Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Except that, for most of the ores on your chart, you would not end up with the same amount of minerals that your chart indicates.

So you're taking a system that has an easily used, accurate chart and proposing a system that either has a difficult to use or inaccurate chart.

How is a loss in either usability or accuracy an improvement?

If it's accurate, you get a bunch of ugly, unwieldy odd fractions (since you're into decimalization, they turn into ugly long decimals like the ones I pointed out on the first page) in your chart. If you try to get whole numbers without adding an absurd number of 0s to the Low end results (like you did in your proposed chart), you get an inaccurate chart.

Since when is it an improvement to go from an accurate representation of the way things work to an inaccurate one?


The only unit of measure on the current chart is the m3. I think you're confusing measurements and units of measure. Want me to explain the difference between them to you?

All those things are equally there in the current chart.

If a noob miner doesn't refine less than 1000m3, why do they care about the refining batch sizes?

Try reading. I'm not talking about waste right now. I'm talking about the fact that you're proposing exchanging an accurate chart for an inaccurate one.

So how many Veldspar does it take to make 1 Mercoxit? You can convert measurements from one unit of measure to another unit of measure. If each unit of ore is, in fact, a unit of measure as you claim you would be able to convert between them.

So you're saying that taking an accurate chart and making an inaccurate chart out of it is a good thing? Really? What happened to your pursuit of elegance? Making something inaccurate isn't elegant in any way.


Is a Car a unit of measure? A Cow? A unit of ore is as much a unit of measure as a car or a cow. A unit of ore is an item which has physical qualities which may be measured using various units of measure, but it is not, in itself a unit of measure.

You are trolling right?

Materials come in arbtrary sizes. Round here you buy milk in litres, petrol also comes in litres. there is no reason that it has to come in litres, because actually you can make a fluid container of arbitrary size. I think it would be really annoying if milk shipped in 0.9965L containers, coke came in 0.3452L units, and petrol came in 0.76538L units. Whats the ******* point in doing it like that? Its would be differnt if we were comparing cans of coke with barrels of oil, but we aren't its just a bare resource.

In case its not patently obvious, some goods don't come in arbitrary units, they are quantised. Three quarters of a car is not a useful measurement of cars. Even for haulers of cars, discussing vehicles by volume doesn't help because they are all different shapes, they don't have the benefit of Eves dimensionally flexible cargo holds.

There is simply no purpose in measuring dividable resources by different units, and a clear downside in having to track conversion rates.

Why? It doesn't make anything easier to use. It doesn't make something else more accurate. It doesn't fix any problem that anyone is actually having (as you admitted yourself when you said nobody refines less than 1000m3 of Ore).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Measure is a word with multiple meanings. We are discussing physical measurements. Attempting to equivocate the term with regards to economic and other types of measurements is quite simply wrong.

Feel free to try again.

Except its not - you can double or halve the ammount without altering anything. like sugar, or cola, or oil.



Er who said it wasn't other than the game machanic the OP is proposing to change.

And err the conversion that occurs because refining is per-unit, and mining is per-volume. That means everyones spreadheet has an extra column in it, so you can at the end of the day, work out prices. if refining were per-unit too that would be unneeded. It isn't a big change, but it removes a pointless calculation - which was the OPs point.

In the EVE universe, the smallest volume of Veldspar that you are able to obtain IS 0.1m3. So in that sense, a single molecule of Veldspar is 0.1m3.

Simpler system is bad. The current system is not that hard to work out (hell, I managed it, and I'm thick!) and creates opportunities for a smart (or thick!) person to make ISK off the inefficiencies and laziness of other miners. The tools needed to do this are both available online, or easily created with 10 minutes in Excel.

No to making it easier just for the sake of making it easier. Also I'm not convinced that this would make it easier anyway.

actually, it kinda makes sense in that you need 33.3 m3 of ore to refine into a usable amount of material (in this case, 1,000 units of tritanium ... or 10 m3).

There is no such thing as a "molecule of ore" you can't have a molecule of it as ores are the materials you want -- trit/pyer/etc -- surrounded by dross (i.e. it's physically mixed, like salt and pepper*); whereas a molecule is the simplest atomic structure for a chemically combined thing (e.g. H2SO4*) ... much like an atom is the simplest structure of a singular element.

As for why you can get a "usable" amount of trit out of 33.3 m3 of Veld ... but it takes 3,200 m3 of Ark to get useable amounts of Mega (the Trit and whatever else are "bonus" in this exercise), because there is so much extra dross in each unit of Ark.


Granted, this means that the "simplest" solution would be to make the refine minimums to "1 unit" while at the same time increasing the volume of 1 unit to Cr * Cv (where Cr is the current refine stack, and Cv is the current volume).

Thus, the volume for a single unit of veld would become 33.3 m3/unit, and the volume for a single unit Ark would be 3200 m3/unit. Trouble with this is that you can't mine a partial unit of ore, so the only currently available ships capable of mining ark would be ... nothing; so in that case, it's easier to consider miners working in the way as described in the game -- they're lasers breaking off chunks of rock and there's some kind of recovery mechanism to bring the "best" sized ore back into the cargohold. In this case then, Veld fractures in such a way that it's 0.1 m3 nominal, whereas Ark fractures in such a way that it's 16m3 nominal.


*my apologies to any and all chemists in the example I've given ...

Says who? I'll give you whatever price you want for a Half Unit of Ore in a contract.



You're free to express the refining batch sizes by volume in your chart. In fact, the chart I keep linking does just that.

Since when is an "extra" column in one chart better than:
An inaccurate or unreadable chart.
An extra chart tacked onto each and every mining laser or onto every ore.
And the various other kludges the OP has had to come up with to fix the problems that his system creates.

And even if those weren't problems, since when is an "extra" column in one chart broken enough to need "fixing?"