These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Rorqual and Mining changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#801 - 2017-03-10 19:39:47 UTC
I really wish they'd roll the range bonus directly into the miners themselves rather than the command burst. In those odd situations where you don't have links it's going to become even more cancerous to mine since you probably won't have a spare rock in range.
Cade Windstalker
#802 - 2017-03-10 19:46:24 UTC
Sisi Collins wrote:
Ideal?

Please go to SISI and just sit on spodumain rock at 0 for 1hour mining and than to TQ in same conditions. IT will not be ~25%. What ever you will say it will not be a 25%, it will not be even 30-40%, you will get ore as you are mining on hulk.

Devs choose to hide real information from people. who are lazy to go into test server and see what they will get with 14 March patch

Reading your posts I'm more thinking you are living in different universe and playing on your own EvE sever : )


Yes... as I said in the post you quoted, the 25% change figure was, explicitly, to the ideal yield of the Rorqual, not to the actual yield. The actual yield is always going to be lower than the ideal, and the drone travel time changes combined with the larger rocks are going to result in something *far* less than the ideal values.

CCP flat out stated back here in this reply post that they tested the values with the increased asteroid size, so the new average yield (I would assume across all rock sizes, not just the largest or smallest) are entirely intentional on CCP's part.

If I were to speculate I'd say that CCP may be hoping people will use Rorquals for both boosting and mining now, using Hulks on the larger rocks and sitting the Rorquals on the physically smaller ones since they can mine those more efficiently.

Tommy Robotic wrote:
Are you role playing right now??

Rorquals were re-introduced as the best mining ships in nullsec. They are a huge investment. I think everyone agrees their yield was too high when they came out and an adjustment was needed. It's been awhile and perhaps it's still a little bit too high (up for debate) so a minor adjustment could be seen as reasonable.

The changes they are proposing are not an "adjustment". They are severe and drastic. It shows that there is a bigger problem than the rorquals themselves.


Thanks to a small error on CCP's part we actually have a pretty good window into the impact of the Rorqual. Previous MERs didn't include Rorqual data, if you look at January's the first graph shows something very different from the latest MER for the months since November. Combined with Fozzie's comment on the MER being missing drone data previously this suggests that the first graph at least was fixed.

In the latest Monthly Economic Report the totals for the individual regions don't add up to the values displayed on the first graph for the month of February. This suggests that while the first graph was fixed the regional values were not.

If you total up the values from the regions and average by 28 days you get ~.7748 Trillion per day. The graph shows a daily average around 1.7-1.8 Trillion. That would mean that drones, including the Rorqual, account for almost a Trillion ISK in mining value per day, or roughly 56% of mined ore in the game.

That hardly suggests that there's a bigger problem than the Rorqual, it suggests that the Rorqual suddenly more than doubled the mined value in the game in the span of a few months.

jizzah wrote:
I didn't want to come across as being too negative towards you.


Uh-huh, right. I'm seriously still waiting for you to provide some evidence beyond the erroneous anecdotal stuff you've provided so far, and even that hasn't been put into much of a logical argument beyond a pile of 'evidence' followed by something like 'therefore clearly these nerfs are too much!'

That is... not much of an argument, to put it mildly.

Bit of a shame too, because you clearly do have some idea what you're talking about, you're just putting it together really poorly and going with gut-flinch reactions over analysis of the available evidence.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#803 - 2017-03-10 19:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: jizzah
Ok I'm going to do some 'maths' here. I'm going to look at mining drone yield and travel time. I'll use base values.

At the moment the base yield is 220m³ per 90 seconds.
Changes take that to 110m³ per 60 seconds.

220/90=2.44444
110/60=1.83333

(1.83333/2.44444)x100=75%

So, so far we can see that the changes to yield per cycle are 75% of the current value, ergo "a 25% nerf to ideal yields"

So, lets now add into this travel time. As has been shown in SISI the furthest drones can reach round the new 'roids is 15km, so lets make the assumption they're using supercharged drones with speed boosted and they actually have made it to the far side, meaning the diameter of the orbit is 15km.

The circumference for a 15km diameter is Ø x π = 3.142 x 15 = 47.13, so in order to reach the far side of such a radius, the drone will have to travel around 23.5 km.

Take a drone with base speed of 200m/s.
Distance = speed x time
Distance = 200 x 60
Distance = 12km

The fact is, in order to reach the very far side of a roid of the dimensions given, the drone would need to be travelling at almost 400m/s (speed = distance/time, =23500/60, = 391m/s).

Regardless of navigations skills or the calculations, if it's taken you 60 seconds to reach a point, it will more than likely take you between 42-60 seconds to return due to the possible arcs. 42 seconds is best case, worked out using a right angled triangle and the equation (a²+b²=c²) to give us the length of the hypotenuse. i'll use base speed for this, but the principle's the same if you go faster, you go further which means you've further to travel back, but you're going faster, etc, etc.

√ (6²+6²)
√ (36+36)=8.48

Then work out the time for 8.48km @ 200m/s
8480/200=42


Compare that with the current values:

The biggest orbit I've recorded is 3.5km, so lets say a 3.5km orbit diameter.

That's 11km orbit circumference or 5.5km to the far side.

Now, with the base values, even if you're at the far side doing 200m/s it will take you 27.5, call it 28 seconds to return and as the orbit is 90 seconds, the true travel time can be anywhere from 0 (if you're lucky enough to have it passing you when it reaches cycle end) to 28 seconds at max distance.

Base values.
200m/s
Under 28 seconds at worst.


0-28 (average 14)
42-60 (average 51)

Average 37 seconds extra travel time.


So there's some 'maths' for you to mull over. 25% reduction in yield and an extra 37 seconds of dead time further reducing it, meaning the nonsense being quoted about rorquals still being the 'best mining ship' is pretty thin and entirely objective. "Sometimes" the best mining ship would be more accurate.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#804 - 2017-03-10 19:58:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Uh-huh, right. I'm seriously still waiting for you to provide some evidence beyond the erroneous anecdotal stuff you've provided so far, and even that hasn't been put into much of a logical argument beyond a pile of 'evidence' followed by something like 'therefore clearly these nerfs are too much!'

That is... not much of an argument, to put it mildly.

Bit of a shame too, because you clearly do have some idea what you're talking about, you're just putting it together really poorly and going with gut-flinch reactions over analysis of the available evidence.

Lets see your 'math' then, and no cheating. I want to see working.
Cade Windstalker
#805 - 2017-03-10 20:15:29 UTC
jizzah wrote:
So there's some 'maths' for you to mull over. 25% reduction in yield and a further 12-30 seconds of dead time further reducing it, meaning the nonsense being quoted about rorquals still being the 'best mining ship' is pretty thin and entirely objective. "Sometimes" the best mining ship would be more accurate.


I find your math convincing and entirely accurate. At best though that's an argument that the Rorqual is situationally good now, which isn't actually a bad thing IMO. It means you have to put some thought into its use instead of just using it as a massive ore hoover that sucks up everything but Mercoxit like a shopvac having a milkshake.

I think you might have a pretty reasonable argument here for a speed bump to the Rorqual's drones, because if I'm reading your math right (and I do apologize I don't have time to do more than estimate here) there's a sweet spot for drone speed and it occurs before Drone Nav 5, and these sorts of weird "don't train this to 5, it's worse" situations are something CCP have been actively trying to eliminate in the last several years, especially with drones and bloody drone nav.

Without knowing what the average size of rock in a belt is though it's hard to get a feel for what the actual yield of the Rorqual is going to be after the changes. I can poke around on Sisi tonight and see if I can figure it out, but that'll be a few hours yet. If the actual yield of the Rorqual across an entire Ore Anom does end up being pretty close to a Hulk's then these nerfs have probably gone too far and there should be some kind of adjustment upwards, either in drone speed or somewhere else.

jizzah wrote:
Lets see your 'math' then, and no cheating. I want to see working.


What, exactly, do you want to see my math on?

I just posted most of my argument for the current issue with Rorqual economics being out of control.

I can expand that with some reference to supply and demand graphs from the various market sites to try and explain why I don't feel just evening out the ore bottlenecks is going to solve the issue, with references to the destroyed value graph for the MER. Is that what you're after by way of math?

My argument here has never really been over the magnitude of the nerfs and what they actually are, except when I felt someone's own claims about magnitude were incorrect.

I don't actually particularly care what the numbers currently are or what they end up being in the future, I care about good and accurate debate over things like this.

If these threads consisted of nothing but posts like the one you just made being used to support solid reasoning either for or against the changes being proposed no one would ever see me in one of these threads again except with a graph or a spreadsheet to chuck into the mix.

In short sir, fantastic. Love your post, more like it please. Pirate
Pryce Caesar
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#806 - 2017-03-10 20:53:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Pryce Caesar
So, if I am understanding correctly:

The impact of the Rorqual's mining on the mineral economy in Null-Sec was perceived to be "too good", so they have once again nerfed the Drones down to a whole flight only giving the equivalent mining yield of two Hulks/Exhumers, despite the fact that Rorqual are the biggest mining vessels in the game, and effectively reduced down to mining far less per hour than their actual worth.

Certain players were complaining about the more creative uses of the Rorqual's PANIC module, a module originally designed to give the Rorqual more survivability against hot-droppers or Frigate swarms, so they reduced the PANIC module, WHICH WAS ALREADY A ONE-SHOT DEAL, to only being able to be activated when you have an asteroid locked on, leaving a Rorqual vulnerable for 90% of the time it is anywhere out in space.

In case Fozzie has not noticed, the "tank" on Rorquals mean nothing when gangs that drop on top of Rorqs have enough substantial fire-power to melt a TITAN in a few minute's time.

And reducing the mining values on a Rorqual only hurts the ship itself. In terms of actual mineral economy, the impact will be zip. You will still have massive mining fleets out and about chewing up asteroids and ice fields, making the overall decrease in mineral absolute minimal - 2% decrease in overall mineral mining from Null-Sec AT THE MOST.

And you still have those Excavator Drones priced as high as CAPITAL SHIPS despite you nerfing their mining output by 60%. A price more in line with an actual Exhumer would be much more reasonable.

You are nerfing the Rorqual to high-hell and back because certain players complained about not being able to find a work-around to a module THAT ONLY HAS ONE CYCLE BEFORE IT DEACTIVATES.

It is a good thing if Rorqs are able to introduce new tactics and make the game more challenging in fleet battles; you should not make it easier because vocal groups started complaining about they couldn't think up a way to beat the strategy.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#807 - 2017-03-10 20:57:16 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


jizzah wrote:
Lets see your 'math' then, and no cheating. I want to see working.


What, exactly, do you want to see my math on?

I just posted most of my argument for the current issue with Rorqual economics being out of control.

I can expand that with some reference to supply and demand graphs from the various market sites to try and explain why I don't feel just evening out the ore bottlenecks is going to solve the issue, with references to the destroyed value graph for the MER. Is that what you're after by way of math?

My argument here has never really been over the magnitude of the nerfs and what they actually are, except when I felt someone's own claims about magnitude were incorrect.

I don't actually particularly care what the numbers currently are or what they end up being in the future, I care about good and accurate debate over things like this.



Well, to be frank I'd like to see some actual work put in. Effort from own evidence rather than copy/pasting links and other people's speculations. It's what has got a lot of the people posting here's backs up, when you're telling everyone how it is without any actual real experience.

You see, it's very easy to link data supplied by CCP which is inaccurate at the best of times, then base an argument on it. The fact is, that's someone else's information-not yours, and the engineer in me ****ing well hates that sort of half done job.

You know what, even if your figures were a mile out, I'd still have a lot more time and respect for you for trying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Cade Windstalker
#808 - 2017-03-10 21:13:40 UTC
jizzah wrote:
Well, to be frank I'd like to see some actual work put in. Effort from own evidence rather than copy/pasting links and other people's speculations. It's what has got a lot of the people posting here's backs up, when you're telling everyone how it is without any actual real experience.

You see, it's very easy to link data supplied by CCP which is inaccurate at the best of times, then base an argument on it. The fact is, that's someone else's information-not yours, and the engineer in me ****ing well hates that sort of half done job.

You know what, even if your figures were a mile out, I'd still have a lot more time and respect for you for trying.


Ah, I actually tend to take something of the opposite approach, and that's why I've specifically avoided posting much from personal experience unless I absolutely can't avoid it.

My own results are going to be subject to bias and won't reflect anything more than my own little window on Eve, which is hardly a viable sample size. Even my own little corner of Eve is comparatively tiny, so I try to only bring up specific experience as a counter-example to someone else's sweeping statement. For example the claim that everyone just hoovers up entire Ore Anoms when I know from the people I've talked to that this isn't the case for everyone.

For me, I much prefer looking at things through the lens of math and API data, and only using testing to inform conclusions grounded in those things, as you did with your math above.

Generally I've found this approach to be more effective than simply posting personal experiences. Someone else will always have a contradictory experience, and quite often those arguments for me have spiralled off into quibbling over details, but it's a lot harder to nitpick a broad sample size or some hard math working out yields, DPS, tracking, ect.

It's possible our two approaches just aren't compatible, but if you have any suggestions I'd like to hear them.
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#809 - 2017-03-10 21:20:05 UTC  |  Edited by: jizzah
Cade Windstalker wrote:


It's possible our two approaches just aren't compatible, but if you have any suggestions I'd like to hear them.

If you can't fit it, fix it.
If you can't fix it, **** it.
If you can't **** it, forget it.


(Anom, n.d.)
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#810 - 2017-03-10 21:53:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Cade I'd like for you to take a moment and reflect on each post currently pinned on the front page here. Look at how many times you have posted compared to literally anyone else. Look at the reasonable posts speaking from personal experience, then look at yours quoting friends you apparently have that are involved in every aspect of EVE.

Yet, for someone so amazingly connected, I'm sorry to say in game I have not heard of you at all. And when I have aksed around all l or anyone else seems ot know you for is being a damned white knight forum warrior who we all question how much time you actually spend playing the game itself.

Your arguments are rarely "sound" as they typically revolving around what CCP give us as evidence even when they say themselves what they have provided is incomplete or not entirely transparent, or some amazing reliable connection you have who is tied to that style of play. And might I point out that, we all have friends or some amount of experience in each aspect of this game yet we dont find ourselves or our friends to be experts in that field as ALL of yours apparently are. You seem to take all your friend's statements as fact, and anyone coming to this thread to give their feedback personally, as unreliable rants from an angry player.

Why, may I ask, can your friends never speak for themselves? Why do they not come here and back up your statements where you are apparently paraphrasing them? We all know you're full of hot air and you need to quit and play the game. Get some real experience, then come back and tell us what you think or find to be true. Nobody wants your feedback on something you overheard as that is not even your 2 cents you're trying to give us.

---

Myself, Jizzah and many others on multiple occasions have given you actual math behind what we say as well as less extreme solutions to the perceived problems. I even take a step back most of the time from my personal stance that it should be literally impossible to plex an account from HS space outside of playing the market. Meaning gut the ever loving hell out of incursions and mining ore+ice.

I feel that for the best to occur people must be pushed fully into wh/null/low for the game to flourish and new players can experience the game without competing against people who have been playing for multiple years from HS with no actual knowledge about the game to pass on to them outside of how to avoid pvp.

CCP has stated on several occasions they wanted null to be self sufficient yet rely on other areas of space to encourage territorial wars and trade. WH has a mix of nearly everything minus moons, moons/ore give null their place, HS space offers centralized trade hubs. The ONLY region of space that actually needs saving is low. And I'd love to see a lot more love thrown their way to encourage players to venture there as they are starting out, a true first step to WH/Null living. But that is on CCP to make happen, I have my own ideas of how that could occur, but I've already taken this far enough off topic.


TL DR - Cade go play the damn game and get some real experience before you fill this forum with your trifle crap. We have offered evidence repeatedly, and no quotes from imaginary friends or links to incomplete data can combat this. Nobody can play optimally 100% of the time, therefore to balance all things based on that rather than averages is foolish and bad design. End of story.
Cade Windstalker
#811 - 2017-03-10 22:43:35 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Myself, Jizzah and many others on multiple occasions have given you actual math behind what we say as well as less extreme solutions to the perceived problems. I even take a step back most of the time from my personal stance that it should be literally impossible to plex an account from HS space outside of playing the market. Meaning gut the ever loving hell out of incursions and mining ore+ice.

I feel that for the best to occur people must be pushed fully into wh/null/low for the game to flourish and new players can experience the game without competing against people who have been playing for multiple years from HS with no actual knowledge about the game to pass on to them outside of how to avoid pvp.

CCP has stated on several occasions they wanted null to be self sufficient yet rely on other areas of space to encourage territorial wars and trade. WH has a mix of nearly everything minus moons, moons/ore give null their place, HS space offers centralized trade hubs. The ONLY region of space that actually needs saving is low. And I'd love to see a lot more love thrown their way to encourage players to venture there as they are starting out, a true first step to WH/Null living. But that is on CCP to make happen, I have my own ideas of how that could occur, but I've already taken this far enough off topic.


TL DR - Cade go play the damn game and get some real experience before you fill this forum with your trifle crap. We have offered evidence repeatedly, and no quotes from imaginary friends or links to incomplete data can combat this. Nobody can play optimally 100% of the time, therefore to balance all things based on that rather than averages is foolish and bad design. End of story.


To address these points in no particular order:

I'm not advocating for balancing simply around optimal play. If that was the case I'd be on the "OMG nerf Carrier ratting/Incursions/ect" train, among others, because there's often a significant difference between perfect play and play in practice. My comment about the 25% nerf value was simply pointing out that CCP did specifically say that it was a 25% nerf to the optimal yield of the ship, and not what the actual yield would be in practice for each player. I was simply calling out what i felt was an inaccurate criticism.

As to the people I know, I just collect stories and talk to people. I've spent most of my Eve career dabbling and talking to people about what they know, what they've done, or what they're currently doing. I don't claim to have a perfect view on the game, I just get frustrated when people make claims solely from personal experience as if they're universally applicable to everyone. In retrospect I've probably let a little too much of that frustration into my comments recently and for that I'll apologize.

The people I know, with no exceptions that immediately come to mind, generally avoid the Eve-O forums like they're going to catch cancer here. I'm often the person informing others of new changes that have been posted here for weeks because those players simply don't frequent the forums and when I mention interactions I have on here to them, rarely, I'm generally advised to avoid the forums entirely.

I'm not really sure why you and Jizzah have claimed that CCP's data is inaccurate or incomplete. Personally, outside of the times when they themselves state as much, I've never found much cause to doubt its accuracy. It's certainly proven more accurate than player created metrics, which are almost by definition more limited and piecemeal.

There's one thing I do feel fairly confident speaking on from personal experience and that's debate and these forums.

I've been in and out of the forums on and off for years and I've gotten a pretty good idea of what does or doesn't get a response from CCP and what can convince them a change may not be warranted. The sort of "but my personal experience says this is wrong" yelling that so often makes up the majority of these threads doesn't do it. It does nothing to refute whatever internal metrics, data, or evidence CCP has in support of their change, the only thing I've ever seen it do is potentially bring up cases they haven't thought of, like the targeting range issue for Barges and Exhumers that was exposed in this thread.

Math is great, but if it doesn't fit cohesively into the point being made it's not worth much, and it won't make its point for you. Something like math showing the extent of the yield nerf is, more than likely, already known to CCP either through their own math or their own testing. Without some other argument or evidence to back up *why* that's too much of a change it's not going to elicit more of a response than 'yup, we're aware of that', assuming they even say anything.

Personally I'm more than a little sad that people can't manage to have a decent discussion on these forums around the changes posted here.

They just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and then complain that CCP doesn't listen to "the overwhelmingly negative feedback in this thread" when that's not what CCP is looking for, and unless they get *way* more negative feedback than they're expecting it's not going to do jack ****.

Just throwing your .02 ISK of personal experience on the scale just isn't a terribly convincing argument. That's what my personal experience tells me.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#812 - 2017-03-10 22:49:43 UTC
Coelomate Tian wrote:
A reminder for anyone panicked without having tested themselves:

In a colossal nullsec anom, only some rocks are gigantic. Most rocks are still small. This is not a blanket 75% rorqual nerf.

On the largest spod, without drone speed rigs and proper placement, I do believe you'll see yields fall by 75% vs. current values.

But most rocks will be small enough for little yield reduction beyond the advertised 25% excavator nerf. And if you pack on drone speed rigs and park your rorqual intelligently, it won't be as bad.

Spoiler Alert: Optimize your mining fleets by bringing barges to hit the big rocks from the beginning of the anom, use your rorquals on small rocks first.



you mean the 5+ spod rocks that are all 65k+


Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#813 - 2017-03-10 23:02:53 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
My comment about the 25% nerf value was simply pointing out that CCP did specifically say that it was a 25% nerf to the optimal yield of the ship, and not what the actual yield would be in practice for each player. I was simply calling out what i felt was an inaccurate criticism.


In case you're not really reading the posts.. We all KNOW what CCP based their 25% nerf on.. what we are pointing out.. that OFF paper, ie. in the real spaceships world, where these changes are actually going to play out.. it's not a 25% nerf. and in fact not even CLOSE to that number.

Nobody cares about the changes on paper. It's the application that's being raged over.

so for you to keep reiterating that it's won't be that bad, without having done any of it yourself .. well.
Cade Windstalker
#814 - 2017-03-11 00:33:06 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
My comment about the 25% nerf value was simply pointing out that CCP did specifically say that it was a 25% nerf to the optimal yield of the ship, and not what the actual yield would be in practice for each player. I was simply calling out what i felt was an inaccurate criticism.


In case you're not really reading the posts.. We all KNOW what CCP based their 25% nerf on.. what we are pointing out.. that OFF paper, ie. in the real spaceships world, where these changes are actually going to play out.. it's not a 25% nerf. and in fact not even CLOSE to that number.

Nobody cares about the changes on paper. It's the application that's being raged over.

so for you to keep reiterating that it's won't be that bad, without having done any of it yourself .. well.


Sorry, my bad for being unclear or ambiguous.

At no point here have I meant to state, imply, express, ect that the nerf "won't be that bad" or any such thing. The closest I've come is pointing out that Excavator Drones are unlikely to stay at current prices so the asset on the field is likely to be worth less, which helps the time to pay back the initial investment.

Some people were saying the 25% nerf number was incorrect, I was taking them literally and correcting what I saw as incorrect information.

I'm quite aware that this nerf is going to be quite severe, and the rock size changes have certainly only made it more so. From the looks of things on the largest rocks a Rorqual will mine slightly better than a Hulk, give or take. On the smaller and higher value ones it'll still be around 2-3 Hulks of yield give or take.

Whether or not that's too much, I haven't really seen convincing evidence either way. At this point my gut says it's a little too much and should be balanced out by a speed buff on the drones, but I don't generally trust my gut for things like this, it's biased.

For whatever it's worth I do empathize with the people affected by this and every other nerf. Nerfs kinda suck, the perfect game would be one where everyone could feel like their thing was 20% more powerful than everyone else's thing, but a competitive game like that with any depth is pretty much impossible to design, so we're stuck with the rolling saga of nerfs and buffs that every MMO has.
w1ndstrike
White Talon Holdings
#815 - 2017-03-11 06:14:09 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The closest I've come is pointing out that Excavator Drones are unlikely to stay at current prices so the asset on the field is likely to be worth less, which helps the time to pay back the initial investment.


I haven't read any of your other posts in the massive back and forth, but you're wrong on this one. The choke on price is not high demand, it is controlled and manipulated parts supply. It's not even conjecture, anyone with a trade alt and about 200m to burn can check for themselves in the same manner you normally check for manipulations of other goods.

Without a change to the blueprint or a large increase in the supply of certain components, drones will only fall to about 670m at best, which makes the risk/reward ratio taking the new larger rocks into account completely unacceptable. (1 command destroyer and they're all toast)
Birabanor
CRUZADOS
Goonswarm Federation
#816 - 2017-03-11 07:46:38 UTC
Tobias Frank wrote:
Philip Shazih wrote:
Is there a reason why you first say you want to make them awesome support ships, then make them the best miner in the game so everyone buys them and then nerf the **** out of them? Or did you guys just **** up with the initial yield and didnt think we'd all be having 10 rorqs per anom?


Exactly this. Sure, player behavior is not 100% forseeable, but there are years of experience with such things. Do they (the developers) even know their game and the players?

Lets be honest, the inital Rorqual redesign was a complete failure, the whole dronemining concept is just ridiculous, inculding the pricing for the excavators.

You are just leaving a ton of dissapointed players who spent huge amounts of time and money to train into and obtain certain ships and equipment. Really frustraiting and not funny.



Right CCP i feel that you dont have a close idea about the changes "needed", how ca you RISK a 10 billion rorqual for nothing? isnt the motto "Big risk Big reward"? you guys fron CCP really need to get in to the game and then fix things.
The nexus is not woking, https://zkillboard.com/ship/28352/losses/ More than a Half of them had the Nexus... did it work or made a difference ? answer : NO
I know that you CCP work hard to improve this game i been playing for more than 10 yrs, but right now you are heading in the wrong direction.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#817 - 2017-03-11 08:38:44 UTC
jizzah wrote:
Ok I'm going to do some 'maths' here. I'm going to look at mining drone yield and travel time. I'll use base values.

At the moment the base yield is 220m³ per 90 seconds.
Changes take that to 110m³ per 60 seconds.

220/90=2.44444
110/60=1.83333

(1.83333/2.44444)x100=75%

So, so far we can see that the changes to yield per cycle are 75% of the current value, ergo "a 25% nerf to ideal yields"

So, lets now add into this travel time. As has been shown in SISI the furthest drones can reach round the new 'roids is 15km, so lets make the assumption they're using supercharged drones with speed boosted and they actually have made it to the far side, meaning the diameter of the orbit is 15km.

The circumference for a 15km diameter is Ø x π = 3.142 x 15 = 47.13, so in order to reach the far side of such a radius, the drone will have to travel around 23.5 km.

Take a drone with base speed of 200m/s.
Distance = speed x time
Distance = 200 x 60
Distance = 12km

The fact is, in order to reach the very far side of a roid of the dimensions given, the drone would need to be travelling at almost 400m/s (speed = distance/time, =23500/60, = 391m/s).

Regardless of navigations skills or the calculations, if it's taken you 60 seconds to reach a point, it will more than likely take you between 42-60 seconds to return due to the possible arcs. 42 seconds is best case, worked out using a right angled triangle and the equation (a²+b²=c²) to give us the length of the hypotenuse. i'll use base speed for this, but the principle's the same if you go faster, you go further which means you've further to travel back, but you're going faster, etc, etc.

√ (6²+6²)
√ (36+36)=8.48

Then work out the time for 8.48km @ 200m/s
8480/200=42


Compare that with the current values:

The biggest orbit I've recorded is 3.5km, so lets say a 3.5km orbit diameter.

That's 11km orbit circumference or 5.5km to the far side.

Now, with the base values, even if you're at the far side doing 200m/s it will take you 27.5, call it 28 seconds to return and as the orbit is 90 seconds, the true travel time can be anywhere from 0 (if you're lucky enough to have it passing you when it reaches cycle end) to 28 seconds at max distance.

Base values.
200m/s
Under 28 seconds at worst.


0-28
42-60

Difference 14-30 seconds extra travel time.


So there's some 'maths' for you to mull over. 25% reduction in yield and a further 14-30 seconds of dead time further reducing it, meaning the nonsense being quoted about rorquals still being the 'best mining ship' is pretty thin and entirely objective. "Sometimes" the best mining ship would be more accurate.



Well , good feedback fozzie could we get at least some speed to the Escavators now?
Stragak
#818 - 2017-03-11 08:50:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Coelomate Tian wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Note what I was talking about with the over-supply in this graph from the February MER. After the Rorqual changes the value mined shoots up to almost double before the Rorqual, and value destroyed only scoots up slightly in response.


The mining line in that graph doesn't include rorqual mining, because drone mining amounts aren't reported in the tools used for the MER. The increase is only from more people using mining lasers.

Think about that: the graph you linked includes 0 ore mined by rorquals. Zero. None.

CCP does have that data though, imagine what it must look like...


I *believe* this is not correct, considering this is what the graph looked like when January's report was released and now there's suddenly a distinct spike right after that convenient note about drone mining metrics being bugged. CCP Fozzie or someone else will have to confirm if my suspicion about the report being fixed is correct.



Wrong. They have have stated there is and 'continues to be' a logging issue with these drones. Last time I saw mention of the bug
(with no response is https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=510695 ), which is also confirmed in Dev blog
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506509&find=unread & Dev Blog,
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=502493&find=unread & Dev Blog, and are literally the first questions asked nearly every time a new economic report is released about your MER.

Though out the previous pages of the forums you seem to to have no grasp on the Rorq, however you have a great number of alternative facts, that do not add up.

"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio   https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82
jizzah
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#819 - 2017-03-11 11:25:17 UTC  |  Edited by: jizzah
Pesadel0 wrote:



Well , good feedback fozzie could we get at least some speed to the Escavators now?


Ok, let me show you values for drones going twice as fast.

For the existing 3.5km roid, 11km circumference, 5.5 to the furthest point.

Time = distance/speed, = 5500/400
Time = 13.75sec


Now, I'll redo this for a 15km rock, 47km orbit circumference, 23.5km to furthest point.

Time = 23500/400
Time = 58.75 sec

And again using best case (right angled triangle with sides of 23.5km/2 = 11.75km)

√ (11.75²+11.75²)
√ 138+138)=16.62km

Time = 16620/400
Time = 41.5 sec

See? The travel time is proportionate, which is why it's almost the same as the 42 sec value we have for a 200m/s drone.

So, put it together.

Before = 0-14 (average 7) seconds dead time
After = 42-59 (average 50.5) seconds

Difference = 43,5 seconds


Which means, in comparison with a 200 m/s drone which had on average 37 seconds more dead time than current, you've 43.5 seconds making it 6.5 seconds WORSE by going twice as fast.


[edited my prev post to correct errors, changing times to averages]
Coelomate Tian
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#820 - 2017-03-11 13:35:00 UTC
Tested this a lot last night and spreadsheeted it all. Some tests were pure yield tests comparing to theoretical amounts, others involved taking notes on asteroid radius, drone flight time, and max/average drone distance from my rorqual.

The takeaways:


  • Based on all of my tests and weighing for ore size in m3, I predict a well positioned rorqual with 3x drone nav comps and good skills chewing through every rock will end up with 82% as much yield over the course of the entire anom. Coupled with the reduction to 75% from the excavator nerf, that makes the overall rorqual nerf a 39.5% reduction from current values (75% (excavator nerf) * 82% (impact of rock nerf) = 61.5% new yield compared to old yield).
  • Faster drones are almost always better, because drones take unpredictable paths. In theory, you would want to match drone speed to asteroid orbital radius to have them end back near your rorqual after 60 seconds, but in practice they just wobble around enough to make that unpredictable. There's an exception for truly large rocks and certain drone velocities that leave them likely to each just make it to the other end of the asteroid in 60 seconds, meaning consistently near worst case scenario yield reduction.
  • The asteroid size nerf can be mitigated by avoiding the largest rocks, which will be more like 60-70% yield due to their size. Skip them entirely, get barges on them, let somebody else get them, whatever - those are the biggest culprit in reducing overall yield. If you never have to mine a rock with a radius over 3,000m, you aren't going to feel much nerf from asteroid size increase.


TL;DR With correct play and good skills, increasing rock sizes is another ~18% rorqual nerf if you exclusively mine the anom with rorquals. If you mix in some barges or can skip the biggest rocks, it'll be more like a 5-10% additional yield nerf.

In other news, I'm quite pleased that my guesses earlier in this thread closely matched my testing Big smile