Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Dangerous lands for Mackinaws

Yesterday I started discussing how the safety of highsec works: via tanking the ganker damage long enough till Concord arrive. The conclusion was that those who don't tank are better off outside of higsec since they will die anyway if someone sneezes on them, doesn't matter where they are. Many commenters claimed that highsec is still safer for miners. Instead of speculations I looked up the Mackinaw losses on the killboard. I checked a full week between September 30 and October 6. 357 Mackinaws died in this week, about 70B worth of loss. Where did they die?

Oops! It seems 0.5-0.7 systems are the worst place to be for Mackinaws while 0.8+ systems are pretty safe. While this data is old, the trends are probably the same: "@CCP_Diagoras 10 May 12: Mining numbers! Average mined per day for the 7 days before escalation: High (2.7bn m3), Low (9.3m m3), Null (696m m3), WH (97.7m m3)." This means that there must be 300x more mining barges in highsec than in low and 6x more than in null. Compared to this, they die a lot. Tomorrow we see what that means.

However there is little explanation (besides stupidity) that miners insist to put their Macks to 0.5-0.6 where they are massacred.



The moron of the day had a covetor. No, he isn't moron for his pod. Nor there is a funny story how he died. He just mined in a covetor and died. That's all.

Random local chat anti-tears and miner-related fun:

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

High sec provides the illusion of safety, which is why people claim it is safe. The claim that they don't need to tank because they can stay align, watch d-scan, and local. How is this any different from being safe in low and null sec?

This probably all stems from the fear of low sec which is taught to new player, especially miners, by players. They are told to never go to low sec because you will instantly get popped by savage pirates. Of course this does sometimes happen, but it is no different from a ganker who lives in your system.

Currently I am attempting to mine in a system where a couple members of the New Order has been ganking. I am using one of your procurer fits. So far no gank attempt have been made on me. I don't even hear any mention of mining permits as well. I might as well just try mining in low sec next and just go for all yield and see just how easy it can be to survive.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately you came to the wrong conclusions. The stats are higher because there are lots and lots of people mining in high as opposed to low. Mining in low is usually a suicide, so relatively no one does it. In null people mine in safe pockets. High has more targets for gankers -that's all.

Gevlon said...

ANY data to reinforce that claim?

Anonymous said...

When people talk about "staying aligned" while mining, I always have to laugh. You won't warp off until you have both the angle AND the speed (80% of max or so). Obviously you cannot mine while moving in a straight line, you will break out of mining range in seconds.

Good luck on mining in low :) I had been an explorer in low and indeed it's risky, despite not sitting in a "public access" belt, but in a scanned anomaly. You need to watch dscan constantly or you WILL get ganked. Sitting in a belt is 100% death sentence unless the system is really unpopulated. There are many hunters out there looking for reckless people like that.
Transporting large amount of stuff out to high is also very risky.

Michael LeBlanc said...

The fact that you as a single player are responsible for 10% of the ganks just reinforces that ganks are not that frequent, and so "yield tanking" is completely viable.

We also know from CCP presentations that the vast majority of production occurs in high sec, so while we don't have exact numbers on how many Macks there are in low/null compared to high, it would be foolish to think that it's a flat distribution. But moreover, while you're right that we might have no data to support the claim that the distribution of kills is caused entirely by distribution of miners, you have no data to suggest it isn't. Basically your chart is statistically useless

Gevlon said...

But why not yield tank in 0.8+ or in lowsec? Why do they insist on 0.5-0.7 where most Macks die?

Michael LeBlanc said...

Because "where most Macks die" is a useless stat. What matters is where Mack's have he highest chance of dying which you have no data on, and yield and logistics, the former being superior in lower security, the latter being superior in higher security.

You may well be right that the best place to mine is not high sec, but you've provided no evidence at all for it

Anonymous said...

Gevlon, I roam low and high and I see how many people mine. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Not to mention it's pretty much common knowledge. What you should be analyzing is the death ratio, not sole kill numbers.

Lombarok said...

Hi, agree with you Greedy Goblin, what i have to add is, that mining in W-Space since you haven't scan ore-sites down, it is just suicide and a lot of ore sites are in the WHs atm which nearly no one is going to do anything. Cause every roamer through w-space can get to you in cloak and you couldn't even now it. in the old days you could react to probs on d-scan, so CCP killed nearly all w-space mining. Cause no WHler will mine with big def-fleet around.

Anonymous said...

That graphic is one of the most misleading I have seen in a while, especially from you, and you are well known to chose your metrics randomly.

All it says is that X ships died in this and that type of system over timespan Y.

Not. A. Single. Thing. More. Than. That.

Now, if you want to make this sum up with your argument, you'd have match the amount of ships mining in those systems over all during that timespan.

That would give you an estimate of the "death chance" involved flying a specific ship.

(Warning, randomly picked numbers incoming)
E.g. If in LowSec X Macks died and total Macks was X*2, that is a completely different death chance than compared to HighSec, where perhaps Y Macks died of Y*10. Even with Y >> X up to a certain point, HighSec stays more secure.

You, with your history, should know this.

So, in conclusion, I will call your "theory": troll attempt.


Lucas Kell said...

@Gevlon:
"ANY data to reinforce that claim?"
Yes:
‏@CCP_Diagoras 10 May 12
Mining numbers! Average mined per day for the 7 days before escalation: High (2.7bn m3), Low (9.3m m3), Null (696m m3), WH (97.7m m3).

As well as these, you can know this just by knowing EVE. I've played a LONG time, and the suggestion of mining in low sec is ludicrous. WH space tends to be people living there unable to get to a market, not shipping the ore out for trade. Null sec is dominated by the ISBoxer guys, as the rocks in high sec are way too small for ISBoxer mining (null sec rocks can last for hours, while high sec you are lucky to get 2 cycles).

Now remember, that in order to be in null sec, you nearly always need to participate in strat ops. Not everybody wants to be forced to undertake PvP. Usually the corps thats require no PvP instead require a tax on your income or a monthly fee.
This is why a lot of people mine in high sec. It's simple logistically, it can be done while doing other things and its generally safe.

Note this: I've mined in both null sec and high sec for a long time. I have NEVER been ganked in high sec. I have however been killed in null. Considering my average null mining session I have to be fully active, while I usually play a console game while mining in high sec, you can see why I would consider high sec to be safer. 0.5 generally has bigger rocks, and more +5%,+10% ores. I cane mine out an entire belt in a 0.8 in well under an hour. A 0.5 lasts considerably longer.
Also consider that ice mining is popular, and you'll find most high sec ice in 0.5s, which will steer people that way.

Comparing stats between high sec and other space is generally useless. The majority of the population lives in high sec. High sec also contains all new players to begin with. High sec is also where everyone from null and WH space goes to trade. When you consider the amount of traffic going through (consider at this time, 49,000 jumps have been made into Jita in the past 24 hours for example), any stat you pull from high sec is going to be skewed by population density.

Now as for the tanking, no matter what tank a miner fits, he wont tank a mack until concord arrives. If you find a mack with a high tank, you simply bring another ganker, invalidating that tank. Unless you make a mistake, he is going to die. But you need to consider how often that's likely to happen. Consider the sheer volume of miners in high sec at any one time. I'd be surprised if you gank even a fraction of a percent of the total miner population in high sec. Ganking really is 1quite a rare occurrence. Most newer miners irrationally start freaking out about it, but if they actually sat and considered it for a second, the chances of getting ganked are considerably less than the chances of losing a PVE ship in a L4 for example. The profit:loss ratio of the average miner is immense. I couldn't even guess how many billions I've mined in high sec over the years, but I've never been ganked and I've lost maybe a couple of barges to stupidity (rats on missions :D).

At the end of the day though, the only right or wrong about it is: is the miner making profit. You may call someone a moron because he didn't tank his ship, but he may have already made billions from it, and tanking his ship would not have stopped him dying. To me, a moron is someone that changes their entire playstyle because someone kills them once.

Gevlon said...

@Lucas: thanks for a Diagoras tweet, I put it into the post.

Anonymous said...

What percentage of the barges were lost to war targets?

How many miners are in each system?

If there are 100 miners in a system, 23/7, and there are 10 ganks a day, you would say there is a 1 in 10 chance of being ganked.


If we say each miner mines for 8 hours, so, there would be a change in crew 3 times a day...so, 3 * 100 = 300. Suddenly, 1 in 10 becomes 1 in 30.

Suddenly, those odds look way more favourable. We could also look at how many ganks/hr that is...10 ganks over 23 hours would be 1 gank ever 2 hours or so, which means, during my 8 hour mining op, I would run into 4 ganks. Assuming 100 people in the system with me, that means 4 of those would be blown up....so now my chances of being exploded are 4 in 100.

Now do you see why statistically, you are unlikely to get exploded?

Sure, you can super tank your barge..for a 4% risk? Less if we take out the war targets. Is the yield increase I get from mining untanked greater than the risk of being ganked?

Anonymous said...

Why yield tank in 0.5 instead of 0.8? Because the yield is much better there...

Gankers won't show up no matter where you mine. Until the probability of getting ganked is much higher (it is currently close to zero), then it makes sense to optimise for yield in terms of fit and location.

New Order = completely ineffective
We Gank Because We Care = only slightly less ineffective

Von Keigai said...

It's nice that Lucas Kell had some data. Maybe that will convince you. But, you know, more than one person has told you now, and you certainly ought to know, that practically nobody mines in lowsec. I explore. Like any explorer, I can tell you: nobody mines in lowsec. I rarely even see a barge in a POS there, unlike null (it's rare but it happens) and wpsace (moderately common).

It is possible to mine in lowsec, but it is by far the worst area in the game to mine in. In wspace, you can zip up your system and be fairly safe. In null, you can find a dead end and bubble it up, and watch local and (I gather) internal coms. (The interceptor changes to come may make this less viable.) In lowsec, you can't do anything to get sufficient opsec. I suppose in a very low traffic area you might find a dead end and put eyes on the gate in. Still, you have very little time to react, or else you are reacting to so many things that you never get any mining done and spend all your time cowering in a POS.

Anonymous said...

What I have learnt from your teaching, if I could fit 1 mining rig to my hulk. No point tanking if you find me. Better to have made the extra isk first.

Re aligning, setting orbit @ 500 puts me just under 80% max speed , so fast to enter warp, and bonus tank.










Sugar Kyle said...

There is a chart in a Dev blog that shows where people are mining.

Found it.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/the-economy-burns-price-indices-may-2012/

Hivemind said...

As others have pointed out, it's completely useless to chart the raw number of kills in each security zone and then claim that this demonstrates that the zones with lower kills are safe when you fail (or refuse) to factor how many ships are in each zone to be killed.

The old Diagoras tweet breaks down as follows:
Highsec - 77.08%
Lowsec - 0.27%
Nullsec - 19.87%
WH Space - 2.79%
Unfortunately your chart doesn't specify what % of kills took place in each band, but we can get some inexact analysis just by approximation; for example, more than 3/4s of mining takes place in hisec, yet combing the 3 bands representing hisec it still weighs in at less than 3/4s - I would estimate about 68-72% - so hisec actually has above average safety for mining barges; even more so given that some of those losses will be to war targets rather than gankers.

Lowsec only accounts for a tiny fraction of mining yield, yet its presence on the graph is a lot larger than its 0.27% of yield would suggest; we can safely assume that it's a very dangerous place to mine, which won't surprise anyone who's spent much time there.

Nullsec makes up nearly 1/5 of all production, but its area on the chart seems a little smaller than that; 17-18%? Like hisec, we can surmise that nullsec is one of the safer places to mine. That said it's worth noting that yields will be higher per ship in nullsec than hisec - a higher % of the miners will be in boosted fleets rather than solo, using Hulks w/ haulers rather than Macks and getting Rorqual boosts rather than Orca (when deployed a Rorqual has a higher bonus to mining link effect).

Finally, WH space makes up a small % of overall yield, but has a larger % of kills - I'd estimate 3-4% based on coverage, vs less than 3% yield. Like Lowsec this implies that it’s disproportionately dangerous to mine in WH space and like Lowsec this makes sense given the mechanics and the players involved.

These conclusions shouldn’t surprise anyone – lowsec and WH space’s mechanics both make it a lot of effort to secure a system enough to warn miners in time to avoid an attack, while the inhabitants in both areas are likely to be both willing and able to tackle and kill any barges they run across. On the flip side in hisec the sheer volume of miners makes it difficult for gankers to have anything more than a very localised impact, plus the presence of CONCORD and the associated security loss mechanic act as a disincentive to gankers; a dedicated gank alt can work with -10 security, but they can’t do much else in hisec without either a long grind or spending a lot on tags. In nullsec miners have bubbles, intel channels and the simple option of monitoring Local to warn them of impending hostiles and the effects of this are shown in their higher yield:kills ratio.

As to why miners mine in 0.7 sec and below rather than focusing on 0.8+ sec, the answer isn’t that they’re stupid. There are better ores in lower security systems, larger numbers (and volumes) of +5% and +10% ore types, belts are larger and the asteroids yield more, ice is only found in 0.7 and below and there simply aren’t enough 1.0-0.8 sec systems to support all the miners in hisec, especially those from later TZs. The combination of higher reward, pressure from competitors and scarcity of resources in higher security systems combine to encourage miners to move to 0.7-0.5 sec space.

Finally, a few days ago you were arguing that miners only need to prepare for enough gankers to kill them efficiently (as a response to Lucas Kell pointing out that gankers can be kb-green from anything other than a tanked Procurer if they’re willing to bring enough catalysts). Specifically you said that gankers wouldn’t sink the cost or time to use 6 accounts to gank a t1 mining barge when they could use them to gank an orca, or get several barge kills. As a counter point, I present this: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=1986666 - 8 TEST pilots killing a Retriever just because they can.

Hivemind said...

That link went wrong somehow, it should have been http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=19866145
I'd say I copied the wrong link, but I've never seen that pod kill before.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g793nP9zzz4 proper mack kill

Anonymous said...

"@Lucas: thanks for a Diagoras tweet, I put it into the post."

That was his point. The data you yourself provided, reinforces the claim. Hivemind was nice enough to show the details.

Antonio Calvillo said...

I don't know where you guys mine and have never seen a gank, but I mine ice rings in lonetrek and forge regions. I see ganks everyday. Macks and retreivers are popped every night while I laugh in my procurers fleet. Usual gankers in the area are WGBWC, james 315 koolaid drinkers and TEST guys.

Subscribe to the goblinish wisdom