Mining

[Encheta]

If you follow the mining logic a bit it's all about short-range (in-system) mining being not so profitable, while long-range one should be better.

That may be the current logic But I can prove that it isn't the case (and probly isn't possible at all).

The IMG now have a new rule of thumb when it comes to determining the number of transports needed for a mining party. It's a bit rough obviously - some systems are smaller than others etc. etc. but it's good for estimating. The rule is the you require the same number of transports as the number of systems away your selling location is. So for example, if you are mining and the selling point is 2 systems away, you need three transports (2 systems plus the one for the system you're mining in).

Now, for it to be worthwhile adding ONE extra transport to a party, you need to be able to earn 1/N more than you would be without it (where N is the current number of ships you have). Note that I said if you wanted to add one - you'll have to repeat the step if you want more than one in your group. I know I can make a formula that can do the addition of multiple transports in one step, but I'm tired and lethargic..

Harcourt said the group earnt 48mil in around 45mins - he wasn't sure. Thankfully though for this calculation time is irrelevant, so I'll just extrapolate it as it is.. Giving 64mil/hr, split across 3 players making 21.33mil/hr.

This is short range mining, supposed to be not so profitable, so lets see how a selling point further away goes.. The next closest (and coincidently the highest) selling point is Leipzig station in Dresdon, 5 jumps away if you take the most direct path, so we need five more transports (or 8 players) to maintain peak efficiency (approximately). Taking the steps of the formula to get the needed profit:

3 players -> 64mil/hr
4 players -> 64+(64(1/3)) = 85.33mil/hr
5 players -> 85.33+(85.33(1/4)) = 106.66
6 players -> ..... = 128
7 players -> ... = 149.33
8 players -> 170.66mil/hr

170.66/64=2.6666=266.66%

So in order to justify the extra 5 transports, we have to be earning -at least- 2.66x (266.66%) more at Leipzig than if we were selling at GC. Note that our mining output hasn't changed - we still have 2 miners, not that we want to increase output or we'll need more transports. Let's also skip the fact Leipzig is a Dauman base and IMG can't land there, as well as that the most direct route goes through corsair territory which will make transportation dangerous at best. Let's see how we do by comparing the selling prices of the two bases:

2511/1813=1.3849=138.49%

Not worth it.

EDIT: Didn't see the last couple posts pop us while I was writing this. Time doesn't matter for these calculations thankfully, replace mil/hr with mil/2hrs, mil/half hr, mil/min even. It still doesn't change that the current ideology (if it is the accepted ideology) that the further you travel with mined goods, the more profit you get, is false. Perhaps that can be the case for trading, but it certainly isn't for mining.

<strike>EDIT2: Also, ok, Harcourts measurements has too much doubt to say it's accurately timed. But if it is though, 21mil/hr per player in my books is a broken or not very worthwhile field to mine in, and if all fields are changed to that, I don't see why someone would choose mining over trading (or even do mining altogether).</strike> Forget I said this. This post has become too much rant as it is without it - somthing I wanted to avoid..

---

- IMG Faction Recruitment - IMG GuildComm (Message Dump) - Edict 63 - Tau Pact - Treaty of Curacao - IMG/OSI Contract - Ships Register -