Mining - Am I alone feeling it's unbalanced/not quite working?

[NeilF]

FDEV needs to leave it "AS IS". No NERFS, no "BALANCING". The basic jist of this is, people are making money, and the ones too lazy to learn it or do it are crying about it. Does not matter to me if a commander makes hundreds of millions hunting deep cores. Why should anyone else care? It is already "balanced" i.e. They can do it, I can do it, anyone can do it. That is all the balance we need. Quit worrying about what others are doing, and just play the game, or quit playing it.

Or...Maybe...Just maybe... It can be improved so the mining experience is more varied, more engaging and more fun. (Completely irrespective to points and argument based on income.)

Ultimately, FDEV have released a new set of mining mechanics. What's the chances they've got it absolutely right first attempt? (eg: Engineers needed a V2!)

In truth, the mechanics appear to be unbalanced in areas and almost faulty in a couple of ways. eg: Using a PWA is all but pointless except for the default-go-to-game-loop of "hunt the motherlode", and many CMDRs aren't even bothering to fit Sub-Surface Missiles as that aspect is so unbalanced/broken.

So, what's the harm in addressing/fixing these fairly obvious issues? Because that is the balancing we really need

 

[through the hole backwards]

Or...Maybe...Just maybe... It can be improved so the mining experience is more varied, more engaging and more fun. (Completely irrespective to points and argument based on income.)

Ultimately, FDEV have released a new set of mining mechanics. What's the chances they've got it absolutely right first attempt? (eg: Engineers needed a V2!)

In truth, the mechanics appear to be unbalanced in areas and almost faulty in a couple of ways. eg: Using a PWA is all but pointless except for the default-go-to-game-loop of "hunt the motherlode", and many CMDRs aren't even bothering to fit Sub-Surface Missiles as that aspect is so unbalanced/broken.

So, what's the harm in addressing/fixing these fairly obvious issues? Because that is the balancing we really need

Don't think it needs balancing at all , you can mine however you wish to out of all of the methods made available to you.

 

[NeilF]

Don't think it needs balancing at all , you can mine however you wish to out of all of the methods made available to you.

Being able to have a choice (ie: methods made available to you) does not mean they are balanced across them, or indeed even individually of course...

If you wish to talk about balance then talk about balance (not choice)? ie: So you don't think it could be construed that the clearest, most obvious way of financially mining at the moment (and alot of miners of course are interested in CR's per hr), involves simply motherlode->motherlode->motherlode. Many not even bothering now to fit sub-surface missiles due to "balance"? Do you not think, just possibly a "more balanced" mining mechanic might offer the choice to make a reasonable income instead from mining across the bredth of mechanics ideally with the PWA allowing you to highlight OTHER asteroids of financial interested to you, and not seemingly acting as "where's the next motherlode"? Might not a more varied and "balanced" mining mechanic therefore be more interesting?

Ultimately, can you not imagine the game giving you the choice to play a more balanced mechanics where you can actually make a good income from actually mining surface deposits and sub-surface deposits? ie: Where there's enough surface deposits across asteroids you're interested in. so that mining doesn't (financially) compel/reward you to instead just motherlode->motherlode->motherlode? And where finding a sub-surface desposit is balanced such that it actually a nice reward, instead of all but pointless?

ie: The kind of balance that results in *shock horror* I've found an asteroid with two sub-surface deposits of what I'm looking for, each that should give me half a dozen plus fragments! Instead of, myeh!

Because it seems you're suggesting all is well with motherlode->motherlode->motherlode (as a go to gameloop), and all but the best outcome and balance possible for mining? And FD have got it all right first attempt?

You really don't see any issues currently? None? At all?

 

[Jukelo]

___
FDEV needs to leave it "AS IS". No NERFS, no "BALANCING". The basic jist of this is, people are making money, and the ones too lazy to learn it or do it are crying about it. Does not matter to me if a commander makes hundreds of millions hunting deep cores. Why should anyone else care? It is already "balanced" i.e. They can do it, I can do it, anyone can do it. That is all the balance we need. Quit worrying about what others are doing, and just play the game, or quit playing it.

*III*

This is not the topic. Please read the topic (and understand it) before commenting.

 

[r3per]

This is not the topic. Please read the topic (and understand it) before commenting.

Did you read the thread title? "feeling it's unbalanced" - I directly addressed balance and my thoughts that it was not unbalanced. So yeah I understand completely when I see a post claiming unbalance, when in fact usually(notice my not all inclusive there) just folks whining about something that makes good money. These forums have been full of cries for balance and nerfs everytime folks find a way to make good money. Perhaps read and understand my post before questioning my understanding of the topic.

*III*

 

[through the hole backwards]

Being able to have a choice (ie: methods made available to you) does not mean they are balanced across them, or indeed even individually of course...

If you wish to talk about balance then talk about balance (not choice)? ie: So you don't think it could be construed that the clearest, most obvious way of financially mining at the moment (and alot of miners of course are interested in CR's per hr), involves simply motherlode->motherlode->motherlode. Many not even bothering now to fit sub-surface missiles due to "balance"? Do you not think, just possibly a "more balanced" mining mechanic might offer the choice to make a reasonable income instead from mining across the bredth of mechanics ideally with the PWA allowing you to highlight OTHER asteroids of financial interested to you, and not seemingly acting as "where's the next motherlode"? Might not a more varied and "balanced" mining mechanic therefore be more interesting?

Ultimately, can you not imagine the game giving you the choice to play a more balanced mechanics where you can actually make a good income from actually mining surface deposits and sub-surface deposits? ie: Where there's enough surface deposits across asteroids you're interested in. so that mining doesn't (financially) compel/reward you to instead just motherlode->motherlode->motherlode? And where finding a sub-surface desposit is balanced such that it actually a nice reward, instead of all but pointless?

ie: The kind of balance that results in *shock horror* I've found an asteroid with two sub-surface deposits of what I'm looking for, each that should give me half a dozen plus fragments! Instead of, myeh!

Because it seems you're suggesting all is well with motherlode->motherlode->motherlode (as a go to gameloop), and all but the best outcome and balance possible for mining? And FD have got it all right first attempt?

You really don't see any issues currently? None? At all?

End of the day , it's just a game. I am really not fussed about the the endless spouts of verbosity that portray themselves as intelligence on here, its just a game , i enjoy it as it is , if i suddenly found myself that bothered about the minutia of game mechanics , i would go and do something else instead.

 

[NeilF]

End of the day , it's just a game. I am really not fussed about the the endless spouts of verbosity that portray themselves as intelligence on here, its just a game , i enjoy it as it is , if i suddenly found myself that bothered about the minutia of game mechanics , i would go and do something else instead.

And... Once again you take discussion needlessly into personal realms?

ie: People take the time to raise points and converse with you, but you basically just insult them, "...endless spouts of verbosity that portray themselves as intelligence on here."

Why do you repeatedly do this? If you disagree with points, simply explain why. Repeatedly creating straw men and throwing insults? Hmmm...

Ultimately, if you're not actually here to simply discuss the topic, why are you here?

 

[through the hole backwards]

And... Once again you take discussion into personal realms?

ie: People take the time to raise points and converse with you, but you basically just insult them, "...endless spouts of verbosity that portray themselves as intelligence on here."

Why do you repeatedly do this? If you disagree with points, simply explain why. Repeatedly creating straw men and throwing insults? Hmmm...

I don't think that is personal , it is general , don't be paranoid. As i have stated before , i think the new system of mining in the game is fun . I am not bothered by the details of it , there has been an awful lot written and repeated about this aspect of the game , some of it so pseudo-intellectual as to be laughable when , at the end of the day , its coloured pixels and sounds , which in turn make up a good game that allows people to choose what they want to do , or not do. Besides , we have been reminded a few times now to post about the post and not about the people , so please stop trying to draw the conversation that way . I am sticking to generalisations and not specifics , so if you feel insulted by something i write , take a breath and image what i have said in a broader context. I like the game , do you like the game NeilF ?

 

[NeilF]

I don't think that is personal , it is general , don't be paranoid. As i have stated before , i think the new system of mining in the game is fun . I am not bothered by the details of it , there has been an awful lot written and repeated about this aspect of the game , some of it so pseudo-intellectual as to be laughable when , at the end of the day , its coloured pixels and sounds , which in turn make up a good game that allows people to choose what they want to do , or not do. Besides , we have been reminded a few times now to post about the post and not about the people , so please stop trying to draw the conversation that way . I am sticking to generalisations and not specifics , so if you feel insulted by something i write , take a breath and image what i have said in a broader context. I like the game , do you like the game NeilF ?

When asked to simply clarify your position with a set of clear points/questions, you choose not to and instead make veiled insults... Indeed as you continue to do, seemingly now suggesting anyone not of your line of thinking (liking?) is "so pseudo-intellectual as to be laughable"?

If - as you say - we're simply discussing "coloured pixels and sounds", then why be cutting and confrontational? Why do you repeatedly inject these needlessly loaded terms into your responses which in truth are seemingly for no other reason, because they never attempt to simply politely discuss any of the points being made.

Why do you keep doing this? Please stop! Just discuss the topic(s) politely, or just don't post at all... Please!

 

[NeilF]

I think the problem is some people want to play a game with a some what robust economy and a plausible BGS and others just want a full blown sandbox where you do what ever you want and have access to all the toys in the game .
I am very much on the robust economy and plausible BGS and you seem to be on the sandbox side of the fence.

I think FD balancing for both of us is impossible and this is my biggest beef with FD tbh. They have not really been clear or honest with the kind of game they are making imo . I would never have helped kickstart the game you want and I am guessing you would never have bought the game I want . Most games are clear about the design goal and so the player base are much easier to please (I don't own Minecraft or any pure sandbox games).

If 2 players who like racing games 1 is expecting burnout3 and the other is expecting iracing then 1 - or both - is going to end up disappointed and I think this is happening here

They (FD) have an impossible job in reality. I suspect a BGS which was a tad more "realistic" would be nice in my eyes too, but I can imagine why it might not to others, or indeed even be viable given all the outcomes/issues of doing this?

As for valuable gold rushes? It seems FD have the plan to offer a "gold rush" of choice which at the moment would appear to be "Void Opals". I suspect this will continue either constantly constantly, or from time to time, with other materials getting a BGS price hike to become the "gold rush"? I have no issue with this at all especially if hotspot depletion is really effective/solid, but - as the thread suggests - I would simply like a more balanced and considered set of mining mechanics to use for mining ("gold rush" or not).

 

[Han Zulu]

I think FD balancing for both of us is impossible and this is my biggest beef with FD tbh. They have not really been clear or honest with the kind of game they are making imo . I would never have helped kickstart the game you want and I am guessing you would never have bought the game I want . Most games are clear about the design goal and so the player base are much easier to please (I don't own Minecraft or any pure sandbox games).

I think that's the problem, FDev was/is trying to make a game that fits a very diverse group of people. If they focus on one thing, another thing will break.

 

[NeilF]

I think the core problem of this thread is the assumption that mining is just mining. There can and shall be only one way of mining.

In contrast, i see two very different ways to go for mining now. The one is what's been described as "motherlode -> motherlode -> motherlode" here more than once. That's a gold diggers way of doing mining now. You head out for the big reward. Just like in old times, where gold diggers disregarded rather big deposits of copper and iron and just were out for gold, the new soldier of furtune disregards stuff like Bertrandine or Painite and only goes for core materials.

But not everybody is a soldier of fortune. The constant worker rather brings his mining lasers, abrasion baster and displacement missile. He doesn't rely on luck as much as the first kind of mining and still makes his profit. And mind you, this way of mining also makes good profit. A good deal more than before the patch.

Of course, currently the traditional way of mining, now supported by abrasion blaster and displacement missile, makes a good deal less money than the new methods. But prices are already falling. The same station, where i sold void opals for over 1.6 millions each before Xmas by now "only" pays 750k per ton. Just before Xmas somebody from FD stated that they consider current prices an odditiy, due to the reset of the BGS and things not having themselves sorted out yet. And alas, the very same thing has happened: prices are falling. And that already happened between Xmas and new year. So unless developers were sneaking into their office on the Xmas celebration days, it must've been automatic mechanics doing that.

So yes. I also think that currently the payments of core materials are very high, compared to traditional mining. But i think that prices will normalize even more. There'll still be the occasional gold rush here and there, depending on how the BGS swings. But in my eyes that's part of the fun. So currently i wouldn't want big changes right now. If core mining is still vastly superior in several weeks, it's a whole different story.

On the whole rest of the thread: yes, i also agree that the PWA is a bit of a strange beast. The whole "lights up depending on new mining features" feels very strange to me. It's a very open and raw game-mechanic tool which makes absolutely no sense from an in-game perspective. But the proposed change from the OP is the other extreme: it would be an absolutely logical tool from in-game sense. But from the view of game design, it would just collide with the prospector limpet, while taking away a tool which supports the new way of mining.

I have no elegant solution for that at hand. So i guess for the time being, the "crude but functional" is better than "elegant but collides with game design".

As quite rightly pointed out by folks, there's a number of reasons why people go out mining, but if we consider just financial mining (a fairly common one), and your "gold rush" analogy, what we have right now is the go to game loop of everyone going to a "gold rush" location and:-

• Everyone basically is finding huge nugget after huge nugget after huge nugget.
• If they try to find smaller more common nuggets, this does not work. ie: The PWA behaviour is not able to support this, nor is the current balancing of surface and sub-surface deposits offering it.

Hence the suggestion the gameplay and balance is somewhat out of wack. And as mentioned before, it's important to note this is NOT a comment on the financial rewards, but instead the gameplay we have


If we consider your "gold digger" analogy again, surely mining (in FD) should be about going to a wise choice of location (the right hotspot and least depleted), and then being able to undertake a myriad of mining mechanics for best financial and gameplay outcome. Surely you should ideally be finding plenty of surface (or legacy) mining of the mineral you're interested, additionally then have rewarding finds of sub-surface deposits (giving out half a dozen plus fragments - happy days!) of the mineral you're interested, and then as the icing on the cake - not the be all and end all? - motherlodes of the mineral you're interested.

Ultimately if you simply want to motherlode->motherlode->motherlode fine. But surely a more balanced mechanic could and should give a more varied and interesting mining experience? So starting suggestions would be:-

1. Make the PWA produce its heat map based on the quantity of the hotspot's material and I suspect say three other logical associately ones too. Add nuances to this as required. And this heatmap would be irrespective of form (surface, legacy, sub-surface and motherlode).
2. Have far far more surface and sub-surface deposits of the mineral(s) you're going to be interested in across a hotspot. At the moment, using the PWA to do anything other than motherlode->motherlode->motherlode is seemingly pointless.
3. With the vague details from FD of the depletion mechanics of hotspots, (a) display this value somehow to CMDRs, (b) make it affect the minerals in question across the board (ie: reduce frequency/quanity of legacy, surface, sub-surface and motherlodes), (c) make the depletion last for days/weeks etc to give it true meaning.

This to me at least would seem a good little step...

Misc. 1: There's also the suggestion of combining the sub-surface missile launcher and seismic charge launcher into a single module, which then appears as the two individual tools in your firegroups. ie: To free up hard points.
Misc. 2: I personally think surface deposits should be fast and furious type gameplay (ie: The opposite of sub-surface and fissures). So there should be loads of surface deposits and your abbrasion blaster(s) should infact be more like Point Defense, automatically targetting and shooting at any surface deposits in line-of-sight and range. But I can understand folks not liking this notion.

 

[Han Zulu]

Indeed, and that's why we have a game that looks like it still doesn't know what it actually wants to be.

Yup.

Too many cooks spoil the broth, as it's said.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Yup.

Too many cooks spoil the broth, as it's said.

I wouldn't mind but FD have penned out every main feature - in the core game at least - to reasonably fine details and despite signs to the contrary they knew exactly the sort of stuff they wanted in the game and it was good.... Really good. Imo it is their implementation which is a bit lacking not their initial design .

 

[NeilF]

...any further thoughts now its bedded in?

And anyone aware of details as regards the "depletion" mechanics yet?

 

[TheGrimCorsair]

Personally very happy with the new mining system and whilst i appreciate the time and effort that the OP has taken in voicing his opinion, it is after all only that. I am enjoying the new choices that I have when i choose to go mining , i am enjoying the new challenges that the new system offers and i am enjoying the rewards that success in this new gameplay brings. It is only a game at the end of the day and i would say , perhaps cynically that your engagement with the development of game , however real you may perceive that to be , ends when you hand over the price of the game to the developers. I am happy with how it has gone , and happy with how it is going and i think that for once Fdev have got it about right, a new mechanic that has the possibility to lead to emergent gameplay combined with achievable and good rewards. To those who say the rewards are too high, i say go and do something else , exploration has been buffed, and there are new ships to play with, leave the miners alone , we have been looking fruitlessly for large deposits of painite for long enough with little reward for doing so and now we are given void opals to look for and a reward comensurate with the effort , and now skill, for doing so.

If that was TLDR, I like the new system, it pays well.

TLDR: You don't actually know what a choice is and probably didn't actually read the OP's post. There are no choices to make with the current mining system. You either mine Void Opals, or you're not doing anything remotely worthwhile int he first place. Rest of the stuff just isn't worth the time of day.

 

[dekot]

...any further thoughts now its bedded in?

And anyone aware of details as regards the "depletion" mechanics yet?

There was a post with people talking about this stuff and someone from FD posted saying that it's very unlikely that hotspots will ever deplete. That was their second post, to clarify their earlier post which seemed to indicate that hot spots would actually deplete, which seems to be all that anybody remembers from that interaction. They forget about the second post.

 

[NeilF]

There was a post with people talking about this stuff and someone from FD posted saying that it's very unlikely that hotspots will ever deplete. That was their second post, to clarify their earlier post which seemed to indicate that hot spots would actually deplete, which seems to be all that anybody remembers from that interaction. They forget about the second post.

I guess all we need to know as regards depletion, is roughly:-
- What sort of quantity of mining depletes a hotspot to degree X?
- How much and how (eg: only motherlodes affected? <- please no!) will X affect what the hotspot?
- At what speed does a hotspot replenish?

 

[dekot]

I guess all we need to know as regards depletion, is roughly:-
- What sort of quantity of mining depletes a hotspot to degree X?
- How much and how (eg: only motherlodes affected? <- please no!) will X affect what the hotspot?
- At what speed does a hotspot replenish?

They will never deplete. Not only that, hot spots don't even seem to give a higher chance of finding motherlodes. You can drop into any random ring and find a motherlode within 10 minutes. I don't have any hard data to back this up but I did mine 500 ores for Selene doing only deep core mining without a DSS and that was my experience. Also mined up a ton of money on my main as well in a bunch of different systems and rings and same thing there. Whether the rings were pristine or not didn't seem to matter either.

 

[Ambrosius Dalfinger]

They will never deplete. Not only that, hot spots don't even seem to give a higher chance of finding motherlodes. You can drop into any random ring and find a motherlode within 10 minutes. I don't have any hard data to back this up but I did mine 500 ores for Selene doing only deep core mining without a DSS and that was my experience. Also mined up a ton of money on my main as well in a bunch of different systems and rings and same thing there. Whether the rings were pristine or not didn't seem to matter either.

The hotspots aren't even that relevant. You can drop out at any point in a ring and still make absurd amounts of credits from mother lodes even though they are rarer. Of course rings are huge structures of many times the surface of the Earth, so depletion shouldn't even be a big deal...


Those magic minerals need to be devalued drastically, there is no way around it. They shouldn't be much more valuable than painate or diamonds. Sub-surface mining could be made more profitable for larger ships by drastically increasing the number of chunks released from a rock instead of rasing their market values.

If FD is preparing us for carriers, magic minerals is a dysfunctional way of spreading more money. Actually this is a non-argument, because player wealth can be balanced much easier by amending asset prizes. The amount of time needed to get to carriers can be controlled better by simply prizing them sensibly.

Other factors that could be used to balance this shlt are for example higher insurance costs and higher fuel costs.