These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#101 - 2012-09-20 05:05:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Pipa Porto,

Lets say I mined 15000 m3 of veldspar. I look at the chart and see the column labeled "TRIT per 1000m3" has 30,000 in it, and know that I have 450,000 trit. 15000/1000*30000

Since I mine at @6000m3 per 3 minute cycle, I'll also know that I can expect it to take me 2.5 mining cycles, or 7.5 minutes to gather enough ore for 450,000 trit, and that I would need to be able to make round trips with an Iteron V in roughly 15 minutes per trip with some slacktime built in if I was mining consistently. All of this from simply looking at the chart. roughly 900,000 trit per 15 minutes. Make it about 3.5 million trit per hour. Assuming no bonus yield ores, and no bio breaks or other downtime.

Now, you're almost certainly going to say "but what if I mined 14999 m3 of veldspar? Well, then I know I'm one m3 shy of the refining unit of 100m3 and I will end up with 447,000 trit and 99 veldspar.

Now, you're going to bring up one of the very large volume ores that will yield fractional values. With fractional values being rounded down, the most you can possibly lose in any one given refining action is a bit less than 1 unit of each mineral. So if you refine 100m3 of some ore, you can generate a bit of waste, at most 1 per constituent mineral. This might even be something close to resembling significant waste for tiny amounts of ore, I must agree, but if you refine 100,000m3 of the same ore, you still can't lose more than 1 unit of each constituent mineral. Refining in bulk, slightly more efficient? Hrm, makes a bit of sense to me.

The chart is not precise. It doesn't NEED to be. Most people don't care one whit about a single mineral unit when refining a few hundred thousand m3 of ore.
Pipa Porto
#102 - 2012-09-20 06:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Cheopis wrote:
Pipa Porto,

Lets say I mined 15000 m3 of veldspar. I look at the chart and see the column labeled "TRIT per 1000m3" has 30,000 in it, and know that I have 450,000 trit. 15000/1000*30000


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?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#103 - 2012-09-20 06:58:14 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Pipa Porto,

Lets say I mined 15000 m3 of veldspar. I look at the chart and see the column labeled "TRIT per 1000m3" has 30,000 in it, and know that I have 450,000 trit. 15000/1000*30000


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?



I'm sorry that you are offended so terribly by the loss of those three tritanium and a pyerite last week Pipa. Perhaps you might want to look into the new MMO I've heard about called Actuarians Online where the whole point of the game it to perfectly predict everything.

YOU somehow or another seem to think that a decimal system based lookup chart is somehow less useable than a chart filled with at least 10 different units of measure and half a dozen different refining rules.

What you fail to realize is that the chart I provided above is a chart that actually would work right now if it were to be coded. I suspect it HAS been coded in some places. I just haven't seen it.

You want to know how long you need to mine to get X minerals? it's right there. What sort of hauler fleet and timing you will need to mine for a set of 10 battleships? Right there. Isk per hour mining? Right there. There's no need for anything more than m3.
Pipa Porto
#104 - 2012-09-20 07:18:53 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Pipa Porto,

Lets say I mined 15000 m3 of veldspar. I look at the chart and see the column labeled "TRIT per 1000m3" has 30,000 in it, and know that I have 450,000 trit. 15000/1000*30000


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?



I'm sorry that you are offended so terribly by the loss of those three tritanium and a pyerite last week Pipa. Perhaps you might want to look into the new MMO I've heard about called Actuarians Online where the whole point of the game it to perfectly predict everything.

YOU somehow or another seem to think that a decimal system based lookup chart is somehow less useable than a chart filled with at least 10 different units of measure and half a dozen different refining rules.

What you fail to realize is that the chart I provided above is a chart that actually would work right now if it were to be coded. I suspect it HAS been coded in some places. I just haven't seen it.

You want to know how long you need to mine to get X minerals? it's right there. What sort of hauler fleet and timing you will need to mine for a set of 10 battleships? Right there. Isk per hour mining? Right there. There's no need for anything more than m3.


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.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#105 - 2012-09-20 07:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Pipa Porto,

Lets say I mined 15000 m3 of veldspar. I look at the chart and see the column labeled "TRIT per 1000m3" has 30,000 in it, and know that I have 450,000 trit. 15000/1000*30000


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?



I'm sorry that you are offended so terribly by the loss of those three tritanium and a pyerite last week Pipa. Perhaps you might want to look into the new MMO I've heard about called Actuarians Online where the whole point of the game it to perfectly predict everything.

YOU somehow or another seem to think that a decimal system based lookup chart is somehow less useable than a chart filled with at least 10 different units of measure and half a dozen different refining rules.

What you fail to realize is that the chart I provided above is a chart that actually would work right now if it were to be coded. I suspect it HAS been coded in some places. I just haven't seen it.

You want to know how long you need to mine to get X minerals? it's right there. What sort of hauler fleet and timing you will need to mine for a set of 10 battleships? Right there. Isk per hour mining? Right there. There's no need for anything more than m3.


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.


Even a noob miner is unlikely to refine less than 1000m3 of ore at a time after they get out of their insurance ship.

You only see the unwieldy fractions because you are too obsessed with losing even a single tritanium that you can't see that the clarity of a single-unit system with microscopic waste is superior to a many-multiple unit of measure system with no waste.

One veldspar in the current system is 0.1m3 and is it's own unit of measure. Thats why they call it "1 veldspar" and say it's 0.1m3 in volume. If you cannot comprehend this than any other conversation with you on this topic is meaningless because you are so far divorced from reality we won't even be able to agree on the value of 1.
Pipa Porto
#106 - 2012-09-20 08:15:54 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Even a noob miner is unlikely to refine less than 1000m3 of ore at a time after they get out of their insurance ship.

You only see the unwieldy fractions because you are too obsessed with losing even a single tritanium that you can't see that the clarity of a single-unit system with microscopic waste is superior to a many-multiple unit of measure system with no waste.

One veldspar in the current system is 0.1m3 and is it's own unit of measure. Thats why they call it "1 veldspar" and say it's 0.1m3 in volume. If you cannot comprehend this than any other conversation with you on this topic is meaningless because you are so far divorced from reality we won't even be able to agree on the value of 1.


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.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#107 - 2012-09-20 08:40:10 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Even a noob miner is unlikely to refine less than 1000m3 of ore at a time after they get out of their insurance ship.

You only see the unwieldy fractions because you are too obsessed with losing even a single tritanium that you can't see that the clarity of a single-unit system with microscopic waste is superior to a many-multiple unit of measure system with no waste.

One veldspar in the current system is 0.1m3 and is it's own unit of measure. Thats why they call it "1 veldspar" and say it's 0.1m3 in volume. If you cannot comprehend this than any other conversation with you on this topic is meaningless because you are so far divorced from reality we won't even be able to agree on the value of 1.


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.


Noob miners shouldn't care about all the odd whacked out units of measure and refinery requirements because they should be streamlined and standardized. They serve no meaningful purpose. Try reading your own writing. You haven't stopped harping about waste since you saw the first decimal point. This chart is as accurate as it needs to be. The loss per m3 refined of any ore reduces to near-zero so fast even you might not be able to measure it.

And now you begin to see the light on why the freako units of measure are absurd and completely unnecessary. They do not relate anything to anything else. 1 veldspar unit of volume measurement has no relationship to anything other than m3. 1 scordite unit of volume measurement has no relationship to anything other than m3. None of the freako custom units of volume measurements for any ores have any relationship with any other volume measurement other than with m3. Any cross unit comparison of volume must be calculated based on m3.

Any unit of measure which holds no definition outside that which is provided by an existing unit of measure has no reason to exist. All ores can be measured in m3. All freako ore volumetric units are defined by m3, and relate to nothing other than themselves. This makes them utterly meaningless.

Your asking me to compare the freako ore volume units against one another doesn't show that they aren't units of measure, it shows that they aren't USEFUL units of measure.
Pipa Porto
#108 - 2012-09-20 08:46:02 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Noob miners shouldn't care about all the odd whacked out units of measure and refinery requirements because they should be streamlined and standardized. They serve no meaningful purpose. Try reading your own writing. You haven't stopped harping about waste since you saw the first decimal point. This chart is as accurate as it needs to be. The loss per m3 refined of any ore reduces to near-zero so fast even you might not be able to measure it.

And now you begin to see the light on why the freako units of measure are absurd and completely unnecessary. They do not relate anything to anything else. 1 veldspar unit of volume measurement has no relationship to anything other than m3. 1 scordite unit of volume measurement has no relationship to anything other than m3. None of the freako custom units of volume measurements for any ores have any relationship with any other volume measurement other than with m3. Any cross unit comparison of volume must be calculated based on m3.

Any unit of measure which holds no definition outside that which is provided by an existing unit of measure has no reason to exist. All ores can be measured in m3. All freako ore volumetric units are defined by m3, and relate to nothing other than themselves. This makes them utterly meaningless.

Your asking me to compare the freako ore volume units against one another doesn't show that they aren't units of measure, it shows that they aren't USEFUL units of measure.


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.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#109 - 2012-09-20 09:00:41 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Cheopis wrote:
Noob miners shouldn't care about all the odd whacked out units of measure and refinery requirements because they should be streamlined and standardized. They serve no meaningful purpose. Try reading your own writing. You haven't stopped harping about waste since you saw the first decimal point. This chart is as accurate as it needs to be. The loss per m3 refined of any ore reduces to near-zero so fast even you might not be able to measure it.

And now you begin to see the light on why the freako units of measure are absurd and completely unnecessary. They do not relate anything to anything else. 1 veldspar unit of volume measurement has no relationship to anything other than m3. 1 scordite unit of volume measurement has no relationship to anything other than m3. None of the freako custom units of volume measurements for any ores have any relationship with any other volume measurement other than with m3. Any cross unit comparison of volume must be calculated based on m3.

Any unit of measure which holds no definition outside that which is provided by an existing unit of measure has no reason to exist. All ores can be measured in m3. All freako ore volumetric units are defined by m3, and relate to nothing other than themselves. This makes them utterly meaningless.

Your asking me to compare the freako ore volume units against one another doesn't show that they aren't units of measure, it shows that they aren't USEFUL units of measure.


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.


I am saying that removing an extra, superflous unit of measure for every single ore type, and a different refinery rate for each ore is worth paying a couple decimal places for.

Now onto Stupid Volume Units 101.

Very good. You are beginning to understand. A Car is in fact a unit of measure in some ways. Cars are a measure of economic well being in many nations. A two-car family is generally considered to be a family that is above the poverty line in the US. The cars are defined as being functional vehicles that are street legal. The same thing can be said for cows in the farming industry. If you have a 10-cow farm it says something completely different from a 100 cow farm.

These units of measure can be used to compare families against each other, or farms against each other. While they are by no means the most accurate method of doing so, they are indeed units of measure.

The freako single-unit ore volume definitions in EVE have no useful value other than that which is provided by the m3 which they derive their ONLY definition from. Therefore they are utterly useless.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-09-20 10:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: betoli
Pipa Porto wrote:

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.
Pipa Porto
#111 - 2012-09-20 11:11:08 UTC
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

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.


That's exactly my point. A Unit of Ore is like a Car. 3/4s of a Unit of Ore is not a useful measurement of Ore in New Eden.

By the way, with containerization, it's fairly easy to discuss vehicles by volume (especially if each vehicle were identical to its neighbor like units of Ore are). It's not often done, but then when was the last time you saw a buy order asking for 5000m3 of Mercx?

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


Who says that an Ore unit is a dividable resource in New Eden?
What conversion rates?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Pipa Porto
#112 - 2012-09-20 11:21:39 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
I am saying that removing an extra, superflous unit of measure for every single ore type, and a different refinery rate for each ore is worth paying a couple decimal places for.


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).

Quote:
Now onto Stupid Volume Units 101.

Very good. You are beginning to understand. A Car is in fact a unit of measure in some ways. Cars are a measure of economic well being in many nations. A two-car family is generally considered to be a family that is above the poverty line in the US. The cars are defined as being functional vehicles that are street legal. The same thing can be said for cows in the farming industry. If you have a 10-cow farm it says something completely different from a 100 cow farm.

These units of measure can be used to compare families against each other, or farms against each other. While they are by no means the most accurate method of doing so, they are indeed units of measure.

The freako single-unit ore volume definitions in EVE have no useful value other than that which is provided by the m3 which they derive their ONLY definition from. Therefore they are utterly useless.


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.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#113 - 2012-09-20 15:52:45 UTC
I am against any simplification of the mining system for a couple of reasons.

1. There is no reason to change it. Our current system works just fine.
2. I learned it. If I can learn it, anyone can learn it.
3. I like the fact that people who are willing to put in the work (read: excel documents full of formulas) can make money off other people's inefficiencies.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2012-09-20 16:27:21 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:

That's exactly my point. A Unit of Ore is like a Car. 3/4s of a Unit of Ore is not a useful measurement of Ore in New Eden.


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

Pipa Porto wrote:

Who says that an Ore unit is a dividable resource in New Eden?
What conversion rates?


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.

Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#115 - 2012-09-20 17:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Pipa Porto wrote:
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

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.


That's exactly my point. A Unit of Ore is like a Car. 3/4s of a Unit of Ore is not a useful measurement of Ore in New Eden.

By the way, with containerization, it's fairly easy to discuss vehicles by volume (especially if each vehicle were identical to its neighbor like units of Ore are). It's not often done, but then when was the last time you saw a buy order asking for 5000m3 of Mercx?

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


Who says that an Ore unit is a dividable resource in New Eden?
What conversion rates?


Wait. Are you now proposing that the volume of a single molecule of Veldspar is 0.1m3?

That's a REALLY big molecule.

You do know what division is, right? That might be the source of all the confusion I'm seeing here if nobody ever taught you division in school. It would explain why it is that you seem to be afraid of anything that you can't count on your fingers & toes.

Damnit, seriously, are you REALLY proposing that 0.1m3 of veldspar is the smallest possible subdivision of the ore? If so, you really need to step back and take another look at your argument after some sleep and a cup of coffee.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#116 - 2012-09-20 17:20:26 UTC
Cheopis wrote:
Wait. Are you now proposing that the volume of a single molecule of Veldspar is 0.1m3?

That's a REALLY big molecule.

You do know what division is, right? That might be the source of all the confusion I'm seeing here if nobody ever taught you division in school. It would explain why it is that you seem to be afraid of anything that you can't count on your fingers & toes.

Damnit, seriously, are you REALLY proposing that 0.1m3 of veldspar is the smallest possible subdivision of the ore? If so, you really need to step back and take another look at your argument after some sleep and a cup of coffee.


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.
Cheopis
Cheopis Industries
#117 - 2012-09-20 17:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheopis
Paikis wrote:
I am against any simplification of the mining system for a couple of reasons.

1. There is no reason to change it. Our current system works just fine.
2. I learned it. If I can learn it, anyone can learn it.
3. I like the fact that people who are willing to put in the work (read: excel documents full of formulas) can make money off other people's inefficiencies.


Gawd, after dealing with Pipa's incomprehensibility, this is refreshing, thank you. I don't agree with you, but thank you for not creating an artificial argument out of delusional adherence to illogical units of measure.

Your #3 does indeed make me pause and think. I don't think it's enough to maintain this system for though. There's plenty of other ways to make money in EVE, and plenty of miners out there who assign 0 value to the ore they mine themselves to manufacture with. Arbitrage would still be out there for ore based on people's inability to refine it perfectly, or transport it efficiently.

I don't think that the increased liklihood of large arbitrage values due to mistaken calculations is worth keeping the ore system using it's current units superflous of measure.

** Edit add. I'm actually going to have to edit the OP at some point today to bring this counter-argument into the discussion fully and make my argument against it in the OP. Thank you again for being rational and adding to the conversation.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#118 - 2012-09-20 17:58:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Cheopis wrote:

Damnit, seriously, are you REALLY proposing that 0.1m3 of veldspar is the smallest possible subdivision of the ore?


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 ...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#119 - 2012-09-20 21:13:21 UTC
I support something like ore simplification, and while the 1 arconor yielding 0.whatever zydrine is a good point, it's not hard to workaround.

Just make 1 unit = 1m3 and batch size 1000 for all ores, then adjust the minerals per batch numbers so that no more partial items are created. Even if this results in one more megacyte every 12000m3 of arkonor, it's not like this would completely melt down the economy...

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Pipa Porto
#120 - 2012-09-20 22:24:37 UTC
betoli wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

That's exactly my point. A Unit of Ore is like a Car. 3/4s of a Unit of Ore is not a useful measurement of Ore in New Eden.


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


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

Quote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Who says that an Ore unit is a dividable resource in New Eden?
What conversion rates?


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.


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?"

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto