Architect Archive
Thread: extraction rates
hi yall i just made a new deepcrust chem extracter at extraction rate 12 and am somewhat sure i can get better with better polimer my question is what rates are yall getting with the new system ?
Zead
master artisen master architect
and thats even maxing out the expiriment bar.
im sure if i used better materials.... although im using pretty **edit** good stuff now, i might be able to get a 14 ber out of a mineral harvester.
Come on, devs... can't we please get a little more variance? There's a huge swath between 75% or so to hit 13, and 96%... you'd think there'd at least be a single rate increase somewhere in there, to provide reasonable benefit to using really nice materials on these.
Maintenance rate on the rate 13 heavy mineral seems to be 45 according to the deed, but I'm getting reports of pre-patch Rate 11 harvs having maintenance over 100. Not sure what's screwed up here, but it sounds like something is.
The maintenance rates on the deeds are incorrect.
I have about 50-60 pre-patch 11's and they have maintenance rates of 122.
I don't have any real problem with the added maintenance rates, but I am really ticked about the extraction rates in general. Extraction rates of 13 are outrageous!!! 11 was too high. Worse yet, mediums are getting up to 10!?!?! I am really hoping they bring these things into check before too many get out there.
I advocate a maximum of 1.5x the base rate so that the maximum (preferably from a Master with premium materials) would produce:
Personal = 3-Rate
Medium = 6-Rate
Heavy = 10.5-Rate
Those are still some pretty hefty numbers in my opinion.
Have to agree - I nearly fell off my seat last night when the first medium mineral I made turned out with a 10 rating. There really needs to be a much better staggered 'gradient' between the harvesters types - and one that properly matches and reflectsthe volume ofresources used to make them - for instance 3/6/10 or 3/7/12etc.
People theoretically pay five or six times as much for a heavy mineral - and that extracost needs to be justifiedmuch more clearly in the benefits it can bring. At the moment, a 10-rated medium mineral looks like the bargain of the century, while a 13-rated heavy mineral will surely only tempt those utterly desperate for lots or with money to burn.
Also, while I'm here, onefinal grumble! - havingaxed a load of pre-made components after the last (yet still recent) ratings shake-up, I've now had to axewhat remainsof mynewer stock too.
I tried using a few fully-experimented pieces created before this patchand the results were mediocre at best.After a few attemptsat different cheap-ish deeds (heavy water extractors etc) I just grabbed every mining-type unitI'd made and destroyed the lot. Fortunately I'd wound down my stock after correctly assuming that something like this would happen.
The long and the short of it is, would it have been that hard to "upgrade" our pre-made parts proportionately? If a good pre-patch mining unit had a "hidden" efficiency value of 65% out of a maximum 70%(ignoring those made with the benefit of special clothing attachments etc), then why not issuethe old crateswith new ratings to reflect that.
All in all, it's been a rather costly and confusing patch, andfrankly I'd rather they'd left the ratings as they were.
Yours ramblingly,
Skarra, Master Architect
I am sure the max rates for mediums is 10 and 13 for heavies. Using materials that were all high 900's I got 97% effectiveness on the mining unit and 96% on the final combine. This was on a heavy mineral extractor (13) and a mineral mining installation (10)
I was able to achieve these rates using materials that were in the 800's as well, so there is some padding for those trying for the highest rates.
CaBhaal
A medium pre-pre patch was 4, a heavy was 7, 7-4=3
Pre patch a medium was 8, a heavy was 11, 11-8=3
post patch a medium was 10, a heavy was 13, 13-10=3
How a medium varies against a heavy has not changed, the only thing that has changed is perceptions.
I also think there is some confusion about costs due to the bug and perceptions focusing on the total cost/day rather than a more accurate and useful cost/resource. If you look at the new harvesters you will see they have actually gone down in cost. Recent bugs not withstanding that are being fixed in the morning.
The following is a quick cost/resource analysis excluding power since power consumption has remained static. It compares pre-pre patch heavies vs post patch heavies. Pre patch heavies (October to November 2003) are discounted as that was an anomaly where the experimentation system was incomplete.
All numbers are based on 100% resource for simplicity but add the % in if you like, it does not matter.
Pre-Pre-patch Heavy
1440 minutes/day * 7 resource/min = 10080 resource/day
Cost per day is 90cr/hour * 24 hours/day = 2160 cr/day
2160cr/day / 10080 resources/day = .214cr/resource
Post Patch heavy
1440 minutes/day * 13 resources/day = 18720 resource/day
Penalty cost is (cur_rate - 7) * 4 * 2 so (13-7)*4*2 = 48cr/hour
Total maint cost is (90cr+48cr) * 24 hours = 3312credits / day
3312cr/day / 18720 resource/day = .176 credits / resource
So it used to cost you .214 cr/resource before, and now it costs you .176 cr/resource.
So in fact it is cheaper to extract resources with 13/min heavies meaning you can either make a lot more resources for a reasonable scaled increase in cost OR you can run less harvesters, pay less over all and still pull in the same amount as you did pre-pre patch.
This change in every concievable way is a huge boost to everyone, takes into account the continuing increased demand for resources (have you looked at player city schematics??), the massive need for resources to retool extractor fleets, and the increased lot demands with more players running commercial buildings consuming lots meaning we need to get more from less total lots available.
From what I can see Greenmarine made the right change at the right time and this is by far the more forward thinking and well balanced change to date in SWG.
Hooray for Green Marine, great job and pats on the back.
Greenmarine made every 7/m heavy harvester in the game virtually worthless. With mediums doing 10/m you'd have to be crazy to run an old heavy harvester for more than a few days. Even at 25k for new mediums (which btw is >7cr per resource) you'd make back your cost in a few days.
So every old heavy in the game is junk, including the 10/m heavies that were top notch until this week.
So, yeah, until people realize that the heavies they paid 100k for are now junk, they'll be happy. But too many of you guys and the Devs are gonna be stunned when people complain.
With the greatest respect, BeteT, the misunderstanding is on your part - what we're arguing for is that the difference between the harvesters should scale up in proportion. I'm too busy (at work atrm) to do the maths, but by your argument, if harvester ratingskept on increasing week on week we'd end up with heavies offering a worse and worse return on the investment:
You say:
A medium pre-pre patch was 4, a heavy was 7, 7-4=3
Pre patch a medium was 8, a heavy was 11, 11-8=3
post patch a medium was 10, a heavy was 13, 13-10=3
So by that score, in the hypothetical ever-increasing rating example, you'd end up with something like:
Amedium was 28, a heavy was 31, 31-28=3
post patch a medium was 30, a heavy was 33, 33-30=3
I appreciate your comments but what you're missing is the whole thrust of my argument - that if the difference beween a medium and a heavy remains static despite higher ratings, the value of that differenceactually gets smaller and small. To put it simply:
Pre-pre patch - a heavy was worth 1.75 mediums
pre-patch - a heavy was worth 1.375 mediums
Currently, a heavy is worth 1.3 mediums
Hope that explains the dimishing returns
Skarra, Master Architect