Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Friday, April 6, 2012

Return to the source

A post-script to my blog post earlier today.

In 2008, Batolemaeus on the old Scrapheap Challenge forum produced the following area chart based on some information in an EVE-O forum post made at that time.


You read this chart by picking a mineral from the outside edge.  Then follow the black line in to the center to learn the sources of that mineral.  Take Isogen.  According to this chart, 23% of Isogen came from drone alloys, 56% came from reprocessing mods, and 21% came from mining.  The larger numbers surrounded by yellow represent the minerals gained from mining.  As you can see, they range from 18% (for Nocxium) to 77% (for Morphite, which you cannot reprocess from T1 modules).

This chart shows the source of minerals in EVE Online in 2008, not today!  Note that this is before the mission loot drop change and the drone alloys change in 2010, so these figures are not accurate now.  This is particularly true for Nocxium.  The fact that 60% of noc came from drone alloys at that time was a major reason that noc spiked so high when this change was made.  I blogged about it not long after starting this blog.  If you're interested in the history, you should read that.  The mission loot change also resulted in fewer reprocessable meta 0 mods, resulting in fewer minerals from that source.

Several people have asked "if no meta 0 mods drop, won't the increase in meta1-4 mods make up the difference?"  The answer is no, for two reasons:
  • Meta1-4 mods reprocess into half the minerals meta0 mods do; and,
  • with no meta0 mods to put on new player ships and LOL-T1 ships, meta mod prices are almost certainly going to increase above their reprocessing value and therefore won't be reprocessed.

It'd be very interesting to see a version of this chart for today, but we don't have that.  We can surmise very strongly that the yellow numbers have gone up, but we can only guess by how much.  What seems very clear is that today, less than 50% of minerals -- particularly low-end minerals -- come from mining.  In a few days, that's going to be the only significant source for minerals.


EDIT (6/Apr/2012): For those that don't like the area chart, here's a stacked bar chart.  Exact same data, just different presentation.  Note the orange bars in particular, representing reprocessed loot.

10 comments:

  1. I hope reprocessing manufactured modules returns less than perfect minerals.

    That would cause an end to manufacturing simply as mineral compression. Force null sec manufacturers to use null and losec minerals, instead of bringing minerals to nullsec via manufactured items reprocesses in null

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nul needs better build capacity before their industry will be anything close to high sec

    ReplyDelete
  3. EvilSamaritan says:

    Interesting thing is...the more I read this blog the more I learn. I had no idea that meta-0 stuff refined for more minerals than meta 1-4, it just seems it would be the other way around.

    Thanks for sharing the info Jester, and keep up the posting on this topic, its interesting to say mining is interesting once more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is straight up the worst way to visualize that data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. What a terrible diagram. I find myself doubting the validity of the information contained therein.

      Delete
    2. Area diagrams usually get used if you want to make a point about proportions. Fill in the yellow portion of the figure and you get a sense of the overall proportion of all minerals mined over all minerals used.

      Do that, and you'd find the yellow (mining) portion of the circle makes up less than 25% of its total area.

      It may or may not have been the best choice, but that's why the choice was made. But the information itself IS accurate. The data came from a CCP dev.

      Delete
    3. Hmm. Maybe I don't have a clue about strange graphs, but when ever I've seen a graph like that I always though the point where the line crosses the axis has something to do with the relative amounts. But I guess those graphs have always just show one value. Not relative amounts. Thank you for pointing out my error!

      Delete
  5. With the loss of minerals in drone drops and the potential of increased value in Meta 1+ modules I can see an increase in mission runners to profit from the change.

    Low sec will be overrun with large alliances running level 5s to cash in, but I'm sure the desired result is to try and ensure that each play style is important as they all exist in a symbiotic relationship to each other.

    I suspect that some of the reason behind this change is to ensure that pi resources are valuable as it gives the dust guys a reason to fight for planetary control.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jester,

    Something you may not be perfectly aware of was at that time, omber was actually worth seeking out in sites and missions. I'm not terribly afraid of bots stripping veldspar and other lesser ores from the belts, as better ores spawn in belts only found with scanning, and then not in every system.

    Yes, it'll make it harder for newer players to earn money at first, but imo, they should move all mining to sites found through exploration mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I'm aware of omber available for chain-mining in some missions. The problem is that omber is only worth 11m ISK/hour, far and away the lowest value ore right now. It's worth less than half of what pyro is worth.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.