| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cell Satimo
   |
Posted - 2003.09.17 10:42:00 -
[61]
Can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind having a lower % return of minerals from a mobile refinery compared to a station refinery?
Or are you all considering this as just a tech-level issue. Eg. A better quality mobile refinery released in the future will give a better return?
|
Join eve-webring.com to promote your site. |
Khyle
|
Posted - 2003.09.17 13:43:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Khyle on 17/09/2003 13:49:37
Somebody said all that already, but ill repeat some of it.
1. Stations refineries are huge, you just cant get the same efficiency with a mobile unit.
2. A lot of manhours in mining operations (be it solo or big crowd) are speant hauling the ore. If a mobile refinery could have the same efficiency as a station one, noone would ever use the station one again, ergo: stations wouldnt have refineries in the first place (thinking in character)
3. Mobile refineries are meant as tools to mine far away from station. To prevent littering secure space with em, they need to have a significant yield disadvantage (mind you, 40% perhaps, not 90% ;)
It all boils down to: Thinking in character it would just be illogical if they have the same yield; thinking out of character, game desing wise, they need to have far lower yield to balance the different approaches to mining (hauling to station vs. using a mobile refinery).
Dont forget that a newb roughly spends 50% of his time hauling, and a corp could just litter every belt in 1.0 with a mobile refinery for their newbs, and more than one corp could do that.
|
Allaina
|
Posted - 2003.09.17 15:38:00 -
[63]
 Quote:
Can someone please explain to me the reasoning behind having a lower % return of minerals from a mobile refinery compared to a station refinery?
I'll try with a RL example.
Do you expect the generator you buy at a local DIY store to be as efficient as the Power company's? You pay a price for portability in this case that price is efficiency
|
Bad Harlequin
|
Posted - 2003.09.17 16:39:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Bad Harlequin on 17/09/2003 16:41:41
Edit: neato, managed to type my reply entirely in the text i was quoting... 
Quote:
Quote:
2) Anchoring requires corp management 3, refining 3
Is this confirmed? If so, its awfully stupid. The prereq skill for anchoring should not be corp management it should be instead leadership. Refining skill should only apply the mobile refineries.
Indeed. Anchoring should not be for refining CEO people only. Rather, it should be for field operatives. I'd make it a Leadership (or perhaps Navigation based) skill as well  .
Engineering? Hello? Engineering and Electronics maybe for the Guns and upcoming Warp Eaters and shields...
I am assuming that "anchoring" means "booting up and punching in config data and giving it settings and stuff." If not, maybe Electronics isn't right.
But engineering sure should be =).
You are in a maze of twisty little asteroids, all alike. |
Cell Satimo
|
Posted - 2003.09.19 15:34:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Cell Satimo on 19/09/2003 15:45:57
Quote:
I'll try with a RL example.
Do you expect the generator you buy at a local DIY store to be as efficient as the Power company's? You pay a price for portability in this case that price is efficiency
This example is too simple.
Trade-offs:
The 'price for portability' you are referring to is a 'trade-off'. There is no particular reason that a machine needs a trade off other than price. There are many RL examples where the output quality of processing materials is the same with a portable or smaller version as with a full size version. Just the through-put is lower.
Relevant example:
No I wouldn't expect a DIY store generator to be as efficient as the power companies in generation of power, however I would expect the a portable tree mulcher to produce the same results as fixed one at a garbage depot. It may consume more power from the portable generator, it's blades might need replacing more often, it may rust, but I would expect the same granularity of mulch to come out the other end.
Size of units in station:
There is no evidence to yet suggest that machinery in the mobile refinery is of any other make, size or manufacture from the one in a station.
Nor is there any evidence that the ones in stations are huge. I've seen stations not more than 100x the size of my indy, and given the amount of rookie ships, raw minerals, 32 factories, 32 research laboratories, an entire bank of clones and an armada of visiting cruisers, battleships and indies, I'd be very surprised that the single refinery is much bigger than the one i load into my indy.
Technological Capability:
There are also examples in RL where stationary fixed processing facilities are redundant with the invention of mobile and portable units. Examples are:
- Mobile Fishing Cannery ships
- Mobile tree lopping, stripping and milling vehicles
- Mobile de-salination units for water
|
Join eve-webring.com to promote your site. |
Cell Satimo
|
Posted - 2003.09.19 16:13:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Cell Satimo on 19/09/2003 16:15:55
Quote:
3. Mobile refineries are meant as tools to mine far away from station. To prevent littering secure space with em, they need to have a significant yield disadvantage (mind you, 40% perhaps, not 90% ;)
It all boils down to: Thinking in character it would just be illogical if they have the same yield; thinking out of character, game desing wise, they need to have far lower yield to balance the different approaches to mining (hauling to station vs. using a mobile refinery).
Dont forget that a newb roughly spends 50% of his time hauling, and a corp could just litter every belt in 1.0 with a mobile refinery for their newbs, and more than one corp could do that.
Thanks for the summary.
On the issue of 8% vs. 40%, the Mobile Refinery efficiency (MRE) needs to be addressed. If a newb spends 50% time hauling and 50% time mining, then a MRE of 50% would be a break-even in time, but a loss for (hopefully) significant investment in the unit.
But even for people say 4 jumps out from a station the ratio will be 30/30/30. 1 person mining, 1 person hauling, 1 protection.
Taking into consideration all the extra factors:
- Limited Frequency and Quantity of minerals
- Ore extraction times
- End value of the mineral vs. ore transportation time cost
- Typically High level refining efficiency for players outside empire space
even a value of 50% is too low, as if you only have 2000 bistot available to you, getting it refined faster isn't going to help your net cash.
A higher % would give greater autonomy for smaller corps/gangs to mine rare minerals, since you could use a 1 proection/1 miner combination, rather than a minimum of 3, thus encouraging people to leave the crowded newb systems.
|
Join eve-webring.com to promote your site. |
Cyrus Troy
|
Posted - 2003.09.19 16:18:00 -
[67]
Some people are talking out of their BUTTS!! IN NO WAY would empire space be littered with mobile refineries if their yield equaled that of stations... BECAUSE STATIONS ARE FREE!! Why the hell would anyone buy a mobile refinery in empire space, protect the dam thing from pirates and other corps, when there is a station doing the same service for FREE. It doesnÆt even save you time, you still have to warp out of the roid belt to you mobile refinery, or warp to a station, whatÆs the difference.
Someone definitely has their head up their butts if they make mobile refineries indestructible. WTF!!!! IÆM SICK TO MY STOMACH looking at all this GOD DAM CAN ART. I want a war in Eve, I want things to go BOOM. We sure as hell wouldnÆt be over run by mobile refineries if they were destructible. ALL player owned stuff should be able to be blown up, things inside would have a chance of ending up in cargo containers just as when a ships blows.
Deploying Mobile Refineries should take a day, and capturing a player owned refinery, docking station or whatever should take 1 or 2 real hours, and if there wasnÆt enough time after a successful attack, if the defenders were bringing reinforcements to reestablish protection for the installation, then the attacking side should have the option of blowing it into little bits.
|
Malkar
|
Posted - 2003.09.21 02:49:00 -
[68]
It makes sense that the quality of goods from a mobile station is the same.
The variable would be speed.
It would take a mobile unit LONGER to produce the same amount of minerals. Perhaps have them rated at X units per hour, with a skill bonus attached.
|
Killgorde
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 09:38:00 -
[69]
Mobile Refining needs to be lower than station yield - although how much lower is debatable (possibly 80% of standard station refine rate with no ref or ref eff bonuses applying).
Simple reason is: When player-owned stations are in and corporations wish to "control" a constellation/region's mineral assets there has to be an incentive for non-corp pilots to actually use the controlling corp's station services. It would also prevent "ninja-mining" (as in sneaking into constellations to strip the bistot etc) to a degree (if the return wasnt excessive).
8% is a bit laughable though.
Killgorde
CEO - Cutting Edge Incorporated
"I thought I saw a light at the end of the tunnel but it turned out to be some bastard with a torch in one hand and a ****load more work for me in the other" |
Quantum Ghost
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 10:48:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Quantum Ghost on 22/09/2003 10:48:52
Edited by: Quantum Ghost on 22/09/2003 10:48:21
I tested secure containers and anchoring.
Details:
Anchoring lvl1
Huge Sec container
Giant Sec container
Findings:
Can naming - If the intent is to give the can a label in space, it work fine. Even stays after a scoop and re jet. (if the idea is to name like a ship ie in your hanger...it doesn't work )
Passwords - Both cans did not promt for a password even after one was set. This occored anchored or not. Also the TAB order is backwards(You start on the confirm, TAB to the new password, TAB to the old password.
Anchoring - The anchor process seemed to go fine (is the blue mesh ment to stay after the anchor is complete?). However the cans still had the blue mech around them after the un-anchor.
-QG
|
FingerThief
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 16:26:00 -
[71]
Well ... being stuck in a traffic-jam, I had the following brain-fart aka illumination.
There are a few thing to consider when talking bout deployable items (DI from now on).
 LOITERING
EFFICENCY
What do I consider loitering ?
I consider loitering the placing/anchoring of an DI where you don't really need it and it will just be an annoiance to other players.
Containers:
Containers should only be allowed in a) stationless and b) 0.499 and below security systems. That should thin them out pretty well.
Containers also should be killable and their hull should have a multiplier that is reverse proportional to the distance in jumps to the nearest base.
Example for secure container hull modified placed in a system 20 jumps into nowhere:
Basehull: 1000 units.
Gain per distance unit (jump) to the nearest base: 10%
Result: 1000 + ((1000*0.1) * 20) = 3000 total.
Based on that if you place a Giant secure container in or near empire space, somebody might come buy and pop it.
Sentry guns:
In my opinion you shouldn't be able to place sentry guns in empire space at all, 0.0 only !
Efficency/stats of sentry guns should be modified by the number of friendly / own / corporate guns deployed within a certain sphere of influence.
The more you deploy the better they get, the harder they get to jam, the harder they hit.
Refineries:
Well, those are my favs and they have raised the most concern etc. from what I see.
For now, I agree with the 8% of station refining output.
Read on then you see why.
Ideas for refineries:
#1 Refineries should not be deployable in a system where there is a NPC or PC controlled station, there is simply no need for that.
#2 Refineries should have their efficency raised in roughly the same way that I proposed the container hull to be raised. This time thou based on the distance to the next station with a built-in refinery.
This could either be done by using a similar formula giving the refinery a gain but not exceeding 60/75% of what they same amount of ores would spew out in a NPC owned base or by a lumpsum every n jumps (eg. 0-5 jumps 5%, 6-15 10%, 16-31 15% ... you get the idea)
#3 Refineries should have their efficency reduced to a certain percentage, based on the amount of refineries already in the same system (eg. 1 refinery = 100%, 2 refineries = 50%, 3 refineries = 33.3% ... again, I hope you get the idea)
That should prevent 100 refineries floating around in the same system.
Conclusion on above 3. The further you take the refinery out for a stroll the better it get's.
I don't think that any of CCP will comment on this, but I had to post it since all above seems a possible and furthermore (from a programming point-of-view) doable solution.
Knock yourself out ... gl&hf
FT
|
Helison
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:43:00 -
[72]
FingerThief, one question: How will you explain, that DI¦s will get better, if they are farer away from civilisation?
Please just forget these ideas.
|
FingerThief
|
Posted - 2003.09.22 17:58:00 -
[73]
Quote:
FingerThief, one question: How will you explain, that DI¦s will get better, if they are farer away from civilisation?
Please just forget these ideas.
Oh, there a pretty simple and obvious answer:
"The onboard computer does the necessary adjustments !"
Anything else ?
|
Cell Satimo
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 11:37:00 -
[74]
Quote:
Well For now, I agree with the 8% of station refining output.
Read on then you see why.
Given that the yeild of Mobile Refineries (MR) is NOT going to be based on distance from a station, can you please explain a realistic instance where 8% would motivate any player to use one?
|
Join eve-webring.com to promote your site. |
dracianius
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 13:00:00 -
[75]
I have been using secure containers extensively on the Tranquility server. One piece of feedback that I have is regarding the inability to fill the container completely without having to do the volume math separately. I think that it would be nice if those functioned just like your ship's own cargo bay. If you tried to put more ore in there then there was space for, the game should allow you to place just the right amount in to fill it up.
S.O.L Corporation
Director of US Operations
----------------------------------------------
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are too sure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
|
Jojin
|
Posted - 2003.09.23 19:37:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Jojin on 23/09/2003 19:53:27
Secure Cargo Containers & Anchoring: (Tranqulity 1217)
-When placing the containers there is a limitation the container not placed within 5k of another anchored object or asteroid. This is good, but is hard to manage because the MouseOver distance and target locked distance are not the same so it is more of a guessing game to get them out there.
-Naming of the objects is strange to say the least. Sometimes it would tell me I couldnÆt name an object which was not mine and other times it gave me a prompt to change the name but nothing seem to happen.
-Password assignment should be asked after container is anchored. The only way currently to check to see if a password is assigned is attempting to open the container or to reset the password. This is somewhat difficult at times because you only have to enter the password on a container once per session if you do not leave the vicinity (dock, jump, etc).
-Refreshing of the Containers is really bad. Ex. Player A Deposits items into an anchored container. Player B opens the anchored container and removes item, placing it in another Secure Container on board vessel. The Container on the Vessel and the Anchored container show no visible signs of the transaction. You can test by attempting to overflow the container and the lack of space will let you know there is something inside. To get the containers to refresh you need to dock or jump. This applies to both Player A and Player B. Otherwise Player A, if they continue to mine, will just see the Anchored container continue to fill with stacks of items which are not really there.
-Suggestion: Place a Volume Bar on Anchored Containers to designate current capacity and available.
-Suggestion: When moving items into container with Shift, have the system auto calculate maximum amount which can be added.
-Suggestion: Make even Larger Containers or allow some sort of grouping/linking.
With the few tiny problems as stated above, they seem to work very well. I do like the limitation on the number of containers within specific distances. This will allow group or individuals to somewhat set up a permanent mining operation in an area and prevent rivals from bringing in their equipment and running an operation at the same time.
|
FingerThief
|
Posted - 2003.09.24 06:52:00 -
[77]
Quote:
Given that the yeild of Mobile Refineries (MR) is NOT going to be based on distance from a station, can you please explain a realistic instance where 8% would motivate any player to use one?
Hm ... my solution/suggestion/idea should de-motivate using them around empire space or systems 1 jump out from a NPC base with refinery.
The yield/efficency should increase the further away from the nearest NPC refinery u tug the MR.
Since MR's are still in testing/development phase, I thought, why not posting an idea that would make them more efficient the further out into the unknown you take em !
|
Johnson McCrae
|
Posted - 2003.09.24 09:38:00 -
[78]
Tried the Amarr mobile refinery.
Refined 1 run of Scord, got just above the 'no refining skills' level of mins.
Refined 1 run of Dark Ochre, got 11% of same skill levels.
WTF?
Don't tell me this is going to happen with ALL high level ores. They'll be useless.
It ain't over till the fat lady falls on ya!
[ 2004.10.09 02:50:23 ] (combat) Your 425mm Compressed Coil Gun I perfectly strikes Guardian Sentry, wrecking for 747.3 damage.
|
Ur Nemesis
|
Posted - 2003.09.24 17:02:00 -
[79]
hey its mobil. park it at a place 20 or more jumps from a station and then whine about the rate.
|
Brodie
|
Posted - 2003.09.24 22:24:00 -
[80]
I just wanted to say that a mobile refinery should be VERY inefficient. if they are just as efficient as in-station refineries then it will make using the in station ones pointless becuase you could have 50 miners mining and 1 hauler keeping up easily after the ore is refined.
The purpose of a mobile refinery is to put it in DEEP space where it's both incredibly inefficient and dangerous to haul ore 15 jumps through 0.0 space.
It would give you a strategic option: Do you mine bistot using a single hauler and a single miner and maybe 2 BS's providing cover and only get an 10 or 20 pecent yield OR do you mine with 1 miner, 10 haulers and 2 BS's risking the haulers?
If you have mobile refinery you could mine a bunch of bistot or crokite or arkanor refine till you have 10k megazite and zydrine or something tand the haul the minerals back in your BS's.
I think having mobile refineries that have as high yield as in-station refineries would be incredibly unrealistic and it would also play havoc with the markets...
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.09.25 06:06:00 -
[81]
if you were to mine an average bistot system out and refine it at 8% efficiency you'd probably still make less than hauling to a station 15 jumps away.
Isn't the whole point of this to allow corps to build up bases that eventually turn into stations out so they can claim there own territory and basically build somewhere to fight over (and also attract more people from empire space to 0.0 to fight as the game was intended methinks) if there extremely inefficient it just undermines that (note : not saying they should be 100% efficient, but 8% is just nuts .. 40-50% + skills is better)
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Namarus
|
Posted - 2003.09.26 00:00:00 -
[82]
I have not seen any good reasons for them not to be as good as a station refinary.
If peopel want to litter space with their mobile refinaries who really cares quite honestly. Right now I could go around anchoring secure cargo containers like crazy if I wanted too.
The bottom line is money. Do people want to waste their money doing stuff like this, especially if the price is really high? Probably not. If the price is low then I think they would.
Make them cost about 300M or so and you will find them being use properly.
Nothing to see here .... move along. |
Cyrus Troy
|
Posted - 2003.09.26 16:56:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Cyrus Troy on 26/09/2003 16:58:29
Quote:
I have not seen any good reasons for them not to be as good as a station refinary.
Make them cost about 300M or so and you will find them being use properly.
Yah, no joke, blah blah blah.. people are going to litter space with mobile refineries...blah blah blah. If some corp wants to just leave their mobile refineries around when they cost 300 mill, they can go right ahead. My corp will just capture, dismantle, and move them to where we need it. Make them just as efficient as stations. Everyone who mines near a station will always continue to use the station's refinery... because it's F$#@$% FREE!
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2003.09.27 23:52:00 -
[84]
What about this idea: A mobile refinery has no disadvange in refining efficiency, but in refining time, so you will only be able to refine ... say 10000 m¦ per hour with one refinery.
|
Kintac
|
Posted - 2003.09.28 11:05:00 -
[85]
This sounds more logical because the mobile refining stations are smaller...
|
Zabian
|
Posted - 2003.10.06 22:19:00 -
[86]
The main problem that I see with the limitation....You will see 15 mob ref's in a belt or around a planet to deal with it. This will just cause more server side lag kinda like masive amounts of containers or drones create. Good idea, but the "work around" would just cause more issues IMHO.
Z
|
Nightwing
|
Posted - 2003.10.07 07:19:00 -
[87]
Quote:
The main problem that I see with the limitation....You will see 15 mob ref's in a belt or around a planet to deal with it. This will just cause more server side lag kinda like masive amounts of containers or drones create. Good idea, but the "work around" would just cause more issues IMHO.
Z
Not if they cost 500 Mil a pop you won't...
|
Ayme
|
Posted - 2003.10.07 16:21:00 -
[88]
The main point should be to make the game enjoyable instead of increasing or transferring the stinking time sinks.
Presumable mobile refineries are the prelude to private stations. Why would you expect them to be any less efficient than a station unit? You want them restricted...balance the cost appropriate to its value. Even if every small corp could afford one...so what? They will start moving to deep space and more activity will occur there. If the thing is too expensive, no one will risk losing it. If it is too inefficient, I can assure you that people will not use it to refine ores that are too hard to obtain at current costs.
|
Zabian
|
Posted - 2003.10.08 01:25:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Zabian on 08/10/2003 01:25:35
500M, I doubt it, expecially with an 8% return, if that is the case, NOBODY will ever use one.
Z
|
Drutort
|
Posted - 2003.10.08 05:16:00 -
[90]
why the hell do you ppl say that ppl will spam them? do you see anyone leaving anything worth of 10mill even in space?
i dont see the problem i dont care they could cost 50-100mill and have different lvl's of mobile refineries... that is better idea all the way up to like lvl3 or so costing 250m+
if there is a chance to blow one up or to capture then nobody in there right mind would leave it in space... if it could be destroyed nobody is stupid enough to leave it there either... if you got enemies that is... and you dont have to really pirates will do it just for fun regardless
support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo
my MoBlog |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |