open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked What is the purpose behind 100% refining efficiency of modules?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

CataCourier
Posted - 2011.08.26 19:19:00 - [1]
 

This has been moved from my random comment in an MD thread to it's own topic. This has likely been asked before, but I haven't seen any solid responses.

What was the purpose/reason behind modules to be able to be refined at 100%?
Why would it not be feasible to reduce the refine rate of items to 75% max(or some arbitrary amount less than 100%)?

-In a literal sense, how is it possible to alter an item in the manufacturing process (making structural/chemical changes to the raw materials) resulting into a finished product- and then being able to reverse those processes with zero waste?
-In a logistics sense, it really doesn't seem (air quotes) "fair" to enable people to compress gigantic quantities of minerals, move them deep into 0.0 in one trip, and refine them back into minerals without any "cost" in the refine process? If CCP is trying to encourage more use of logistics runs and making a more challenging/rewarding/realistic 0.0 space, it seems like encouraging/forcing more logistic trips for huge quantities of goods would be a start.
-In a mineral sense, this would have some positive impact on the mineral market, because people would be refining unused t1/named/dronegoo into fewer minerals.
-In an ISK earning sense, mission runners that are looting would earn less isk from refines (boo hoo).

Constructive thoughts?

Kelmurdoch
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.26 19:49:00 - [2]
 

I don't have any constructive thoughts, though I encourage you to review your argument from both sides instead of such a sneering, one-sided analysis.

CataCourier
Posted - 2011.08.26 20:31:00 - [3]
 

I suppose that did come off a little strong/one sided :-). Guess that's a projection of how I'm feeling at work right now (>.<).

What would be some of the negatives to this? The only argument I've seen so far against this is that the value of the loot dropped from rats could potentially decrease (if not 'named' well).

Dorian Wylde
Posted - 2011.08.26 20:36:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: CataCourier


-In a literal sense, how is it possible to alter an item in the manufacturing process (making structural/chemical changes to the raw materials) resulting into a finished product- and then being able to reverse those processes with zero waste?



How is it possible for an energy transfer to give the target more energy than the transfer module consumes?

Jason McCoy
Posted - 2011.08.26 22:15:00 - [5]
 

Its Eve, where the impossible is possible.

Take for example the erebus, look at its drone capacity, now look at the nyx's drone capacity. The erebus is much MUCH bigger yet can carry substantially less drones. COME ON!

lol

Loraine Gess
Posted - 2011.08.26 23:03:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Jason McCoy
Its Eve, where the impossible is possible.

Take for example the erebus, look at its drone capacity, now look at the nyx's drone capacity. The erebus is much MUCH bigger yet can carry substantially less drones. COME ON!

lol



Confirming that a battleship should carry more planes than an escort carrier, because it's bigger.

YuuKnow
Posted - 2011.08.26 23:49:00 - [7]
 

How is its possible to 'webify' a target.
Or how is it possible to refine anything in less than 3 seconds.
How can a ship dock, load 1000000 m3 of carge and then undock in less than 30 seconds...


because its make believe.

Cunane Jeran
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.27 00:11:00 - [8]
 

Its a fair point to bring up.

Personally I'd be all up to see it nerfed to 75% even though it would hit me pretty bad. Anything that shores up the miners by increasing mineral prices is a good thing.

Though it'd completely feck up the current meta market.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.08.27 00:13:00 - [9]
 

Make it so that the manufacturing process has T-symmetry. Then all refining needs to do is take the time-reversal of the manufacturing process to refine at 100%.

Of course in the REAL WORLD, we have this thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics which gets in our way. But this is EVE Online - where we trudge through the viscous ether inside of giant, flying submarines.

Dorian Wylde
Posted - 2011.08.27 01:55:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: YuuKnow
How is its possible to 'webify' a target.
Or how is it possible to refine anything in less than 3 seconds.
How can a ship dock, load 1000000 m3 of carge and then undock in less than 30 seconds...


because its make believe.


New word to explain an effect from technology we don't have yet.

We aren't refining instantly, we're trading ore for minerals already refined at the station.

Gameplay trumps realism in many cases. In the reality of eve, loading and undocking takes a lot longer.

Shab T'shet
Posted - 2011.08.29 17:04:00 - [11]
 

OP, i haven't verified this myself but was of the belief that when you refine a module the mineral return is less than the mineral requirements to build. So when you refine a module you're getting 100% of the minerals you're able to get not 100% of the minerals in the module. if you know what i mean. Like i said not verified, i never checked out my theory with BPOs.

Kelmurdoch
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:15:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Shab T'shet
OP, i haven't verified this myself but was of the belief that when you refine a module the mineral return is less than the mineral requirements to build. So when you refine a module you're getting 100% of the minerals you're able to get not 100% of the minerals in the module. if you know what i mean. Like i said not verified, i never checked out my theory with BPOs.


This is true. Unless you spend a year researching the BPO's ME you'll always waste mineral in the manufacturing process.

Unfortunately it doesn't address the OP's question though. Is it so hard to believe that a civilization that can make everything out of 8 basic mineral types and 15 planetary resources can't reverse the process with perfect yield (after long training?).

CataCourier
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:43:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: CataCourier on 30/08/2011 15:43:28
Thus far, the answers to my "Why?" question have been: "Why not?"

Therefore, I'm going to shift the focus a bit on the question to try to drive some better answers.

What would be the effects of reducing the max refine of goods to 75%?

- Poorly 'named' loot is worth 1/4 less
- Logistics actually require logistics, rather than one or two JF runs to supply enough minerals for a Super Cap.
- Reduced mineral supply leads to increased mineral prices

edit: grammar.

Sphynix
Posted - 2011.08.30 16:00:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: CataCourier
Edited by: CataCourier on 30/08/2011 15:43:28
What would be the effects of reducing the max refine of goods to 75%?

- Poorly 'named' loot is worth 1/4 less
- Logistics actually require logistics, rather than one or two JF runs to supply enough minerals for a Super Cap.
- Reduced mineral supply leads to increased mineral prices


If the mineral volume of loot was reduced (let alone removed) then even less folk would bother looting them. This would increase the value of mining.
At the same time you could also say that this would cause some folk to stop missioning completely, which would/could also further reduce the amount of minerals looted from missions... This would also increase the value of mining.

At some point you might find that missioning is worth less per hour than mining veld and so the majority of mission folk then switch to mining.

Player traded isk is a static amount. yes the value of an item may vary but if players trade isk then the total, server wide, amount of isk does not go up - in fact it goes down, if you use the market.

With the value of mining/hour increasing the value of minerals would spike and then decrease - balance. Eventually mining and missioning would level out and missions would be worth more. Missions will always be worth more per hour than mining because they generate isk, instead of trading it.

So, if TLDR is your style, or you just didn't get the point - If you devalue the mineral content of items you will increase the relative value of ISK.

You'll also create a logistics issue with long-haul flights as folk won't want to waste xyz amount of minerals doing compression.

Kelmurdoch
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.30 16:00:00 - [15]
 

The effect is just what you think it would be: everything in null sec would become more expensive due to mineral compression becoming unprofitable.

It would shift the balance of isk-making playstyles away from combat and into mining.

Which is exactly why CCP has a 100% potential refine available: mining is a quite distinct and specialized endeavor that turns off most of the player base (myself included). CCP would lose customers if they made ships that much more expensive to fly without increasing ratting bounties and mission rewards to compensate.

CataCourier
Posted - 2011.08.30 17:11:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Kelmurdoch
The effect is just what you think it would be: everything in null sec would become more expensive due to mineral compression becoming unprofitable.

It would shift the balance of isk-making playstyles away from combat and into mining.

Which is exactly why CCP has a 100% potential refine available: mining is a quite distinct and specialized endeavor that turns off most of the player base (myself included). CCP would lose customers if they made ships that much more expensive to fly without increasing ratting bounties and mission rewards to compensate.


I agree that some prices would increase in 0.0 (the biggest 'victims' would be supercaps), but there wouldn't be significant changes in prices in modules or ships- even battleships. Any decent alliance should have enough mining operation to provide steady amounts of low end ore- just not enough for supercap production.

I highly disagree that it would shift any play styles- this change could increase mineral prices, but not nearly to the amount that people would stop running missions (blitzing?) or ratting in belts/sanctums.

Right now, mining is so hurt that a perfect miner (with a dedicated hauler) can only make about 27-32mil isk an hour over any decent amount of time (good luck finding enough ark to continuously mine 40mil+ an hour). This change might bump that up somewhat, but not nearly close to the amount that a mission blitzer (100mil+/hr) or sanctum blitzer (120mil+/hr) can pull off.

Tugrath Akers
Posted - 2011.08.30 17:37:00 - [17]
 

pretend the modules are made of legos

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.08.31 09:02:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: CataCourier

-In a logistics sense, it really doesn't seem (air quotes) "fair" to enable people to compress gigantic quantities of minerals, move them deep into 0.0 in one trip, and refine them back into minerals without any "cost" in the refine process? If CCP is trying to encourage more use of logistics runs and making a more challenging/rewarding/realistic 0.0 space, it seems like encouraging/forcing more logistic trips for huge quantities of goods would be a start.
-In a mineral sense, this would have some positive impact on the mineral market, because people would be refining unused t1/named/dronegoo into fewer minerals.


Anyone ever bail up cardboard? *raises hand* You can compress a small mountain of cardboard into a block 3ft wide x 4ft tall x 6ft long (give or take half a foot per dimension or convert to metric if you prefer, I never measured the machine), just pray you don't get sponge like cardboard that expands 1-2 foot up everytime you compress to add more on top because eventually you only get a small clearance to stuff up top and the bale will compress even smaller then normal. The things also weigh...damn don't know but probably close to half a ton or more, you don't want to it to get stuck when it slides out and get you foot caught under it when you give a tug to add some downward momentum and drop it on to a wooden pallet.

Back on topic, thats compression of materials and you don't loose anything in the process. It just makes transport of material easier then trying to drop in the back of a truck and tying it down, at the same time you can carry a greater load. When you arrive at your destination, you cut the wires/plastic ties and it unbundles for zero loss of material. BAM! Zero refine loss. There should be zero loss if Veldspar is turned into a "Compressed Veldspar" which is like a cardboard bale.

On the otherhand, if you are building a 1400mm Artillery 1 piece which may be made of metals and plastics for transport then break it down yes there should be loss of materials because you will have to sort out the metals and plastics, then discard the black plastic because some places seem to only prefer clear plastic like 2 liter soda bottles over a 1 gallion orange juice jug colored orange. Then you are loosing materials.

What I am saying:
- Compressed blocks of pure minerals, you don't loose anything when breaking it down because its ment for transport
- Refining modules made of many different materials will result in some loss of material
- Refine system should determine the difference between a transport block of material which yields normal return and recycling off parts of modules which should yield less return (certain materials no one wants in real life, so its buried in a landfill).
Quote:
-In an ISK earning sense, mission runners that are looting would earn less isk from refines (boo hoo).

What is your source? That QEN from 2008? I started in early 2009 when I heard about it, guess what you need to get up to date. Largest meta 0 modules you will see now are the smallest BS gun which are kind of rare, alot of cruiser sized crap, drone **** reduced, and compensation S-Crap (Special Crap) metal of which there is way to much of and very few of that special S-Crap worth a bit more. Everything else is meta 1-4 of which is generally not that useful other then fitting cheap PVP ships which helps keep the prices down on T2 (why buy T2 when something else is cheaper? Now T2 manufacture have to compete with meta 1-4 stuff, equilibrium is reached where people don't mind paying 1.5m for T2 instead of 15m when a 100k meta 2 item works just as well but that slight percentage boost over meta 2 is worth the cheaper price of 1.5m then 15m) and carry less minerals then the Pinatas that were BS sized loot pre-Tyranis. I would guestimate that minerals from mission sources are 10% or less now, even salvage tanked so bounties and LP are the only true source of income now.

Usurpine
Amarr
GDC Holding
Posted - 2011.08.31 13:10:00 - [19]
 

If you trying to fix all this little unlogic issues, first start bringing in space physik to this underwater game.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only