Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Tommy Robotic
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 22:59:24 -
[781] - Quote
This is obviously getting over-tuned to fix their mistake and is not intended to be a long term solution. ISK is getting devalued which directly effects CCP's bottom line. Those that can fly supers are going to go back to super ratting and those that can't weren't rorqual mining. The little guys that were rorq mining for an hour or two a day are going to be the ones that pay the heaviest price for investing in a decent nullsec income activity. |
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 07:21:24 -
[782] - Quote
ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote:Brigadine Ferathine wrote:ISD Chanisa Nemes wrote:Removed some off-topic posts
[img]http://i.giphy.com/26FmPR9KSqjRCuJUI.gif[/img] Dear lord the GIF I've found that I get a +5 to forum moderation when I post a gif along with my rule statements All you need now is a pubbie wave and we are back on reddit. |
Huydo
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
74
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 10:34:40 -
[783] - Quote
So Rorq Conten is dead now. FC what do? http://i.imgur.com/NQm6McI.png
|
Slumberg
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 14:15:06 -
[784] - Quote
Thumbs down to the aesthetic change of larger asteroids. With their current size it's easy to lose Excavators to booshers, but if you're paying attention it's preventable. With this change there will be no counter gameplay to that. There have been plenty rushing to sell off rorqs since the announcemnt, and most of them point to the rock size change above anything else. I guess that will help buoy mineral prices, but there's got to be a better way than having 5-10b worth of totally defenseless drones ambling around an asteroid 15km from you. |
Cade Windstalker
1028
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 16:29:34 -
[785] - Quote
Tommy Robotic wrote:This is obviously getting over-tuned to fix their mistake and is not intended to be a long term solution. ISK is getting devalued which directly effects CCP's bottom line. Those that can fly supers are going to go back to super ratting and those that can't weren't rorqual mining. The little guys that were rorq mining for an hour or two a day are going to be the ones that pay the heaviest price for investing in a decent nullsec income activity.
Small correction here, ISK is fine and is actually increasing in value as the ISK supply constricts due to people swapping from Carrier ratting and other ISK printing activities to mining. What's dropping in value is ore and minerals.
Slumberg wrote:Thumbs down to the aesthetic change of larger asteroids. With their current size it's easy to lose Excavators to booshers, but if you're paying attention it's preventable. With this change there will be no counter gameplay to that. There have been plenty rushing to sell off rorqs since the announcemnt, and most of them point to the rock size change above anything else. I guess that will help buoy mineral prices, but there's got to be a better way than having 5-10b worth of totally defenseless drones ambling around an asteroid 15km from you.
Couple points here.
First off, if the sell off continues it's not gonna be even 5b in drones pretty soon.
Second, the larger rocks make it harder to run off with a full flight all at once, and make it more likely that you're going to bump a rock trying to do so, so there's some trade off here. It's not *all* nerf. Plus it gets less worthwhile to run around yoinking drones if they're no longer worth 1.5b each.
Lastly the Rorqual sell off started well before the rock size changes were decided as going in on this patch, it's mostly the drop in value and people wanting to 'cash out' their investment while they can. |
Soko99
Repercussus Northern Coalition.
79
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 00:44:17 -
[786] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Small correction here, ISK is fine and is actually increasing in value as the ISK supply constricts due to people swapping from Carrier ratting and other ISK printing activities to mining. What's dropping in value is ore and minerals.
So.. then what's the problem with minerals dropping? If it's not decreasing the value of isk, why was it such a big problem that low end minerals are just that. low end and cheap?
Cade Windstalker wrote: Couple points here.
First off, if the sell off continues it's not gonna be even 5b in drones pretty soon.
Second, the larger rocks make it harder to run off with a full flight all at once, and make it more likely that you're going to bump a rock trying to do so, so there's some trade off here. It's not *all* nerf. Plus it gets less worthwhile to run around yoinking drones if they're no longer worth 1.5b each.
Lastly the Rorqual sell off started well before the rock size changes were decided as going in on this patch, it's mostly the drop in value and people wanting to 'cash out' their investment while they can.
So because they're now less than 5bil for a flight, thus might not be worth stealing, so it's ok to introduce a mechanic that's not counterable and is completely unnecessary? interesting logic.
Your last point. yeah.. values are dropping because people don't want ot be stuck with something they paid 10bil for only to have it turn into 3bil overnight because of a dumb game change mechanic by CCP. A reasonable expectation |
Huydo
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
74
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 09:49:01 -
[787] - Quote
I had some time yesterday. And this is what i get from my rorq on TQ now ( mined exactly 60min ) http://i.imgur.com/uQ00uDc.png
And this is on SISI ( 60 min of mining again ) http://i.imgur.com/PtL3r61.png |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:37:10 -
[788] - Quote
try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod.
But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf. |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:45:10 -
[789] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3179
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:52:44 -
[790] - Quote
Tommy Robotic wrote:This is obviously getting over-tuned to fix their mistake and is not intended to be a long term solution. ISK is getting devalued which directly effects CCP's bottom line. Those that can fly supers are going to go back to super ratting and those that can't weren't rorqual mining. The little guys that were rorq mining for an hour or two a day are going to be the ones that pay the heaviest price for investing in a decent nullsec income activity.
But I though the narrative was that carrier/super ratting was dead because of fighter sig and rat aggro change. Can someone tell me what the narrative is supposed to be now? |
|
Saveritas
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:56:08 -
[791] - Quote
Basically, in one patch, they try to lower the immense amounts of bounties claimed (By making carrier ratting less attractive, you'll lose more fighters and make less isk/hour) and fight the immense increase of ore harvested, because one look at the economic reports should tell you; things have been spiraling out of control lately.
I don't believe this to be the correct way of going about it, but it's the CCP way. |
jizzah
The Collective Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:59:55 -
[792] - Quote
Prepare for pointless 600 word dissertation heralding the necessity of the overnerf using:
- unsubstantiated guesswork based on 'maths'
- inaccurate representation of best-case values while plain ignoring information that would have a significant impact on said values
- sketchy understanding of markets
- no understanding of nullsec production
- blinkered statements regarding anom mining
- cherry-picking values and statements from the few (trolls included) who seem to support the changes: and
- vague statements regarding the very mechanics we're bemoaning the unfairness of, based on what 'my friends told me' rather than any actual experience.
|
Trevize Demerzel
82
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:59:01 -
[793] - Quote
aside from the mining nerfs.....
I feel compelled to specifically call out AGAIN, that changing the Rorq such that it must have a Rock locked to use the PANIC module will NOT accomplish the desired result.
One of the most common uses of an attack jump HIC Rorq is to jump into a mining belt to get other Rorqs! What's in said mining belt? Rocks! DUH.
-
|
jizzah
The Collective Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:10:41 -
[794] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:
try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod.
But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf.
It shouldn't matter about the isk value of the item, we should be comparing quantities there, and from the look of things, the quantity's pretty severely diminished. These values are of course subjective, but if the pilot set everything bar the actual quality of the ore right (distance from roid and similar quantity in roid being the 2 that spring to mind) these values are pretty distressing. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
183
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:48:22 -
[795] - Quote
Can you change the restrictions to the PANIC module from having an asteroid locked to being in proximity of an asteroid? (within 30km of?) I'm just asking this for the rare situation where a rorqual chooses not to have an industrial core fitted but still mines with drones and if you then jam it out (in industrial core jams are useless) The rorqual won't be able to PANIC in the belt. |
Cade Windstalker
1057
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:58:56 -
[796] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:So.. then what's the problem with minerals dropping? If it's not decreasing the value of isk, why was it such a big problem that low end minerals are just that. low end and cheap?
Because it's wrecking the ability of anyone in High Sec or anyone without a Rorqual or a fleet of Exhumbers to make a living from mining. Also, based on the numbers we players can see from CCP, it looks like the total volume of ore is currently vastly exceeding the amount being used. That sort of over-supply isn't good for the economy or for the long-term viability of mining as a profession.
Soko99 wrote:So because they're now less than 5bil for a flight, thus might not be worth stealing, so it's ok to introduce a mechanic that's not counterable and is completely unnecessary? interesting logic.
Your last point. yeah.. values are dropping because people don't want ot be stuck with something they paid 10bil for only to have it turn into 3bil overnight because of a dumb game change mechanic by CCP. A reasonable expectation
You can absolutely counter the mechanic, either scram your own drones to make them boosh-proof or keep an eye on local and recall your drones when someone shows up. Between a combination of the two you should still be able to get your drones within range of a normal T2 scram even if they start 15km away before a CD can land on grid and start booshing.
As for the value of these drones anything in Eve is pretty much always "early adopter beware" because the price always drops over time.
Sisi Collins wrote:try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf.
CCP announced a 25% nerf to ideal yields, they flat out say in the first post on this thread that the change is to ideal yield.
jizzah wrote:Prepare for pointless 600 word dissertation heralding the necessity of the overnerf using:
- unsubstantiated guesswork based on 'maths'
- inaccurate representation of best-case values while plain ignoring information that would have a significant impact on said values
- sketchy understanding of markets
- no understanding of nullsec production
- blinkered statements regarding anom mining
- cherry-picking values and statements from the few (trolls included) who seem to support the changes: and
- vague statements regarding the very mechanics we're bemoaning the unfairness of, based on what 'my friends told me' rather than any actual experience.
You forgot passive aggressive ranting in place of an actual debate and misconstruing of arguments and evidence you disagree with in place of evidence.
Also apparent abuse of the list function instead of adding new bullet points. Wow |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:03:34 -
[797] - Quote
jizzah wrote:Sisi Collins wrote:
try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod.
But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf.
It shouldn't matter about the isk value of the item, we should be comparing quantities there, and from the look of things, the quantity's pretty severely diminished. These values are of course subjective, but if the pilot set everything bar the actual quality of the ore right (distance from roid and similar quantity in roid being the 2 that spring to mind) these values are pretty distressing.
If going in ore volume mined per hour, on SISI it's 4 times less than on TQ now for spodumain. These figures are not distressing, they are horrible and shocked.
And why Devs are not explaining what logic they used to make 10B capital industrial ship mines less than 300mil T2 barge hulk : )
I'm really want to hear CCP response to that.
|
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:09:34 -
[798] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Sisi Collins wrote:try to mine one type of spodumain - on TQ- Bright Spod, on SISI - normal Spod. But I got almost the same results. That's a huge nerf, just an overestimated nerf, and I still didn't see explanations from CCP to this differences in mining volume. CCP has announced ~25% nerf. CCP announced a 25% nerf to ideal yields, they flat out say in the first post on this thread that the change is to ideal yield. ]
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 : ) |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
834
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:29:18 -
[799] - Quote
"Before" Image: Bright Spod.
"After" Image: Regular Spod.
Are the Bright Spod asteroids not significantly smaller than regular Spod asteroids already? This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:30:26 -
[800] - Quote
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. |
|
Coelomate Tian
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:38:39 -
[801] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:"Before" Image: Bright Spod.
"After" Image: Regular Spod.
Are the Bright Spod asteroids not significantly smaller than regular Spod asteroids already? This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
I don't think this impacts testing, so long as you look at ore amount instead of estimated isk.
Whether the ores are regular/+ 5%/+10% is determined by the security status of the system. At certain security breakpoints, all of the ore switches to one variety, but I think it LOOKS the same. AFAIK from my casual observation, the size of the rocks is otherwise identical. The ore itself has identical volume too. I could be wrong, as I haven't extensively tested it, but I have no reason to be concerned from jump.
It's hard to find anoms on the test server, so it's not surprising that people testing on sisi can't always match the "flavor" of ore they use on tranquility.
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
834
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:11:11 -
[802] - Quote
Coelomate Tian wrote:Winter Archipelago wrote:"Before" Image: Bright Spod.
"After" Image: Regular Spod.
Are the Bright Spod asteroids not significantly smaller than regular Spod asteroids already? This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I don't think this impacts testing, so long as you look at ore amount instead of estimated isk. Whether the ores are regular/+ 5%/+10% is determined by the security status of the system. At certain security breakpoints, all of the ore switches to one variety, but I think it LOOKS the same. AFAIK from my casual observation, the size of the rocks is otherwise identical. The ore itself has identical volume too. I could be wrong, as I haven't extensively tested it, but I have no reason to be concerned from jump. It's hard to find anoms on the test server, so it's not surprising that people testing on sisi can't always match the "flavor" of ore they use on tranquility. I'm not looking at the estimated ISK, but at the actual quantities of mined ore. The size of the asteroids themselves is different, and if a person goes after a Bright Spod rock in one place that's small and the Spodzilla on the test server, it's going to make a huge difference in yield.
I don't have a Rorqual of my own to test it with on my own, unfortunately, but without having seen the actual tests conducted by my own eyes, I'm extremely skeptical as to the true use of this test.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Tommy Robotic
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:15:38 -
[803] - Quote
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.
Spod is where the majority of the m3 is in the colossal so you will need the majority of your fleet in Hulks working the spod. If this is CCP's response to keep a dozen rorq's from flipping colossals all day, ok but then don't nerf the drone yield amounts. It'd have had the desired effect while allowing the players that are working solo or small groups to have a good isk/hr while reducing the income of the large groups of rorq's that are flipping anoms 23/7.
The nerf they are proposing is so heavy handed that it'd take an idiot to believe this is a rational "adjustment" to mining yields. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:32:47 -
[804] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:.........................
And why Devs are not explaining what logic they used to make 10B capital industrial ship mines less than 300mil T2 barge hulk : )
I'm really want to hear CCP response to that.
You don't need a CCP response to what has always been the logic....
The Rorqual, a Capital Industrial Ship, has always been supposed to be the central boosting and compression hub of a mining 'fleet' of mining barges. This is no different to the same logic that has always intended that a Capital Ship cannot operate properly without sub-caps in support (that's indeed why they can actually carry them - although hardly ever used in combat situations).
Provided that, and a future pass may be needed, it is better than an Orca doing it and that better than a Porpoise - and is actually used; then we'll approach 'balance'.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
jizzah
The Collective Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 18:05:27 -
[805] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You forgot passive aggressive ranting in place of an actual debate and misconstruing of arguments and evidence you disagree with in place of evidence.
I didn't want to come across as being too negative towards you. |
Tommy Robotic
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 18:47:07 -
[806] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Sisi Collins wrote:.........................
And why Devs are not explaining what logic they used to make 10B capital industrial ship mines less than 300mil T2 barge hulk : )
I'm really want to hear CCP response to that.
You don't need a CCP response to what has always been the logic.... The Rorqual, a Capital Industrial Ship, has always been supposed to be the central boosting and compression hub of a mining 'fleet' of mining barges. This is no different to the same logic that has always intended that a Capital Ship cannot operate properly without sub-caps in support (that's indeed why they can actually carry them - although hardly ever used in combat situations). Provided that, and a future pass may be needed, it is better than an Orca doing it and that better than a Porpoise - and is actually used; then we'll approach 'balance'.
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. |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Just let it happen
434
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:39:47 -
[807] - Quote
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
1059
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:46:24 -
[808] - Quote
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
The Collective Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:54:18 -
[809] - Quote
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 220m-¦ per 90 seconds. Changes take that to 110m-¦ 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 +ÿ x -Ç = 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 (a-¦+b-¦=c-¦) 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.
GêÜ (6-¦+6-¦) GêÜ (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 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 27.5 seconds at max distance.
Base values. 200m/s Under 30 seconds at worst.
0-30 42-60
Difference 12-30 seconds extra travel time.
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.
|
jizzah
The Collective Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:58:00 -
[810] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |