Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 09:05:11 -
[1] - Quote
There is a discrepancy between miner tooltip and survey scanner results which could be fixed by adding volume of ore to the scan results.
Picture explains pretty well i think.
Link |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1639
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 09:10:30 -
[2] - Quote
You have an ore scanner fit. Just use it.
God forbid, mining takes even the slightest bit of effort. Any effort at all is too much.
May as well just ask to stay docked and CCP just put ore in your hanger without doing anything.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
manus
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 09:20:23 -
[3] - Quote
First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner but the problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. |
Vokan Narkar
New Eden Traders Aliance
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 10:37:49 -
[4] - Quote
manus wrote:First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. welcome in the eve forums, above is the usual response to anything you write here
+1 to the idea, its not like this information was hidden and as long as it requires to use survey scanner its fine |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
287
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 11:45:53 -
[5] - Quote
manus wrote:First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. /sips drink
Incidentally, did they ever change nos to read in gj instead of "points?" In any case mining is on CCP's horizon as is pve content. We've got the moon mining changes and some kind of dynamic pve thing coming in the next year or so, and CCP is acutely aware of both the mundanity of mining and the botballs that strip belts by the system. Expect a change to mining that will make it very difficult to afk in the not too distant future. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28146
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 12:03:24 -
[6] - Quote
manus wrote:First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose? She has a point, there's very little effort involved in opening up the ingame calculator and doing a little maths.
Quote:You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. Why? You already have the tools needed to calculate this.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
manus
WESCORP 2.0
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 13:38:18 -
[7] - Quote
Cant tell if you are serious or not. Calculating volume by hand every time you scan is redicolous. You would think basic things like that the Survey Scanner would do, the information is not hidden anyway. |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 13:39:09 -
[8] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:manus wrote:First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. /sips drink Incidentally, did they ever change nos to read in gj instead of "points?" In any case mining is on CCP's horizon as is pve content. We've got the moon mining changes and some kind of dynamic pve thing coming in the next year or so, and CCP is acutely aware of both the mundanity of mining and the botballs that strip belts by the system. Expect a change to mining that will make it very difficult to afk in the not too distant future.
Thanks for the heads up. Why am i concerned they will screw it up? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
28146
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 14:10:43 -
[9] - Quote
manus wrote:Cant tell if you are serious or not. Calculating volume by hand every time you scan is redicolous. Totally serious, in fact you only have to do it once for each ore. Make a note using the ingame notepad of how many units of each kind of ore you get in a cycle, and how many cycles it takes to fill the hold for that ore type and refer to it.
Or is that too much effort to expend in an otherwise pretty effortless task?
Quote:You would think basic things like that the Survey Scanner would do, the information is not hidden anyway. The survey scanner works just fine, your lack of willing to expend effort processing the information it gives is the problem.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
314
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 16:13:32 -
[10] - Quote
Sigh, lets see........
Proc = 750 units, 12,000 m3 Skiff = 937 units, 15,000 m3
I know this from experience, i do not need a calculator. I know at what point to pull my strips. I know exactly how many Cycles are needed for a full load. I know exactly how many loads per hour can be maintained boosted. I know exactly how many loads per hour can be maintained unboosted. I know exactly how many Miners and boosters and Haulers need to be in a Fleet. I know exactly how many Man Hours is required for a project. I know exactly how much that Project is worth. I know exactly how much the cost is going to be for payroll.
Who needs a Calculator? And you definitely do not need this, it comes with the territory and all the above is learnable in 30 days or less.
And btw, Mining Missions? who cares about that unless you are doing them for just LP. PvPr's need to be fed, that comes from miners mining real rocks so that I can do my job, cook the food. |
|
Cade Windstalker
1325
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 18:08:12 -
[11] - Quote
manus wrote:Cant tell if you are serious or not. Calculating volume by hand every time you scan is redicolous. You would think basic things like that the Survey Scanner would do, the information is not hidden anyway.
You don't need to calculate it every time you run the scanner, you just need to know how much M3 your miner mines per cycle and know what amount of ore is below that volume. Like Max. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1123
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 19:08:33 -
[12] - Quote
Life doesn't end if you don't min/max your mining yield, FYI. |
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Ripoff Works
462
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 19:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sure, go ahead with your plan. Push for cargo expanders to affect your ore holds. I'll laugh as every single barge becomes easier to gank as a result. |
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 19:21:06 -
[14] - Quote
+1 to OP. It's one more column, and a minimal bit of clientside math, convenient, and affects pretty much nothing.
It would just be a little, nice thing. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3953
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 19:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
This is a problem best solved another way, though I don't disagree with your survey scanner issue. However they should just normalise the ore volumes to 1m for all ore. There is no good reason for different volumes of ore when the volume is far smaller than even the frigate ore holds. It simply adds mess to the system for no value. Yes, some of you know it by memory anyway, but it's bad complexity, not good complexity. |
Cade Windstalker
1326
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 20:17:36 -
[16] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:This is a problem best solved another way, though I don't disagree with your survey scanner issue. However they should just normalise the ore volumes to 1m for all ore. There is no good reason for different volumes of ore when the volume is far smaller than even the frigate ore holds. It simply adds mess to the system for no value. Yes, some of you know it by memory anyway, but it's bad complexity, not good complexity.
Yes there is, it's to prevent ore compression issues and to tweak the volume of ore mined per minute.
Different ores have different yields, and not having them all be 1m3 gives CCP another balance lever to pull to regulate yield as well as preventing some ores from being amazing for ore compression and thus ore transport. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3953
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 20:40:18 -
[17] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Yes there is, it's to prevent ore compression issues and to tweak the volume of ore mined per minute.
Different ores have different yields, and not having them all be 1m3 gives CCP another balance lever to pull to regulate yield as well as preventing some ores from being amazing for ore compression and thus ore transport.
Except it doesn't, because the ore compression ratio's have nothing to do with the ores base volume, and can again be very easily normalised to maintain any existing ratio. And yield can be normalised to maintain existing rates, I'm not suggesting that the larger ores should suddenly refine to 16 times as much and the smaller ores to 1/10th of their current value. The size of the ore however is not a sensible lever to ever adjust for yield balance, when you can simply directly adjust yield.
So no the ore volume is not anything to do with yield balance or compression balance. |
Cade Windstalker
1326
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 20:54:16 -
[18] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except it doesn't, because the ore compression ratio's have nothing to do with the ores base volume, and can again be very easily normalised to maintain any existing ratio. And yield can be normalised to maintain existing rates, I'm not suggesting that the larger ores should suddenly refine to 16 times as much and the smaller ores to 1/10th of their current value. The size of the ore however is not a sensible lever to ever adjust for yield balance, when you can simply directly adjust yield.
So no the ore volume is not anything to do with yield balance or compression balance.
Except if you actually look at the ore volumes vs the yield you'll find that you don't get clean numbers if you just normalize all volume to 1. For example Hedbergite has a volume of 3m3 and provides (among a lot of other things that don't divide cleanly by 3) 19 Zydrine. So yes, it absolutely makes sense to adjust volume to modify value per time for mining because it gives you finer control, especially for small and mid-range values, than just setting everything to a fixed volume per unit.
On top of that the size of the ore impacts how valuable compression is in transporting it because not every ore has the same compression ratio or compressed volume. |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
3
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 21:06:08 -
[19] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Life doesn't end if you don't min/max your mining yield, FYI.
Im not saying it does. But when it comes to mission running everything is about min/maxing. |
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 21:31:29 -
[20] - Quote
This is one to put in CCP kakurs little things thread, unfortunately put any little thing idea, in the "wild" forums and whatever it is and no matter how good, the response is as you have just seen. That thread is a lot more "refined" |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3953
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 23:19:41 -
[21] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Except if you actually look at the ore volumes vs the yield you'll find that you don't get clean numbers if you just normalize all volume to 1. For example Hedbergite has a volume of 3m3 and provides (among a lot of other things that don't divide cleanly by 3) 19 Zydrine. So yes, it absolutely makes sense to adjust volume to modify value per time for mining because it gives you finer control, especially for small and mid-range values, than just setting everything to a fixed volume per unit.
On top of that the size of the ore impacts how valuable compression is in transporting it because not every ore has the same compression ratio or compressed volume.
Oh no, some tiny rounding will occur.... You act like it's the edge of the world. If you need larger yield numbers then lets normalise all ore to 10m3 instead of 1m3. But the fact that all ore is a different size is nothing to do with adjusting volume for value or resource production. It's a hold out to the original EVE design which was bad.
And so not every ore has the same compression ratio, where does that have anything to do with the volume of uncompressed ore. Not to mention that again the different compression ratio's are again a hold out that got overlooked, since there is no reason to have different compression ratio's, in fact the compression ratio's being different actually makes particular types of ore the perfect hauler rather than just compressing an equal amount of all ores. |
Cade Windstalker
1328
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 04:31:57 -
[22] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Oh no, some tiny rounding will occur.... You act like it's the edge of the world. If you need larger yield numbers then lets normalise all ore to 10m3 instead of 1m3. But the fact that all ore is a different size is nothing to do with adjusting volume for value or resource production. It's a hold out to the original EVE design which was bad.
And so not every ore has the same compression ratio, where does that have anything to do with the volume of uncompressed ore. Not to mention that again the different compression ratio's are again a hold out that got overlooked, since there is no reason to have different compression ratio's, in fact the compression ratio's being different actually makes particular types of ore the perfect hauler rather than just compressing an equal amount of all ores.
For small values "some tiny rounding error" can have pretty big economic implications, especially for the ores that would be shrinking in volume and for minerals with generally small quantities per refine.
The ore sizes aren't a holdout, they got rebalanced back when CCP when through and normalized the refine amounts to 100 units of ore each from the varying amounts they used to be. I'm having some trouble finding the thread for that change but if I recall correctly they specifically called out the ore volumes as a balancing parameter.
Also, again, yes there is a reason to have different compression ratios because the ore volume is used to balance mining amount while the compressed volume is used to balance how much ore you can transport in what volume. Those differing ratios are intentional because it makes certain ores more valuable in raw form than the value of their minerals might indicate.
Your definition of "unnecessary complexity" here is overly aggressive. There are distinct reasons for all of these, you just don't like them and view them as unnecessary, but if you lose or gain 1 out of 19 zydrine that's a 5% change in yield which is significant over the millions of units of ore that are mined every day. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1133
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 18:37:33 -
[23] - Quote
manus wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Life doesn't end if you don't min/max your mining yield, FYI. Im not saying it does. But when it comes to mission running everything is about min/maxing.
No it's not. It's about enjoying the game. This isn't a job, it's entertainment |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
470
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 22:41:06 -
[24] - Quote
manus wrote:First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. I think you might have a point here.
Giving people the m3 in the tooltip is inconsistent with the Survey Scanner.
CCP should change the tooltip. Remove the m3 and replace it with units. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
599
|
Posted - 2017.04.17 22:47:02 -
[25] - Quote
The ideal isn't bad, I get what your wanting, however as most are pointing out, it is not needed because of an existing module that gives you the info all one need to is to understand the ore storage size to know this info. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 11:53:08 -
[26] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:manus wrote:First of all, why do idiots always roam the features and ideas section? Why are you here Shae? What is your purpose?
You dont even realise i use the Ore Scanner. The problem is the descrepancy between the miner tooltip and the survey scan results. Miner tooltip is in m3, but the survey scan result is in raw amount of ore. The survey scanner should display m3 as well. /sips drink Incidentally, did they ever change nos to read in gj instead of "points?" In any case mining is on CCP's horizon as is pve content. We've got the moon mining changes and some kind of dynamic pve thing coming in the next year or so, and CCP is acutely aware of both the mundanity of mining and the botballs that strip belts by the system. Expect a change to mining that will make it very difficult to afk in the not too distant future. Any posts regarding the upcoming changes they have planned regarding the actual mining mechanics? Would be awesome to see how they plan to update a 15 year old icon simulator. |
manus
WESCORP 2.0
6
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 15:31:29 -
[27] - Quote
I had some cool ideas for how you could make mining a little more interesting. When you mine you get a "picture" of the roid. And you can clearly distinguish where the ore is. So you have to move your curser in that pattern. Its sort of like when you unlock your phone with a pattern. Do you know what i mean? But there should be a few more points and the lines should always be straight. Top to bottom, bottom to top, left to right. right corner to left corner etc. This way you feel like a samurai when mining. Every time you sliced a picture, a new one comes up and you have to slice that. Direction is random. The faster you are, the faster you mine. I imagine things like this will be hard to bot. And trust me, it sounds dull, but it will feel rewarding to slice ore manually if done right. You have to imagine you are removing the ore with surgical precision with the lasers. Maybe the more precise you are the more ore you get. I could see that being fun, instead of just activating a module and waiting. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
172
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 19:42:06 -
[28] - Quote
Minigames aren't fun after a while and would kill the profession outright. I doubt its a good idea doing any form of mining minigames.
What they need to try get into is delegation. Mining should be a form of higher level planning that takes time and effort and with more investment should yeald higher rewards. The current mining should be around but there needs to be a different type of mining that should yield more if you risk more.
Homeworld Cataclysm comes to mind where you had to move large chuncks of asteroids around or use drones in complicated networks like building an ant colony. Something that needs a bit more effort and brain cells. Its odd how much effort goes into PVE fixes when a fraction of the effort would fix mining. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
472
|
Posted - 2017.04.18 21:36:29 -
[29] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Minigames aren't fun after a while and would kill the profession outright. I doubt its a good idea doing any form of mining minigames.
What they need to try get into is delegation. Mining should be a form of higher level planning that takes time and effort and with more investment should yeald higher rewards. The current mining should be around but there needs to be a different type of mining that should yield more if you risk more.
Homeworld Cataclysm comes to mind where you had to move large chuncks of asteroids around or use drones in complicated networks like building an ant colony. Something that needs a bit more effort and brain cells. Its odd how much effort goes into PVE fixes when a fraction of the effort would fix mining. Sounds like a minimax game. Once solved, there's no actual content. |
Cade Windstalker
1377
|
Posted - 2017.04.19 01:31:21 -
[30] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Minigames aren't fun after a while and would kill the profession outright. I doubt its a good idea doing any form of mining minigames.
What they need to try get into is delegation. Mining should be a form of higher level planning that takes time and effort and with more investment should yeald higher rewards. The current mining should be around but there needs to be a different type of mining that should yield more if you risk more.
Homeworld Cataclysm comes to mind where you had to move large chuncks of asteroids around or use drones in complicated networks like building an ant colony. Something that needs a bit more effort and brain cells. Its odd how much effort goes into PVE fixes when a fraction of the effort would fix mining.
Mining already has higher risk = higher reward. High sec is safe, it gets slightly more dangerous and slightly more rewarding out to .5, then you jump into either Low, Null, or Wormholes where the risk is much greater. Beyond that you have the option of putting a more expensive ship on grid to further increase your potential profits by risking more on-grid.
And yeah, this:
Rawketsled wrote:Sounds like a minimax game. Once solved, there's no actual content.
The general assumption with any sort of PvE content should be that the content will become "solved" faster than the Devs can either update it or create something new.
The problem with pretty much all "fix mining" suggestions involving significant core changes to the gameplay is that they're generally proposed by non-miners who don't like mining and want it be something else, often at the expense of the people who currently do mine and enjoy it for whatever reasons they have for that. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |