Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 21:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
Mr Kav wrote:I have 2 PvP accounts, 2 PvE accounts, 2 Manu/Reasearch accounts, a Freighter, 2 trading accounts, 30 Miners & an Orca/Rorqual pilot.
The miners are just my ISK farm - I do plenty else in Eve.
I guess you'll survive to bot another day then. |
Danni stark
207
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 21:33:00 -
[122] - Quote
Mr Kav wrote:If I cant make a profit on an account I'm not going to keep PLEX'ing / paying for it. I dont think an ice spawn should last less than 2-3 hours so you need to increase the 2,500 to between 25,000 & 35,000 per spawn minimum.
translation: i can't make isk by doing nothing, boohoo.
here's an off the wall idea; miners can also mine ore as well as ice with just a few module changes. Ice Mining Skill Plan. |
Pax Deora
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 21:40:00 -
[123] - Quote
The summary I get from all the arguments to Jita Bloodtear's posts is this : Alliances need a proper, workable way to tax mining income. They need those taxes to help make up for the lost income of the tech bottleneck.
( Refining background info ) The way refining taxes works, for those not involved in null, is that the owner of the station gets a percentage of the refined minerals from any given job.
For ore, this works out decently from the perspective of the miner. You bring it to your closest nullsec station, refine it and sell the low-ends locally. The high ends now comprise a tiny percentage of the volume that the original load of ore took up, meaning it is far easier to ship to high-sec for sale.
This falls down when it comes to ice. The refined ice products take up *more* space than the source ice blocks and there is very little local demand for the component pieces in null. The creation of fuel blocks has effectively killed that market.
( Suggestions for taxing mining ) People skip refining in null via compressing the ore or ice using a rorqual and then refining in high-sec. This is the behaviour that many alliances are seeking to curtail in order to derive some level of alliance income.
Two ways I see for adressing this :
Change the relative volume of ice blocks to their refined parts. Simply put, the refined parts of 1 cube of ice should take up less than 1000 m3.
Secondly, and far more complex, the refinery tax in a station should be set by the corporation the player belongs to. Starter corporations should have a refinery tax similar to the base ratting tax. Yes, this could be circumvented by having an alt corporation, but API's management can curtail that to some level. The objective is to make it more work to get around the tax, in order to deter the casual folks. The determined types will always find a way ...
This has the added bonus of making it far easier for high-sec miners to move around to different systems or regions.. Suddenly the standings grind goes away. |
Cultural Enrichment
Jenkem Puffing Association
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 22:23:00 -
[124] - Quote
Mr Kav wrote:My argument is that either Ice mining will not be profitable for anyone or lots of miners quit & prices of Ice products go up, due to limited supply, so much that any activity requiring them will become ridiculously expensive.
Neither of these options are good for the game as a whole. If prices go up, how would Ice be unprofitable?
Checkmate, atheists. |
hyprviper1
PH0ENIX COMPANY Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 22:27:00 -
[125] - Quote
I cant wait to see liquid ozone hit 1k ipu. I think it should be the new norm. |
Qyl Anni'un
The Inf1dels EntroPraetorian Aegis
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 23:18:00 -
[126] - Quote
Qyl Anni'un wrote:Hey Monsieur le Fozz,
When is/are.... (a) ice going to be separated into different overview things like ore/ore going to be joined into a single overview thing like ice (b) there going to be an option to disable the upcoming jump 'video'/effect which resets the camera (annoying; at fanfest ppl stopped saying 'wow' after the third jump demo, I noticed)
(c) there going to be t2 rorquals (perhaps based on a goo/reaction system only minable in wormholes)? ^_^
(d) the Aura AI going to be revealed as the one behind the rogue drones and secretly hating us capsuleers?
(e) Oh and we wouldn't really need station improvements if we could just put multiple stations in a system. Why does high-sec get special treatment? Isn't the point of LAWLESS space to not have restrictions on what you can build and where you can put it?
|
Abyss Wyrm
Brotherhood.
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 23:33:00 -
[127] - Quote
BEPOHNKA wrote:Your set is bit off I for one would like update on "rare" low sec ice. Their are some low sec systems which have Dark Glitter sir. Number two which I have a problem with is null sec should have a bit more outcome. extra 3500 and 4000. It's null sec should always get a bit more.
2500 - empire
3000 - low sec
3500 - 0.0 - 5.0
4000 - 5.0 - 1.0 Tbh its the lowsec who need highest numbers. I know initially CCP planned nullsecs as most dangerous space, but lets be honest, lowsecs much more dangerous than nulls for years. And if nulls have it own LP market, thus not interfering with empire LP market, no matter how much LPs null habitants gaining. With mining its all same minerals and ice products. So as long as nulls gives higher output - there is simply no reason mine in low - higher risk, lower profit.
|
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1637
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 23:45:00 -
[128] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:Ereshgikal wrote:digi wrote:Jita Bloodtear wrote: You see, we've run the numbers. We've been miners from the start. We know the system. I'm telling you, these changes are going to make ice mining untenable.
Abloobloobloo, its always been untenable which is why it takes multiboxing spergs to even make it worthwhile. I see that some in GSF have quite interesting definition of "sperg". I would've thought the cultural revolution would've eradicated badposters like you. :) he's got you there digi
He got digi at his weakest point. The posting. But by the end of the week Digi will know where he works, what he wears, and his favorite brand of lube. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
741
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 23:48:00 -
[129] - Quote
Qyl Anni'un wrote: (e) Oh and we wouldn't really need station improvements if we could just put multiple stations in a system. Why does high-sec get special treatment? Isn't the point of LAWLESS space to not have restrictions on what you can build and where you can put it?
uncommented spaghetti code of doom that if touched would probably delete all outposts everywhere |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
416
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 00:32:00 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lowsec: 3000 units of standard racial ice 400 units of Glare Crust Ahahaha it can't be true. Lowsec ice belts have (atm) the improved racial ice AND some dark glitter, which is the most valuable ice in the game. Still, nobody is mining it. Nice lowsec nerf !
I'm fine with the numbers (THE ICE WARS yay), but seriously, the lowsec ice should stay the improved one. I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. -áI AM A LOWSEC GANKER, HIGHSEC SCUM, NULLSEC BASTARD, WORMHOLE INVADER. Welcome to, welcome to, welcome to my scramble. GÖÑ |
|
Logit Probit
Tristar Interstellar Trading Services Tri-Star Galactic Industries
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 04:00:00 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Fozzie....
As a casual high sec miner I had a few concerns about the new changes. While its been a while since I have mined ice, the respawn timing on these belts seem too dramastic for the limited quanity in the belts. With the current changes coming and not going too much into the math formula this is what we are looking at....if someone can check my figues on SiSi might help...
New Ice Harvester II Cycle Time....125 secs +Procurer/Skiff Ice cycle reduction....42.5 secs +2 Ice Mining Upgrade II......35 Secs +Yeti 1005 Implant.......33 Secs +Ice Rig......29 Secs +Orca Boost.....15 Secs
So in theory we are looking at around 15 secs per cycle for a procurer/skiff do mine out 1 Block of Ice. So about 4 blocks a min..
2500 High Blocks divided by 4 blocks mined an min.....625 Mins or 10 Hours 25 secs for 1 miner to empty the belt
Now lets average in without the botters that their are 30 legit miner casual miners in a Ice block system....
625/30.....20.3 mins
So its going to take 20 mins for a ice belt to disappear....then a 4 hour respawn.
I don't know about everyone else, but I see this as a very bad thing. Its going to be a power gamer thing now to alarm clock the ice belt respawn timers....as an old gamer, I am having flashback of the Dragons and Rare Loot NPC timers in Everquest....where one player or guild would just perma camp the NPC.
Why are the belts not given a respawn timer comparable to the grav sites in Null secs....belt gets mined out....10 min respawn.
I think if it was lowered to that it would accomplish the ice belt anoms orginally goal of thwating the AFK/Botting Miners....while not effecting the casual player base.
Now your reply maybe that this limits the amount of ice harvested to encourage conflict or competition to mine out these belts, but I don't see how that is going to work. Most of the botters/70 man mining teams, are in a NPC corp, which cannot be war dec, so there goes the idea on that. With the small amount of time its going to take to mine out the belts, their is no way to compete....ie your playtime is 1230-1430 during the week....the belts are mined out by 1200, respawn is at 1600....no chance to mine any ice. Well.....head to null sec....well you got everyone and their brother cloak camping the belts there....which btw they don't have to fit probe launchers now....so get ready to be bombed.
Can you please reduce the respawn timer down to were it will at least allow casual gamers to be able to mine ice...10-30min respawn time is sufficent to prevent botters/afker mining....they not going to want to have to rescan and resetup their camps every 10 mins.... |
I Am Kav
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 05:13:00 -
[132] - Quote
Cultural Enrichment wrote:Mr Kav wrote:My argument is that either Ice mining will not be profitable for anyone or lots of miners quit & prices of Ice products go up, due to limited supply, so much that any activity requiring them will become ridiculously expensive.
Neither of these options are good for the game as a whole. If prices go up, how would Ice be unprofitable? Unless, of course, Ice is already unprofitable. But if it is, why would you have 30 accounts to mine it as it is now? Checkmate, atheists.
Read the post again bud - you missed the OR in there. |
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
266
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 05:43:00 -
[133] - Quote
These ice fields post-expansion: Blue ice (Gallente): 17 systems with 23 ice belts Clear Icicle (Amarr): 24 systems with 28 ice belts White Glaze (Caldari): 25 systems with 30 ice belts Glacial Mass (Minmatar): 16 systems with 17 ice belts
A fuel block takes: 10 isotopes 3.75 ozone 3.75 heavy water
A highsec ice field provides: 750k isotopes 62.5k ozone 125k HW 2500 stront
Let's examine our ice need Based on Jita market history, towers are consumed in the ratio of 37% / 22% / 41% (S/M/L) This implies the average tower consumes (37*40 + 22*20 + 41*10)/100 = 23.3 fuel blocks/hr There were last reported 20,489 online towers That's 11.46mil fuel blocks/day Or 43mil ozone/day We estimate cyno usage at 2mil/day And JB usage at 4mil/day This puts the galaxy at a 49mil ozone/day need.
With highsec providing 80% of the "ice need" 98 ice belts cycled 5 times per day = 490 ice fields of supply 490*62.5k = 30.6mil ozone CCP believes this constitutes 80% of the need. So they think we need 30.6/.8 = 38.25mil ozone/day Please note that we need at least 49mil ozone/day.
Highsec only supplies 62% of our need at best
What numbers are you using to calculate our ice need? |
Hustomte
FutureTech Industrial Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 05:53:00 -
[134] - Quote
I think what amuses me the most is that the "culture" of afk en-mass ice-mining is only a recent bi-product of the mining barge buff last August (less than a year ago). Throw in the very recent "freighter-mining", and these people start crying about taking something away they just started. Just in the last couple weeks miners in the belt has DOUBLED (first time in forever!)
As someone who supports his own POS towers, I have very little sympathy for people who have to revert to pre-August levels of ice mining. I'll still be in the ice belts, still slaving away at PI and POS fuel blocks after June 4th.
What I am most curious about is how badly "bumping" will be to control those who want to cartel the ice (which would be awesome if someone had the time/effort). Everything CCP is doing still fits the "sandbox model" and I am thankful for it.
+1 CCP Fozzie! ...Signature... |
Hustomte
FutureTech Industrial Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 06:03:00 -
[135] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:What numbers are you using to calculate our ice need?
Firstly, since high-sec does not need JB fuel, I am going to toss those numbers. Secondly, you are talking about racial ice and not dark glitter or krystallos which would cover those needs. Thirdly, racial ice is only 300 topes, 25 LO, 50 HW, 1 Stront. Painfully short of LO/HW to even support basic POS fuel blocks. Extra topes are sold to buy LO/HW and make the blocks. I am going to assume you know this.
So please re-do your math(s). ...Signature... |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
692
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 08:09:00 -
[136] - Quote
ICE Cartel inc.
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Indigo Bowra
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 08:15:00 -
[137] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Alx Warlord wrote:We meant NOS STATIC GRAV SITES. So no respawn. There is a respawn, just not in the same system, but just somewhere else in eve. Otherwise, it times out in 3 days. Your idea just encourages cherry picking. It'd be nice to get some response from people who actually have done some mining, maybe even the mythical 'casual multiboxer'?
Casual? Mutiboxer? I believe there's a thread on GOON forums expressing just how much of a pubbie casual I am. Literally your unicorn, right here baby. When I get the itch to mine ice (and sip gin, black currant, black cherry cocktails) I have a perfect booster, two perfect ice miners, and i use a couple PvP toonies~~~ as belt-rat shooter and hauler. This happens a couple times per month-ish.
Frankly these changes to ice mining are effing incredible. I love them. The tears in this thread alone have provided deliciously stimulating materials relevant to my prurient giggles, and the patch hasn't even dropped yet. I long for the explosion of melodrama from anti-social hisec autists as starvation economics suddenly force them to socialize. It might be worth cashing in some POWER OF TWO just to get some spy accounts in a few ****** colonies. Besides TEST.
o7 no h8 m8 |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
96
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 08:55:00 -
[138] - Quote
Will in time Ice belts in higsec will be reduced and those in nullsec increased? As your Customers - we thank you - CCP. [1/17/2013 11:21:16 AM] seleene_ge: I don't even understand why CCP has a forum. No one at CCP reads it. <---- True Story. |
Danni stark
211
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 09:12:00 -
[139] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Lowsec: 3000 units of standard racial ice 400 units of Glare Crust Ahahaha it can't be true. Lowsec ice belts have (atm) the improved racial ice AND some dark glitter, which is the most valuable ice in the game. Still, nobody is mining it. Nice lowsec nerf ! I'm fine with the numbers (THE ICE WARS yay), but seriously, the lowsec ice should stay the improved one.
nobody is mining it becuase it's **** isk/hour which has nothing to do with the composition of the belt. Ice Mining Skill Plan. |
Loney
CyberDyne R-D
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 09:20:00 -
[140] - Quote
This is better then that expected...
Based on current JITA BUY ORDERS prices (as of this post):
LO = 121 HW = 485 Nitrogen = 710 Hydrogen = 665 Helium = 663 Oxygen = 660
Isk value of belt location (based on average of 4 regional isotope prices):
-0.5 to -1.0 = 1,800,000,000
0.0 to -0.5 = 1,275,000,000
lowsec = 810,000,000
highsec = 550,000,000
That's not bad for 48 minutes of work ever 4 hours!
|
|
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
268
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 10:07:00 -
[141] - Quote
Let's examine the changes to the supply of ozone in the galaxy.
This is a chart showcasing the changes to ice, and the new ice product yield from the ice anomalies.
The very last chart in that picture shows the relative ozone supply yield from mining in each of these systems before and after the changes. The "New" column is including the x2 mining rate, and the "Old" column is still the 1x mining rate. The mining yields compared in this chart assume that the new ice anomalies respawn instantly. And since they don't the actually supply of ozone will be substantially less than shown.
- Lowsec will yield less than 16.18% the ozone it used to
- Bad Nullsec will yield less than 44.88% the ozone it used to
- Good Nullsec will yield less than 59.27% the ozone it used to
Points of Order:
Ozone and the other ice products will rise in value accordingly and you'll still make >= isk/hr Probably. But the galaxy is still going to be massively shorted on the supply of ozone.
You mine twice as fast so you'll pull in ozone faster False. You used to be able to mine pure ozone by mining pure Dark Glitter. Dark Glitter now constitutes a very small percentage of the new ice fields. And those ice fields are being artificially restricted with 4hr respawn timers that will restrict the supply of ozone even further.
But you get ozone from the other nullsec ices True, but those ices are still far less than what Dark Glitter supplied to the galaxy in ozone before the expansion. Therefore the overall supply of ozone will still decrease substantially. The chart is including all those ozone sources in the calculations.
Why does CCP hate lowsec so much? I don't know. But ice mining in lowsec is about to get a whole lot worse.
Why should we care that ozone is going to be expensive? As an individual miner you don't need to. As a speculator it's a great time to invest in ozone. Increasing the value of ozone dramatically in relation to the other ice products is contrary to the intended design of sec status correlated ice spawns. As you can see here, ozone was meant to be a common product of low-end ices. While high-end ices were meant to favor an ultra rare and presumably expensive strontium. This is obviously not how things turned out. But it'd still be nice if the ices were restored to a tiered value system where Krystallos was actually the best ice. Inverted ozone output of each ice would have this effect. |
Tahna Rouspel
Risk-Averse PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
98
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 10:24:00 -
[142] - Quote
Ice anomalies in wormholes, yes? |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
741
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 13:39:00 -
[143] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:Let's examine the changes to the supply of ozone in the galaxy. This is a chart showcasing the changes to ice, and the new ice product yield from the ice anomalies. The very last chart in that picture shows the relative ozone supply yield from mining in each of these systems before and after the changes. The "New" column is including the x2 mining rate, and the "Old" column is still the 1x mining rate. The mining yields compared in this chart assume that the new ice anomalies respawn instantly. And since they don't the actually supply of ozone will be substantially less than shown. It's hard to figure out what assumptions you're making here in this chart but the basic premise is wrong. As it exists now, mining has a clear division: 98.6% of all isotope ice is mined in highsec, and about 94% of all ice is mined in highsec. You work out the numbers, and nearly all of that 6% is dark glitter mining outside of highsec.
The changes seek to upset this "highsec mines isotopes, everywhere else mines ozone" model. The specific goal is that nullsec mines at least ~20% of all ice (or all isotope ice, this is not clear, but let's go with all ice).
So we're looking at a goal of having about 2.3 additional miners for each current miner (20/6). And nullsec is no longer merely mining ozone: it is mining ozone and isotope ice. So the ozone mined should remain about constant once you increase ice mining to that degree or it would be oversupplied.
So that means that null ice mining should produce a little under a third of the ozone that it used to per miner per hour, which is about the case with your "good" nullsec anoms (1.6*3.3 = ~5.3). And there's more than enough of those to supply the galaxy with ozone. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
891
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 13:54:00 -
[144] - Quote
I would also disagree with your tower #. Since it is missing a couple important things. However, it would only serve to make you meltdown even more, so I will just leave it as an exercise to the reader. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
741
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 14:14:00 -
[145] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:Let's examine our ice needBased on Jita market history, towers are consumed in the ratio of 37% / 22% / 41% (S/M/L) This implies the average tower consumes (37*40 + 22*20 + 41*10)/100 = 23.3 fuel blocks/hr There were last reported 20,489 online towersThat's 11.46mil fuel blocks/day Or 114.6mil isotopes/day
Two quick notes (there are other issues, but I don't have time to delve into all issues): the last Diagoras number was 22,543 towers. Also, you switched larges and smalls between your jita market history and fuel block consumption (you have the smalls consuming 40 blocks and larges consuming 10).
Just correcting these two gives (370+440+1640) = 24.5 blocks, times the correct number, is 13.255 million blocks. And this is with year-old data when the amount of towers had gone up 10% in under a month. I don't have time unfortunately to check what the most recent number can be inferred to be (or a more reliable l/m/s split). |
Abyss Wyrm
Brotherhood.
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 14:32:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tahna Rouspel wrote:Ice anomalies in wormholes, yes? I don't think so, that will break one of the raw concepts of W-space |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
891
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 14:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Jita Bloodtear wrote:Let's examine our ice needBased on Jita market history, towers are consumed in the ratio of 37% / 22% / 41% (S/M/L) This implies the average tower consumes (37*40 + 22*20 + 41*10)/100 = 23.3 fuel blocks/hr There were last reported 20,489 online towersThat's 11.46mil fuel blocks/day Or 114.6mil isotopes/day Two quick notes (there are other issues, but I don't have time to delve into all issues): the last Diagoras number was 22,543 towers. Also, you switched larges and smalls between your jita market history and fuel block consumption (you have the smalls consuming 40 blocks and larges consuming 10). Just correcting these two gives (370+440+1640) = 24.5 blocks, times the correct number, is 13.255 million blocks. And this is with year-old data when the amount of towers had gone up 10% in under a month. I don't have time unfortunately to check what the most recent number can be inferred to be (or a more reliable l/m/s split).
Snore, always spoonfeeding the unwashed masses! Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 14:37:00 -
[148] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:Let's examine the changes to the supply of ozone in the galaxy. This is a chart showcasing the changes to ice, and the new ice product yield from the ice anomalies. The very last chart in that picture shows the relative ozone supply yield from mining in each of these systems before and after the changes. The "New" column is including the x2 mining rate, and the "Old" column is still the 1x mining rate. The mining yields compared in this chart assume that the new ice anomalies respawn instantly. And since they don't the actually supply of ozone will be substantially less than shown.
- Lowsec will yield less than 16.18% the ozone it used to
- Bad Nullsec will yield less than 44.88% the ozone it used to
- Good Nullsec will yield less than 59.27% the ozone it used to
Points of Order:Ozone and the other ice products will rise in value accordingly and you'll still make >= isk/hrProbably. But the galaxy is still going to be massively shorted on the supply of ozone.You mine twice as fast so you'll pull in ozone fasterFalse. You used to be able to mine pure ozone by mining pure Dark Glitter. Dark Glitter now constitutes a very small percentage of the new ice fields. And those ice fields are being artificially restricted with 4hr respawn timers that will restrict the supply of ozone even further.But you get ozone from the other nullsec icesTrue, but those ices are still far less than what Dark Glitter supplied to the galaxy in ozone before the expansion. Therefore the overall supply of ozone will still decrease substantially. The chart is including all those ozone sources in the calculations.Why does CCP hate lowsec so much?I don't know. But ice mining in lowsec is about to get a whole lot worse.Why should we care that ozone is going to be expensive?As an individual miner you don't need to. As a speculator it's a great time to invest in ozone. Increasing the value of ozone dramatically in relation to the other ice products is contrary to the intended design of sec status correlated ice spawns. As you can see here, ozone was meant to be a common product of low-end ices. While high-end ices were meant to favor an ultra rare and presumably expensive strontium. This is obviously not how things turned out. But it'd still be nice if the ices were restored to a tiered value system where Krystallos was actually the best ice. Inverted ozone output of each ice would have this effect.
TL:DR Here is a chart and a bunch of ~stuff~ about said chart. All of this is based off of bad data and errors in basic mathematics, but you should believe me because of the PRETTY PICTURES EFFECT.
|
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
269
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 15:19:00 -
[149] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Two quick notes (there are other issues, but I don't have time to delve into all issues): the last Diagoras number was 22,543 towers. Also, you switched larges and smalls between your jita market history and fuel block consumption (you have the smalls consuming 40 blocks and larges consuming 10). Just correcting these two gives (370+440+1640) = 24.5 blocks, times the correct number, is 13.255 million blocks. And this is with year-old data when the amount of towers had gone up 10% in under a month. I don't have time unfortunately to check what the most recent number can be inferred to be (or a more reliable l/m/s split). You're quite right. At the last moment I switched the order from L-M-S to S-M-L and then didn't notice. And that tower update is more recent. I've updated the post to include the new data. Thanks for the catch.
Aryth wrote:I would also disagree with your tower #. Since it is missing a couple important things. However, it would only serve to make you meltdown even more, so I will just leave it as an exercise to the reader. The towers size composition numbers involved some assumptions which I explained, and are fairly reasonable assumptions given the lack of information. If you have more detailed information on what sizes of towers are online then I'd be happy to incorporate it.
The chart itself should be simple to understand. It's a flat comparison of ozone yields per hour of mining, before and after the expansion. What you're saying is that it's misleading because it's looking at per miner basis rather than accounting for an "expected nullsec miner increase of 230%". And you're correct in so far as, if you pour enough ice miners into nullsec they'll eventually be able to produce enough ozone to meet the current supply.
I don't have time to explain right now because I'm about to be late, but your simplifying assumptions are also misleading because they're not accounting for the reality of highsec isotope mining being far less, and the sheer number of nullsec miners needing to be far greater than a 230% increase. I'll also try to come up with numbers on how many nullsec miners there are right now after I get home from work. But it's greater than I'd have thought.
Atrum Veneficus wrote:TL:DR Here is a chart and a bunch of ~stuff~ about said chart. All of this is based off of bad data and errors in basic mathematics, but you should believe me because of the PRETTY PICTURES EFFECT.
Did you have a specific complaint with the numbers that you didn't understand?
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
892
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 15:46:00 -
[150] - Quote
Jita Bloodtear wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Two quick notes (there are other issues, but I don't have time to delve into all issues): the last Diagoras number was 22,543 towers. Also, you switched larges and smalls between your jita market history and fuel block consumption (you have the smalls consuming 40 blocks and larges consuming 10). Just correcting these two gives (370+440+1640) = 24.5 blocks, times the correct number, is 13.255 million blocks. And this is with year-old data when the amount of towers had gone up 10% in under a month. I don't have time unfortunately to check what the most recent number can be inferred to be (or a more reliable l/m/s split). You're quite right. At the last moment I switched the order from L-M-S to S-M-L and then didn't notice. And that tower update is more recent. I've updated the post to include the new data. Thanks for the catch. Aryth wrote:I would also disagree with your tower #. Since it is missing a couple important things. However, it would only serve to make you meltdown even more, so I will just leave it as an exercise to the reader. The towers size composition numbers involved some assumptions which I explained, and are fairly reasonable assumptions given the lack of information. If you have more detailed information on what sizes of towers are online then I'd be happy to incorporate it. The chart itself should be simple to understand. It's a flat comparison of ozone yields per hour of mining, before and after the expansion. What you're saying is that it's misleading because it's looking at per miner basis rather than accounting for an "expected nullsec miner increase of 230%". And you're correct in so far as, if you pour enough ice miners into nullsec they'll eventually be able to produce enough ozone to meet the current supply. I don't have time to explain right now because I'm about to be late, but your simplifying assumptions are also misleading because they're not accounting for the reality of highsec isotope mining being far less, and the sheer number of nullsec miners needing to be far greater than a 230% increase. I'll also try to come up with numbers on how many nullsec miners there are right now after I get home from work. But it's greater than I'd have thought. Atrum Veneficus wrote:TL:DR Here is a chart and a bunch of ~stuff~ about said chart. All of this is based off of bad data and errors in basic mathematics, but you should believe me because of the PRETTY PICTURES EFFECT.
Did you have a specific complaint with the numbers that you didn't understand?
He (and I to some extent) were referring to the basic errors in your post that Weaselior was kind enough to point out. I wouldn't have, but he does enjoy drubbing the plebs. I don't like all that dirt flying off getting on my silk robes. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |