarily complex. Unnecessary complexity leads to confusion as players attempt to assign meaning to it, or frustration as they attempt to understand that which cannot be understood because it has no meaning.


A sales tax and an income tax are both taxes. It is perfectly valid to argue that one is too low and should be raised while the other is too high and should be lower because they affect people in different ways. The waste is applied in different ways.

The current system allows us to determine the number of m3 of Ore we mine per cycle by dividing the nominal yield by the ore volume and rounding down. Refining requires looking at a pleasant, accurate chart that's full of nice whole numbers that are simple to manipulate in our head.

Your system requires us to look at a chart to discover what volume of Ore we mine per cycle then look at a chart that is either inaccurate (like your proposed chart), or full of awkward decimals.

Quote:
We do NOT need two completely different units of measure for each and every ore. This adds ZERO to gameplay.

We do NOT need refining to require arbitrary quantities of ore. This adds ZERO to gameplay.

If removing these unnecessary things means we have to lose all fractional ore quantities when refining. Boo Hoo.

If removing these things means we need to implement some sort of laser-based efficiency system that works exactly like the weapons-vs-resistances system already in place for the combat system, oh darn. Mercoxit has a 50% reduction against Mining Laser I's? Guess that's a bad choice.


So now you have yet another lookup chart where we have to match our lasers (and specific skill level combinations) against the ore we plan on mining? This proposal of yours is getting less elegant by the minute. How does taking one, easy to read chart and one step function, and turning it into 2 or 3 unwieldy charts improve the system?

Finally, show me the newbie who is actually confused by the system after reading the EUni chart and 2 sentence description.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

ugh zug
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2012-09-19 07:56:34 UTC  |  Edited by: ugh zug
wrong thread

Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post,1B. Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#89 - 2012-09-19 08:21:12 UTC
Here's my attempt to _accurately_ describe the mining system in EVE in a few simple sentences.

1) Every ore is measured both in m3 and in a random fictional volume unit designed only to create inefficiencies in mining capacity. 2) As you gain skill in mining using small mining lasers, the inefficiencies vary wildly and randomly for each ore.
3) The number of units of ore required to refine each ore type is random, and has no meaning.
4) Once you have strip miners, you can pretty much ignore all of the irritating calculations.

5) Once you are an established miner, the only thing that matters is the local value of each ore in m3 if you are selling directly to market, or the amount of whatever mineral types you need per m3 refined if you are building, because every calculation that matters can be calculated in m3 and you never need to reference the oddball units ever again.

In other words, the waste inherent in the current mining system only has a meaningful impact on the players that are new to the game.

At one point in the long distant past, before there were mining barges, this system of intentional waste of tiny lasers might have actually had some value. Now it only confuses new players. Trying to say that this system of intentional waste based on irrational random volumetric definitions has any value at all in the universe of EVE with strip miners in it is absurd. Trying to say that a broken and meaningless system is acceptable just because it's not impossible to explain is... incomprehensible.

The system I propose is a decimal based ore handling system. It completely removes the need to make volumetric calculations using meaningless units, whether in your head, or on a chart. Pretty much any miner knows what their maximum mining yield is, and can easily apply it to the absurdly simple lookup chart like what I provided an example of. A chart built in that manner works NOW by the way. And that method of calculation is what most serious miners use. m3 is ALL that matters.

Since m3 is already all that matters, the endgame miner will be unaffected by the changes I propose.

If you absolutely MUST have built-in waste, you don't need a lookup table for it, you can simply implement a mining efficiency tab on mining lasers.
Juniorama
State War Academy
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-09-19 08:26:53 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
The metric system is logical, not because the base unit is inherently more logical than any other unit, but rather because all of the units are tied together in a sensical manner. The decimal system is a wonderful thing. Conversions from one unit of measurement to another are simple and straightforward. How many teaspoons are in a gallon? How many inches in a mile? How many acres in a square mile? How many ounces in a ton? Any significant change to units of measure in the old standard system units of measure require arithmetic computation unless you are a person with a mathematical gift.


Strawman Arguement

Cheopis wrote:
You say that we have no "Hogsheads of ore" I introduce to you, the single unit of Mercoxit, which is 40m3 and the single unit of Veldspar is 0.1m3. Scordite is 0.15m3 per unit. A Scordite is 50% bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 400x bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 266.67 times bigger than a Scordite. A refining volume of Mercoxit is 300.3x larger than a refining volume of Veldspar. Tell me that this does not seem a lot like the crazy units of the old standard system."


Not all things are created equally. In eve this is done on purpose, I appreciate your attempt to simplify something you feel to be ovoverwhelmingly complicated. Unfortunately, in your attempt, you have found the need to complicate other systems, mainly mining. Finally, you fail to give any valid reason why this change is necessary other than to change one simple chart for another chart that you feel is simpler.

Cheopis wrote:
You are correct in one thing though - even though you don't seem to understand that the very fact that you agree with me on this point means that you should agree that the freak volumetric units that EVE subjects young miners to shouldn't exist at all - good miners don't use the stupid little units and freak refining numbers to calculate what they are going to do. They just use m3 and time - the only units of measurement that we should be using at all in any part of the ore processing system once one can use strip miners, IMHO


In your system, miners will have to calculate how many minerals 37m3 of Jaspet will get them. Now they must be involved in those maths that you seem to detest so much, because they will have to multiply all the yields from your table by .037 in order to find their yield. At this point, you cannot say that they should just let the UI tell them their yield from their attempt at refining because you were against them doing that with the current system.
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#91 - 2012-09-19 08:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Juniorama wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
The metric system is logical, not because the base unit is inherently more logical than any other unit, but rather because all of the units are tied together in a sensical manner. The decimal system is a wonderful thing. Conversions from one unit of measurement to another are simple and straightforward. How many teaspoons are in a gallon? How many inches in a mile? How many acres in a square mile? How many ounces in a ton? Any significant change to units of measure in the old standard system units of measure require arithmetic computation unless you are a person with a mathematical gift.


Strawman Arguement

Cheopis wrote:
You say that we have no "Hogsheads of ore" I introduce to you, the single unit of Mercoxit, which is 40m3 and the single unit of Veldspar is 0.1m3. Scordite is 0.15m3 per unit. A Scordite is 50% bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 400x bigger than a Veldspar. A Mercoxit is 266.67 times bigger than a Scordite. A refining volume of Mercoxit is 300.3x larger than a refining volume of Veldspar. Tell me that this does not seem a lot like the crazy units of the old standard system."


Not all things are created equally. In eve this is done on purpose, I appreciate your attempt to simplify something you feel to be ovoverwhelmingly complicated. Unfortunately, in your attempt, you have found the need to complicate other systems, mainly mining. Finally, you fail to give any valid reason why this change is necessary other than to change one simple chart for another chart that you feel is simpler.

Cheopis wrote:
You are correct in one thing though - even though you don't seem to understand that the very fact that you agree with me on this point means that you should agree that the freak volumetric units that EVE subjects young miners to shouldn't exist at all - good miners don't use the stupid little units and freak refining numbers to calculate what they are going to do. They just use m3 and time - the only units of measurement that we should be using at all in any part of the ore processing system once one can use strip miners, IMHO


In your system, miners will have to calculate how many minerals 37m3 of Jaspet will get them. Now they must be involved in those maths that you seem to detest so much, because they will have to multiply all the yields from your table by .037 in order to find their yield. At this point, you cannot say that they should just let the UI tell them their yield from their attempt at refining because you were against them doing that with the current system.


1) You apparently don't understand what a strawman argument is. The statement I present there is a based on the simple and straightforward, incontrovertible fact that the oddball volumes of each individual unit of ore have no relationship to any sort of meaningful structured measurement system. Just like the different units of measure in the standard system.

2) The system is not overwhelmingly complicated. It IS more complicated than it needs to be. Additionally that complication only has significant impact on new players.

3) In a decimal based ore system, you only need to be concerned with m3. Currently, based on input from others who made valid arguments to me, every mineral refines in blocks of 100m3 If you use an absurdly simple decimal based lookup table, any calculation of mineral needs is simple. All calculations in m3 can be directly and simply translated into time and hauling needs.

All significant ore handling calculations are already handled in m3. Just change the whole damn system to an m3 based system.
Cid SilverWing
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2012-09-19 09:56:11 UTC
+1 because I hate bloated mathematical graphs in Excel to calculate all this
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2012-09-19 12:37:57 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
You have enough Ore to refine to a whole number of minerals +1m3. Currently you get that 1m3 of Ore back. OP's suggestion is that that 1m3 of Ore is lost by rounding down the resultant minerals.


I read it that if refining 1 unit if X provided 1.1 units of Y, then refining 1 unit you would get 1 unit of Y (10% waste), but refining 15 units of X would give FLOOR(16.5)=16 units of Y (3% waste)


But if you count it out, refining 10 units will get you 11 units with 0% waste. So instead of having the system automatically adjust the input to remove waste, you have to do it manually.


Oh good grief. the more you refine, the more inconsequential the waste is. Thats a rule of thumb even really dumb people can deal with.
There is no problem here except for the extremely autistic.

Pipa Porto
#94 - 2012-09-19 21:22:29 UTC
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
You have enough Ore to refine to a whole number of minerals +1m3. Currently you get that 1m3 of Ore back. OP's suggestion is that that 1m3 of Ore is lost by rounding down the resultant minerals.


I read it that if refining 1 unit if X provided 1.1 units of Y, then refining 1 unit you would get 1 unit of Y (10% waste), but refining 15 units of X would give FLOOR(16.5)=16 units of Y (3% waste)


But if you count it out, refining 10 units will get you 11 units with 0% waste. So instead of having the system automatically adjust the input to remove waste, you have to do it manually.


Oh good grief. the more you refine, the more inconsequential the waste is. Thats a rule of thumb even really dumb people can deal with.
There is no problem here except for the extremely autistic.


The current situation is that there is no waste from refining odd stacks of Ore. Presumably this is because some station based computer doesn't let the refinery take a stack of Ore that it won't be able to produce anything out of. Which makes sense.

The proposal is that all of a sudden, refining an odd stack of Ore results in waste because, all of a sudden, the computer has forgotten how to successfully do long division and reserve the remainder.

There is no problem with the current system to fix, and the OP's proposal makes the refining and mining system more complicated, harder to explain, and harder to usefully work with in a grasping effort towards a false elegance.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Pipa Porto
#95 - 2012-09-19 21:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Cheopis wrote:
Here's my attempt to _accurately_ describe the mining system in EVE in a few simple sentences.

1) Every ore is measured both in m3 and in a random fictional volume unit designed only to create inefficiencies in mining capacity. 2) As you gain skill in mining using small mining lasers, the inefficiencies vary wildly and randomly for each ore.
3) The number of units of ore required to refine each ore type is random, and has no meaning.
4) Once you have strip miners, you can pretty much ignore all of the irritating calculations.

5) Once you are an established miner, the only thing that matters is the local value of each ore in m3 if you are selling directly to market, or the amount of whatever mineral types you need per m3 refined if you are building, because every calculation that matters can be calculated in m3 and you never need to reference the oddball units ever again.

In other words, the waste inherent in the current mining system only has a meaningful impact on the players that are new to the game.

At one point in the long distant past, before there were mining barges, this system of intentional waste of tiny lasers might have actually had some value. Now it only confuses new players. Trying to say that this system of intentional waste based on irrational random volumetric definitions has any value at all in the universe of EVE with strip miners in it is absurd. Trying to say that a broken and meaningless system is acceptable just because it's not impossible to explain is... incomprehensible.

The system I propose is a decimal based ore handling system. It completely removes the need to make volumetric calculations using meaningless units, whether in your head, or on a chart. Pretty much any miner knows what their maximum mining yield is, and can easily apply it to the absurdly simple lookup chart like what I provided an example of. A chart built in that manner works NOW by the way. And that method of calculation is what most serious miners use. m3 is ALL that matters.

Since m3 is already all that matters, the endgame miner will be unaffected by the changes I propose.

If you absolutely MUST have built-in waste, you don't need a lookup table for it, you can simply implement a mining efficiency tab on mining lasers.


First, your primary issue is that you're bad at explaining things, not that the things are hard to explain or understand.

Second:
"Mining lasers extract a certain volume of Ore per cycle. Every type of Ore has a different volume per unit. Ore is refined in batches. Every Ore has a Different batch size. Here's a Chart of the Ore volumes, Batch Sizes, and what minerals those batches refine into."
Find me the newbie who's still confused by how refining works.

Finally, in mining and refining, you never do the types of conversions that decimalization makes easier.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#96 - 2012-09-19 23:19:38 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
You have enough Ore to refine to a whole number of minerals +1m3. Currently you get that 1m3 of Ore back. OP's suggestion is that that 1m3 of Ore is lost by rounding down the resultant minerals.


I read it that if refining 1 unit if X provided 1.1 units of Y, then refining 1 unit you would get 1 unit of Y (10% waste), but refining 15 units of X would give FLOOR(16.5)=16 units of Y (3% waste)


But if you count it out, refining 10 units will get you 11 units with 0% waste. So instead of having the system automatically adjust the input to remove waste, you have to do it manually.


Oh good grief. the more you refine, the more inconsequential the waste is. Thats a rule of thumb even really dumb people can deal with.
There is no problem here except for the extremely autistic.


The current situation is that there is no waste from refining odd stacks of Ore. Presumably this is because some station based computer doesn't let the refinery take a stack of Ore that it won't be able to produce anything out of. Which makes sense.

The proposal is that all of a sudden, refining an odd stack of Ore results in waste because, all of a sudden, the computer has forgotten how to successfully do long division and reserve the remainder.

There is no problem with the current system to fix, and the OP's proposal makes the refining and mining system more complicated, harder to explain, and harder to usefully work with in a grasping effort towards a false elegance.


Oh Noes. When I refine this 1, 000, 000 m3 of veldspar I'm going to lose 0.23 tritanium! Please, stop the trajedy! This cannot be allowed!

Stop it. Complaining about perfect math is absurd. The very fact that the system is contrived through Rube Goldberg volumetric contortions into a system that allows perfect unit measurements of ores is part of the problem.

If you get butt-hurt about losing 0.001% (or less!) of the value of your daily mining yield, you have bigger things to worry about than ore calculations in EVE. If you go to a sensible mining system that completely eradicates the stupidunits and sticks to m3, then you don't need your "Tip and Spot Chase the Mining Laser" book.

Most of the arguments you have been making are contradictory. You say things will get more complex when any thinking being will recognize that removing completely meaningless components of a system would inherently reduce complexity.

You complain about some absurdly tiny mineral loss that would result from a m3 based refining system, while at the same time arguing that we need to maintain absurdly clunky volumetric systems which have no impact on the game other than enforcing much larger inefficiencies on newbies.

As I've said before, it's obvious that you have zero interest in any change, and will invent every possible argument you can think of, not even caring if they are contradictory, just to try to stop people from changing the end game mining system in any way that will have any effect on you. All of your arguments about five sentences to explain the system is horsecrap. The reason most new players stop asking questions about the refining system after they ask a couple questions is that they are generally told to completely ignore the stupid crap, and work towards strip miners ASAP, because once you hit strip miners, all the freak mining volume units become moot.

If you cannot come up with a legitimate reason to maintain meaningless and unnecessary units then please stop.

Better yet.

Before you respond, I want you to take the following five steps, because five simple and easy steps can't possibly increase the complexity of a process, right?

1) Google up a Proxy provider
2) Set up a proxy account
3) Create a new EVE freebie account
4) Troll the thread once or twice
5) Post your response

Since there are only 5 easy to explain steps in this process, it obviously won't be any more wasteful than simply replying.
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#97 - 2012-09-19 23:29:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
I was looking for a good video to describe the volumetric calculations of ore in EVE, and how they impact mining.

http://www.flixxy.com/best-rube-goldberg-machine.htm
poppeteer
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-09-20 03:34:42 UTC  |  Edited by: poppeteer
Cheopis, I honestly think you're just trolling - it's certainly how you come across to me..

Cheopis wrote:
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.


.. but I did want to comment on the above. In my case, the quote could not be more incorrect. The bolded bits are just farcical. Without doubt it was the initial complexity that drew me into the profession.

Cheopis wrote:

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.


Thou art mad, Industrialist.
Pipa Porto
#99 - 2012-09-20 04:31:14 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Oh Noes. When I refine this 1, 000, 000 m3 of veldspar I'm going to lose 0.23 tritanium! Please, stop the trajedy! This cannot be allowed!

Stop it. Complaining about perfect math is absurd. The very fact that the system is contrived through Rube Goldberg volumetric contortions into a system that allows perfect unit measurements of ores is part of the problem.


Perfect? Tell me how, using your proposed chart, you can accurately determine how many minerals a given amount of ore will produce?

With the current one, you divide by the batch size, discard the remainder, and multiply by the yield/batch.
Your your proposed chart, you literally cannot because your chart is (as you admitted) inaccurate.

Quote:
If you get butt-hurt about losing 0.001% (or less!) of the value of your daily mining yield, you have bigger things to worry about than ore calculations in EVE. If you go to a sensible mining system that completely eradicates the stupidunits and sticks to m3, then you don't need your "Tip and Spot Chase the Mining Laser" book.

Most of the arguments you have been making are contradictory. You say things will get more complex when any thinking being will recognize that removing completely meaningless components of a system would inherently reduce complexity.

You complain about some absurdly tiny mineral loss that would result from a m3 based refining system, while at the same time arguing that we need to maintain absurdly clunky volumetric systems which have no impact on the game other than enforcing much larger inefficiencies on newbies.

As I've said before, it's obvious that you have zero interest in any change, and will invent every possible argument you can think of, not even caring if they are contradictory, just to try to stop people from changing the end game mining system in any way that will have any effect on you. All of your arguments about five sentences to explain the system is horsecrap. The reason most new players stop asking questions about the refining system after they ask a couple questions is that they are generally told to completely ignore the stupid crap, and work towards strip miners ASAP, because once you hit strip miners, all the freak mining volume units become moot.


The fact that you're bad at explaining simple things to new players does not mean those things are too complicated for them to understand. It just means that they have a bad teacher.

Quote:
If you cannot come up with a legitimate reason to maintain meaningless and unnecessary units then please stop.


It isn't broken. It isn't causing anyone any problems*. Thus it doesn't need fixing.

*Before you get into the metric system again, the conversions that the metric system simplifies do not exist in EVE's refining system.

Quote:
Better yet.

Before you respond, I want you to take the following five steps, because five simple and easy steps can't possibly increase the complexity of a process, right?

1) Google up a Proxy provider
2) Set up a proxy account
3) Create a new EVE freebie account
4) Troll the thread once or twice
5) Post your response

Since there are only 5 easy to explain steps in this process, it obviously won't be any more wasteful than simply replying.


This relates to anything, how?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#100 - 2012-09-20 04:33:09 UTC
Poppeteer,

I do agree that I was drug down into something dangerously close to trolling while trying to club something resembilng sense into one of the folks who kept contradicting themselves. I'll apologize to all on that regard.

The thing is that everything that matters about the mining system can be handled without consulting the refining volumes and the unnecessary subunits of volume assigned to individual units of ore.

m3 is the only meaningful measurement. In order to be somewhat sensible, a 100m3 minimum refining quantity seems appropriate.

It seems that you have questions about my statement that I pull about 6000m3 per cycle in an exhumer. Farcical, indeed.

In a hulk with foreman bonuses, I pull about 1850m3 per laser per cycle. My drones pull 312m3 per load. If I stay near the asteroids my drones are mining, unless I'm in some belt full of tiny little asteroids that are regularly popping and leaving me with short yields on the strip miners, 6000m3 every three minutes is no big deal.

I know that number. That's a reasonable expectation for me to pull in a fat belt. Pretty much any serious miner can tell you what their m3 yield per cycle is in their exhumer of choice. Perhaps I was unclear what numbers it was that the experienced miners don't care about. It's the individual ore unit volumes and refining numbers that are made utterly meaningless as one gains skill.

Now, if CCP truly believes that complexity would be an attraction for miners, then it's rather easy to imagine any number of different scenarios where complexity can be added to mining - without having to invent volume definitions that high end miners just ignore anyway.

Let's try an example of complexity which adds value:

How's this. Instead of the three different grades of ore that you can get from each type asteroid, make it so that there are three different types of asteroids instead and only ONE type ore. One class of asteroid is a waste-less asteroid, another type has inherent 5% waste, and the third class has 10% inherent waste built in. There's the waste that some people were complaining about, right there. And it doesn't simply effect noobs. And it doesn't mean modifying lasers either. The rationale for the waste is simply that the less efficient asteroids have more reflective trace elements or more vacuum bubbles / cracks / craters which reduce the efficiency of the mining process by making it more difficult to focus the lasers evenly.

Only one type of ore would be mined. The three different types of ore would go away. But that's space we already have assigned in the database anyway. Why not do something with those other two slots in the database?

Another layer of complexity. Anyone with a gas harvester active when an asteroid is destroyed would have a small chance of collecting a gem of some sort. Each type of asteroid would have two different gems which could be collected, a common gem and a rare gem. Lets say the common gems are just sold to NPCs, but the rare gems are used in DUST, or future industry.

There's complexity that makes sense and adds to the game, and then there's complexity solely for complexity's sake. The mining system in EVE is currently the latter. It could easily be redone and made into the former if complexity is something that CCP actively wants in mining.

Don't pick apart the above idea and criticize it. That's WAY too detailed of a description for me to ever have any hope of CCP actually implementing it. It's simply an example of something I thought up in three minutes to give EVE mining some complexity with meaning as opposed to meaningless complexity.