Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jhani Bralhast
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 00:16:09 -
[1] - Quote
Instead of the point-click-and-wait method that has always existed in this game, I propose making this much loathed activity more interactive in a way that would both stimulate and challenge the miner while also reducing or eliminating botters, scripters and multiboxers.
I envision, upon targeting an asteroid and engaging a mining module, a small tactical overlay grid offering one to click-and-drag their cursor to help aim and fine tune their laser upon the target, selecting richer areas of ore as one would similarly do in Planetary Interaction resource extracting. Manually selecting the richest areas of ore would reward the miner with increased yield and perhaps even the chance of extracting small amounts of rarer ores with each cycle. Those players who do not successfully target the rich areas will only receive a base yield with no chance of rarer ores other than the base ore of the targeted asteroid.
Because such an activity would have to be manually controlled by a human player in order to achieve the benefits, I suspect such changes would be the bane of all mining bots and multiboxers, and diminish their prospects greatly. I also present this idea as a possible benefit to miner gankers as the diverted player attention on aiming their mining laser would no doubt affect their ability to monitor their surroundings for defense purposes, making mining in hostile areas all the more challenging.
However I do admit one flaw in my proposed idea that I have not yet figured my way completely out of, if how one would aim more than one laser at more than one target? For example, a Hulk having its three strip miners targeting three different asteroids. Expecting a player to aim and maintain three lasers simultaneously would be a very tall order to expect. Perhaps only having to aim a laser one at the beginning of a cycle, and having to repeat with each cycle for optimum yield? I suspect a player could stagger the cycle of each laser in order to allow time to aim each one.
As I said, I haven't yet completely figured that aspect out.
I'd be very interested to hear constructive comments on my idea.
Let's make mining great again! |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
395
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 00:49:01 -
[2] - Quote
Not the first time this has been suggested. Certainly not going to be the last either.
Honestly, instead of adding new interfaces over the players' views of space... make them manoeuvre their ships to gain better yields. Move-Park-Hoover-Repeat is boring and uninspired gameplay. Adding a screen that only the miner sees doesn't add to immersion. |
Kenrailae
The Scope Gallente Federation
565
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 00:51:28 -
[3] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Not the first time this has been suggested. Certainly not going to be the last either.
Honestly, instead of adding new interfaces over the players' views of space... make them manoeuvre their ships to gain better yields. Move-Park-Hoover-Repeat is boring and uninspired gameplay. Adding a screen that only the miner sees doesn't add to immersion.
If Eve used a line of sight calculation sure......
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3518
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 00:54:24 -
[4] - Quote
Well done adding in even more tedious micromanagement to mining. It might seem fun for the first 5 minutes. Now imagine after you have done 200 hours of it. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
395
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 01:13:08 -
[5] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Rawketsled wrote:Not the first time this has been suggested. Certainly not going to be the last either.
Honestly, instead of adding new interfaces over the players' views of space... make them manoeuvre their ships to gain better yields. Move-Park-Hoover-Repeat is boring and uninspired gameplay. Adding a screen that only the miner sees doesn't add to immersion. If Eve used a line of sight calculation sure...... LOS is done in the client already for mining effects. The mining laser effect repositions itself as the rock spins with respect to the ship. This check ignores occlusion for other objects so it's not a full LOS system. Nobody complains about performance here. I doubt doing half a LOS check every three minutes on the module cycle will overload a server.
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
834
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 05:23:43 -
[6] - Quote
I still think there is merit in using PI materials to speed up the mining process. Give the rorquals drones the ability to plant explosives of various grades on asteroids, it can use a special rorqual only tractor beam to suck up the results and then process these roid chunks at a given rate. |
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
166
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 05:32:46 -
[7] - Quote
Jhani Bralhast wrote:Instead of the point-click-and-wait method that has always existed in this game, I propose making this much loathed activity more interactive in a way that would both stimulate and challenge the miner while also reducing or eliminating botters, scripters and multiboxers.
I envision, upon targeting an asteroid and engaging a mining module, a small tactical overlay grid offering one to click-and-drag their cursor to help aim and fine tune their laser upon the target, selecting richer areas of ore as one would similarly do in Planetary Interaction resource extracting. Manually selecting the richest areas of ore would reward the miner with increased yield and perhaps even the chance of extracting small amounts of rarer ores with each cycle. Those players who do not successfully target the rich areas will only receive a base yield with no chance of rarer ores other than the base ore of the targeted asteroid.
Because such an activity would have to be manually controlled by a human player in order to achieve the benefits, I suspect such changes would be the bane of all mining bots and multiboxers, and diminish their prospects greatly. I also present this idea as a possible benefit to miner gankers as the diverted player attention on aiming their mining laser would no doubt affect their ability to monitor their surroundings for defense purposes, making mining in hostile areas all the more challenging.
However I do admit one flaw in my proposed idea that I have not yet figured my way completely out of, if how one would aim more than one laser at more than one target? For example, a Hulk having its three strip miners targeting three different asteroids. Expecting a player to aim and maintain three lasers simultaneously would be a very tall order to expect. Perhaps only having to aim a laser one at the beginning of a cycle, and having to repeat with each cycle for optimum yield? I suspect a player could stagger the cycle of each laser in order to allow time to aim each one.
As I said, I haven't yet completely figured that aspect out.
I'd be very interested to hear constructive comments on my idea.
Let's make mining great again!
So i will try to be "constructive".
Has been brought up before and is still not good. Mining is one of the few profession where you can multibox good. I don-¦t wanna this to change.
-1 |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4611
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 06:24:02 -
[8] - Quote
But if you remove multiboxing and semi AFK mining, you remove most of the miners.
Which does bad things to the mineral supply. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5143
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 07:46:07 -
[9] - Quote
I don't see why you couldn't add an interactive mining mechanic element that would provide enhanced rewards while leaving core mining as is. Then again, they could just introduce something like comet mining...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Ben Ishikela
78
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 10:32:53 -
[10] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I don't see why you couldn't add an interactive mining mechanic element that would provide enhanced rewards while leaving core mining as is. Then again, they could just introduce something like comet mining... :)
... or introduce tracking to stripminers and lasers.. then web or paint the "now moving" rocks. Mined rocks split up and become smaller. So the soon-to-come rorqual needs support at some point.
on the side: with allowing EWAR in Highsec, Tracking disrupting the other miners in the belt could be a nice little thing.
Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
|
|
afk phone
Repo Industries
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 12:47:01 -
[11] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:But if you remove multiboxing and semi AFK mining, you remove most of the miners.
Which does bad things to the mineral supply.
It would adjust. Here's my thinking. Mining is boring and pays poorly. PVE is boring and pays better (typically the player a player gravitates to the best isk/time/risk option available to them). So the boring and low paying task of mining in by and large handled by afk/bots/multi boxers. Sure there are new players out there trying to scrape by, but they are being stifled by the prior mentioned.
Mining pays poorly because of afk mining, botting and multi boxing in safety (HS or some bubbled dead end upgraded null system). These 3 things allow over mining, vast market supplies and cheap mineral prices. Making mining interactive for better yields would reward players for actively mining. The OP said noting about penalizing afk/botting/multi boxing miners. His idea REWARDS the active real miner.
On a side note (and you and I will need to agree to disagree on this) I would love to see mineral pricess go up and the vast supplies and easy acquisition go away. It would make carrier fleets and supers just a bit harder to SRP. I'd like that. It's personal play style choice for sure, but I (personally) think Eve would be a much more interesting place I didn't have to constantly consider that a megafuckton of capital ships could be dropped on me on pretty much a whim.
I get that a fair few folks think that sitting in a large fleet for hours in full TIDI AND lag in a capital ship stressing over what is actually happening in the fight they are seeing 15 minutes in the past is totally awesome way to play Eve. I personally don't get it, but then again I don't get the speedo thing either - I may be the problem.
+1 for active mining
-1 for afk mining -1 for bot mining -1 for multi boxing mining in a dead end bubbled null system -5 to super boring large scale cap fights -2 to SRP |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
950
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 14:12:08 -
[12] - Quote
-1 because nothing you can do will EVER make mining fun or exciting because mining by it's very nature is boring to the point of being mind numbing.
-1 because you are not making mining more fun or exciting you are simply unplugging one form of boring activity and plugging another boring activity in it's place. How exciting is it to sit at your computer starting at a display and then adjust your magic space lazor beams to maintain max yields. It would be different I will grant you that, but in the end it is just as boring.
-1 because the only real winners with this idea is the gankers, what with every miner now being required to spend all of their time looking at a display and adjusting their magic space lazors instead of payig attention to local, visually scanning the area around them and that whole d-scan thing. Yes, yes I know the whole bots and afk miners thing but to be honest I simply do care about them, I care about the negative safety aspect this will have on the few real non-afk / non-bot miners there are left in the game.
And the inquiring minds wants to know side of me wonders how you are going to put this "tactical grid" on the client view in a way that allows for targeting all mining beams onto a separate target? Not that hard on a ship like the retriever or the mining frigates with only two, but what about that new player that refit's his destroyer or his battle ship and is mining with six or eight lasers?
afk phone wrote:It would adjust. The markets and the people adjusted during and after the great depression but then as real flesh and blood people they really had no choice, they either fought through it or they killed themselves. But then EvE is not real life and we all have many other options just a simple mouse click away. If the markets of EvE took a huge drop in a relative way like the great depression would the game survive? Or would all those who could no longer afford to feed their expensive PvP habits simply quit and go play another game? I have no answer to that and I have no crystal ball, what I do know is that I do not want CCP to take that type of risk with the game.
afk phone wrote:+1 for active mining And yet the OP idea would penalize those who do actively mine by reducing their safety simply because the spend a larger percentage of their time looking at some crazy display and adjusting their magic space lazors instead of watching d-scan, local and visually looking at what is going on around them.
afk phone wrote:-1 for afk mining -1 for bot mining -1 for multi boxing mining in a dead end bubbled null system I think your underestimate the effects that the removal of bot mining would have. And given the basic boring nature of mining in general I wonder if removing bot mining is even a good idea. Even if it is it would have to happen in small incremental steps over time giving the market and the players time to adjust at each step. A hard end to all bot mining over a short period of time wold likely crash the markets of EvE and many if not most of the players would likely leave before it recovered.
Multi boxing in dead end bubbled nul systems is not that big of an issue to the game as a whole since the vast majority of the ore / minerals mined likely ends up being used by that person, or the corp / alliance for building ships etc.
You may not like SRP programs but they are an integral part of the larger scale PvP game play style. Remove the SRP programs and all of the PvP players I know would have to spend a majority of their game time making ISK instead of bloing stuff up and one has to wonder what they affects on the game as a whole would be.
|
afk phone
Repo Industries
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 15:49:07 -
[13] - Quote
"I think your underestimate the effects that the removal of bot mining would have. And given the basic boring nature of mining in general I wonder if removing bot mining is even a good idea. Even if it is it would have to happen in small incremental steps over time giving the market and the players time to adjust at each step. A hard end to all bot mining over a short period of time wold likely crash the markets of EvE and many if not most of the players would likely leave before it recovered."
Unless I'm mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong) botting is against the EULA period. I don't recall a bot mining exception. If there is, then that must be something new.
"And yet the OP idea would penalize those who do actively mine by reducing their safety simply because the spend a larger percentage of their time looking at some crazy display and adjusting their magic space lazors instead of watching d-scan, local and visually looking at what is going on around them."
So in the first quote you pretty much say bot mining is OK and Eve might actually die if it was promptly removed and in this one you're claiming less safety for folks at the key board enhancing their yield because they aren't watching d-scan and such things. You're OK w/ turning on a bot and going to work for the day, but not OK w/ looking away from d-scan for safety reasons. Do you see how arguing both of these points IN THE SAME REPLY for crying out loud could give me the impression that you may not be the clearest thinker ever? Or are you just flat out saying everyone should get a hold of a good bot program and profit?
"-1 because nothing you can do will EVER make mining fun or exciting because mining by it's very nature is boring to the point of being mind numbing."
I also feel shooting npc for isk is very boring. Is it OK to bot npc farming? Let's take it the next logical step. Give players a few billion just for logging in so we can skip this entire horrid isk making hurdle. Isk making only benefits gankers anyway, if we were just given isk I wouldn't have to undock and put myself in harms way. Then there's the next logical step - make everything cost 100 isk and every ones isk issues would go away. The game would then be perfect! (So now you have me wondering why everyone doesn't just log into SiSi and skip the whole horrible mess known as tranquilitiy? Why is that? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2643
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 16:57:04 -
[14] - Quote
This won't make mining bots less effective, it will just make mining even worse for everyone. Not supported.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4614
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 17:41:44 -
[15] - Quote
afk phone wrote: It would adjust.
If you remove a significant enough percentage of the mineral supply to make capitals hard to replace, what the hell do you think will happen to subcap prices?
What do you think is an acceptable price for that PVE stalwart, the Raven? Jita price right now is just shy of 187 million.
Double that? triple? As much as a cap costs nowadays?
If you don't want a megafuckton of caps dropped on you on a whim, don't be within 5LY of a mega alliance's staging system. Simple as that. Making it harder to replace cap losses will not stop anyone dropping three hundred carriers on you, it'll just make it much harder for anyone else to ever actually challenge that force. |
afk phone
Repo Industries
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.16 18:42:10 -
[16] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:afk phone wrote: It would adjust.
If you remove a significant enough percentage of the mineral supply to make capitals hard to replace, what the hell do you think will happen to subcap prices? What do you think is an acceptable price for that PVE stalwart, the Raven? Jita price right now is just shy of 187 million. Double that? triple? As much as a cap costs nowadays? If you don't want a megafuckton of caps dropped on you on a whim, don't be within 5LY of a mega alliance's staging system. Simple as that. Making it harder to replace cap losses will not stop anyone dropping three hundred carriers on you, it'll just make it much harder for anyone else to ever actually challenge that force.
You're right. I'm trying to treat symptoms. The real Eve answer would be to make citadels truly destructible with the contents being actually destroyed or entered onto a loot table. Think of the content that would generate
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
575
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 09:25:04 -
[17] - Quote
1) in WOW people made bots that could do combat im sure they could overcome this simple mechanic, so punish players and do nothing to stop botting.
2) Active mining (partial cycles) already out pays AFK mining (coming back to find your ship not mining anything).
3) They are changing mining, so we need to see what they are doing with mining before we ask for changes.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Marox Calendale
Human League Eleven Signs Network
82
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 12:39:16 -
[18] - Quote
afk phone wrote:You're right. I'm trying to treat symptoms. The real Eve answer would be to make citadels truly destructible with the contents being actually destroyed or entered onto a loot table. Think of the content that would generate Citadels in WH Systems are truly destructible and everything is entered on the loot table. And we love to have it that way!
And we-¦re also doing mining, industry and pve and in some citadels there are biilions of isk in ships, modules and materials stored. The only reason why we don-¦t do it in such a great manner like nullsec does, is because we mostly only have 1 system and not a hole region to utilize. |
afk phone
Repo Industries
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 13:20:58 -
[19] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:afk phone wrote:You're right. I'm trying to treat symptoms. The real Eve answer would be to make citadels truly destructible with the contents being actually destroyed or entered onto a loot table. Think of the content that would generate Citadels in WH Systems are truly destructible and everything is entered on the loot table. And we love to have it that way! And we-¦re also doing mining, industry and pve and in some citadels there are biilions of isk in ships, modules and materials stored. The only reason why we don-¦t do it in such a great manner like nullsec does, is because we mostly only have 1 system and not a hole region to utilize.
I live in a wh too sweetie! I'm talking about making SOV null citadels work like wh citadels (risk reward and all for being a big tough SOV null badass ). I'm more specifically talking about those citadels that have the vast stacks or SRP ships, minerals or whatever waiting to be handed out. I want to be able to burn those citadels down and scoop it as loot. Just imagine if the bee's fleets were actually at risk when they got steam rolled - they may have actually played the 'defend our sheet' card and provided some content (beyond the propaganda comedy). WWB quite clearly pointed out that not defending your space is the smart card to play given the current game mechanics. (love or hate goons - they know how to play to win, and not undocking was their best move) |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
951
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 15:09:38 -
[20] - Quote
afk phone wrote:Unless I'm mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong) botting is against the EULA period. I don't recall a bot mining exception. If there is, then that must be something new. NO I am not stating that bots are or should be legal, either you fail at reading comprehension or you have some ulterior motive to your comments. I am simply stating the truth that bots in mining are possibly a larger problem than you may think. Some estimates I have seen online place the ore / mineral contribution of bot mining as high as 50% of available supplies.
afk phone wrote:So in the first quote you pretty much say bot mining is OK and Eve might actually die if it was promptly removed and in this one you're claiming less safety for folks at the key board enhancing their yield because they aren't watching d-scan and such things. You're OK w/ turning on a bot and going to work for the day, but not OK w/ looking away from d-scan for safety reasons. Do you see how arguing both of these points IN THE SAME REPLY for crying out loud could give me the impression that you may not be the clearest thinker ever? Or are you just flat out saying everyone should get a hold of a good bot program and profit? Your problem with understanding likely comes from a lack of understanding how the English language works. When writing a single article, or forum post the use of paragraphs is in fact the proper way of separating thoughts, ideas or opinions that are not related. In this specific case my comments on bots is not related in any way to my concerns for the safety of those who do actually go out and actively mine. So now to get to a few specifics.
Let me make this as clear as is possible using the English languge. ********* BOTS ARE BAD AND NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME ************ With that clearly stated we need to return to the reality of what we have in the game now. Right or wrong, legal of illegal no longer matters the fact that the game and the players in it are addicted to the ore / mineral that bot mining provides is the ONLY thing that matters. Another fact, removal of the ore / minerals bot mining provides will cause some significant changes to the game. So the real question is how do you proceed with removing the botting and the minerals it adds to the markets of EvE and that gets to the only real difference between you and I. your theory is that Bots are illegal, bot are bad and you want them removed NOW as in instantly and to hell with what may happen to the game. ON the other hand I am a little more cautious and want CCP to move slowly and carefully with the removal of bot mining so we do not lose this game we all enjoy and please not fool yourself by thinking that this game failing cannot or will not happen if bot mining is removed immediately. No one knows what would happen if, my point is simply that I do not want CCP to take the risk when a slow and careful removal of bot mining over time is a much safer (for the game) way of dealing with it. In the commercial print industry there is a thing that happened back in the early 80's that was very similar to the bot mining. Isopropyl alcohol was universally used as a component of something all printers needed to use and then in less than a month the EPA banned it's use. Once announced the indsutry had less than a month to find an alternative, since there was no alternative an entire industry was shut down. As a result of this the EPA relented, even though the use of alcohol was technically illegal it's use was allowed for nearly a decade as new materials could be developed and brought into wide spread use. No I am not suggesting that CCP take another 10 years to remove bot mining, I am however using this as an example of how there are times when something that is illegal needs to be allowed and phased out over time simply because that is the best course of action for all people involved.
afk phone wrote:I also feel shooting npc for isk is very boring. Is it OK to bot npc farming? Let's take it the next logical step. Give players a few billion just for logging in so we can skip this entire horrid isk making hurdle. Isk making only benefits gankers anyway, if we were just given isk I wouldn't have to undock and put myself in harms way. Then there's the next logical step - make everything cost 100 isk and every ones isk issues would go away. The game would then be perfect! (So now you have me wondering why everyone doesn't just log into SiSi and skip the whole horrible mess known as tranquilitiy? Why is that? Crazy, off the wall and not related in any way to anything I have stated in this topic, but I am interested in how and why you choose to go down this path. |
|
afk phone
Repo Industries
49
|
Posted - 2016.08.17 15:40:37 -
[21] - Quote
"Crazy, off the wall and not related in any way to anything I have stated in this topic, but I am interested in how and why you choose to go down this path. "
It's the truth. I really do despise the chore of farming npc for isk to buy ships to pvp. Even farming sleeper escalations before they were ruined by some deep thinkers. I literally made billions of isk in an hour and was done for the day. And I still had trouble doing it. It got to the point where I would log out when I felt my corpies were about to do the pve thing. So I chose it because it's true. Why should some a-hole in a mining bot get to make their isk afk while at work where I have to grind 1+ billion in an hour? I'm being forced to waste my Eve time farming because I choose to follow the EULA and not bot ore.
That's how I got there. I don't like pve..... PERIOD. I do need isk to pvp, so I'm forced to grind. It's that simple.
So the next logical step is to allow botting of npc rats (hint - carrier botting in null). Where does that get you? Well, some folks get a buttload of renter isk. Some folks get a buttload of anom botting isk. But what else does that get you? Most of the goons made their pile of isk, got bored (pvp didn't occur to them or they were non pvp oriented gamers lured into the newer softer Eve). The left for other games. Null turned into spacefarmville. Sure there is the Russian group that will NEVER have enough isk - they will always just keep on farming. I digress.....
Where does botting logically end? Allow it for mining (because boring), allow it for anom carrier ratting (because.... lazy??), allow it for my sleeper sites (because I want my free stuff too). So....... (stay with me here), the logical end for getting stuff for nothing is to just hand out everything to everyone. SiSi is the Eve model for this. And yet the player base didn't leave the slowly decaying carcass know as Tranquility and flock to SiSi because.... why? This ain't the depression, so folks aren't forced to struggle to survive (your bit of genious), so why why why isn't everyone playing on SiSi where they don't have to bother grinding or botting isk to play the game???
"Let me make this as clear as is possible using the English languge. ********* BOTS ARE BAD AND NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME ************"
AND
"I think your underestimate the effects that the removal of bot mining would have. And given the basic boring nature of mining in general I wonder if removing bot mining is even a good idea. Even if it is it would have to happen in small incremental steps over time giving the market and the players time to adjust at each step. A hard end to all bot mining over a short period of time wold likely crash the markets of EvE and many if not most of the players would likely leave before it recovered."
I honestly don't know which one of you I should believe.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
955
|
Posted - 2016.08.19 14:46:54 -
[22] - Quote
afk phone wrote:It's the truth. I really do despise the chore of farming npc for isk to buy ships to pvp. snipped stuff here I don't like pve..... PERIOD. I do need isk to pvp, so I'm forced to grind. It's that simple. I know that is really crazy, it almost seems like CCP wanted to force you to become an easy target while doing PvE so you could then go out and pray on the others who are forced to PvE. Kind of reminds me of the cycle of life, one minute you are the predator and they next you are the pray. Hummmmmm wonder if this was intended or is it a mistake in game design they never bothered to correct....... mind wanders off into the mists of EvE to ponder and ruminate on this deep subject. But then it also makes you the same as every other player in the game. There are those who hate gankers, but they are forced to deal with them as a part of what they want to do. There are those who hate war decs, yet they are forced to deal with them as a part of what they want to do. Again this seems to reinforce the theme that all of these are an intended part of the game, mind wanders even further into the mists of EvE in search of answers.
afk phone wrote:So the next logical step is to allow botting of npc rats (hint - carrier botting in null). Again not sure what your goal is, but I do know that you are one of the most easily confused people I have ever dealt with and the mental challenge of phrasing things to add to that confusion is fun and refreshing. Can we continue this for many more pages? I have never stated that we should allow MORE botting. I have stated very clearly that bots are bad and need to be removed. I have also stated that when it comes to REMOVING the bots from mining I want CCP to move slowly and carefully since there is a potential for some seriously negative impacts on the game. There is a HUGE difference in wanting them to move slowly and asking to allow for even more botting.
afk phone wrote:Where does botting logically end? In your randomness you actually answered your own questions. There has to be logic applied in removing an illegal activity from EvE. If the risks to the game as a whole and it's players is minimal then it is safe to go after the illegal activity in an aggressive way and remove it as soon as a method can be devised to remove it. However bot mining does not fall into the category of minimal risks to the game as a whole. If the estimates I see online are correct then the immediate removal of bot mining would remove approximately half of the available supply of ore / minerals from the markets of EvE and that represents a MAJOR risk to the game as a whole. In this case LOGIC dictates that you take a slow and careful approach to removing an illegal activity from the game.
Are you ready because here comes another of those things that will confuse and confound you. Allowing miners to continue their botting ways just might be the best path for CCP to take. If you increase the profitability of mining that only works for a little while and then the increased supplies on the market will force the prices and the profit levels down. Long term you end up right where we are now with the profits so low very few people mine and those that do are probably using bots so they can make a decent profit. Just a crazy thought to continue confusing afk phone. |
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
14599
|
Posted - 2016.08.19 19:46:08 -
[23] - Quote
Everything what makes mining less AFK is better than what we have.
AFK mining amount should be minimal, around 25% of the targeted mining maximum yield.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him.
|
Lepus Fatalis
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.20 06:32:32 -
[24] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Everything what makes mining less AFK is better than what we have.
AFK mining amount should be minimal, around 25% of the targeted mining maximum yield.
+1
Also all I see around here as counter arguments are the same old watered down idea of "well this is boring so it should be done by bots/afk alts" - the same arguments they present when asked about making cyno/scouting/links more interactive so that they couldn't be done by multiboxing/botting.
When you propose such a thing you get the hell. As one guy admirably put it in a thread on reddit :
" EVE players detest pay-to-win, but they're OK with a person buying two skilled-up characters, selling PLEX to skip any isk grind, and heading out with a huge advantage in PVP and PVE vs someone playing for the same amount of time but not sinking crazy money into the game. Yes, the win isn't guaranteed, but, c'mon, rich dudes can start EVE with a huge advantage.
EVE players detest the risk-averse, but they won't let anyone bar their alt light cynos for their capitals.
EVE players play because of the stories of scams, and the idea that you have to truly trust the people you play with. But if you make them actually do that, rather than just use alts, they'll scream and scream and scream.
EVE players play EVE for the consequential combat, where loss matters, and the wars are huge and the win/loss matters - but if you suggest that non-highsec resupply becomes harder (and make it so a null-sec alliance can run out of ships during a war), especially with JF nerfs, etc - You'll get shat on so hard your hat will fall off.
EVE players play for a game full of consequences. Unless those consequences are wardecs, negative reputation, security status, faction standing, corp history, personal enemies, or even having to choose between training two different skill trees. Then they just get an alt." |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3529
|
Posted - 2016.08.20 09:38:59 -
[25] - Quote
Nana Skalski wrote:Everything what makes mining less AFK is better than what we have.
AFK mining amount should be minimal, around 25% of the targeted mining maximum yield. Except mining is not AFK. That's just a myth perpetuated by certain groups who insist that miners are a 'lesser race'. Mining to full efficiency is actually quite a busy process and even in highsec does involve use of Dscan.
Hence this idea is bad because it starts from a false premise. And will actually increase the use of bots, because bots can play the proposed minigame better than humans. |
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Black Pearl Alliance
1565
|
Posted - 2016.08.20 15:06:01 -
[26] - Quote
Jhani Bralhast wrote:Instead of the point-click-and-wait method that has always existed in this game, I propose making this much loathed activity more interactive in a way that would both stimulate and challenge the miner while also reducing or eliminating botters, scripters and multiboxers.
I envision, upon targeting an asteroid and engaging a mining module, a small tactical overlay grid offering one to click-and-drag their cursor to help aim and fine tune their laser upon the target, selecting richer areas of ore as one would similarly do in Planetary Interaction resource extracting. Manually selecting the richest areas of ore would reward the miner with increased yield and perhaps even the chance of extracting small amounts of rarer ores with each cycle. Those players who do not successfully target the rich areas will only receive a base yield with no chance of rarer ores other than the base ore of the targeted asteroid.
Because such an activity would have to be manually controlled by a human player in order to achieve the benefits, I suspect such changes would be the bane of all mining bots and multiboxers, and diminish their prospects greatly. I also present this idea as a possible benefit to miner gankers as the diverted player attention on aiming their mining laser would no doubt affect their ability to monitor their surroundings for defense purposes, making mining in hostile areas all the more challenging.
However I do admit one flaw in my proposed idea that I have not yet figured my way completely out of, if how one would aim more than one laser at more than one target? For example, a Hulk having its three strip miners targeting three different asteroids. Expecting a player to aim and maintain three lasers simultaneously would be a very tall order to expect. Perhaps only having to aim a laser one at the beginning of a cycle, and having to repeat with each cycle for optimum yield? I suspect a player could stagger the cycle of each laser in order to allow time to aim each one.
As I said, I haven't yet completely figured that aspect out.
I'd be very interested to hear constructive comments on my idea.
Let's make mining great again!
I'd go along with this but only on 1 condition.
The system is applied to any and all instances of the utilisation on the F1 - F8 keys.
|
Autism Intensifies
some random local shitlords
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.20 15:27:30 -
[27] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Nana Skalski wrote:Everything what makes mining less AFK is better than what we have.
AFK mining amount should be minimal, around 25% of the targeted mining maximum yield. Except mining is not AFK. That's just a myth perpetuated by certain groups who insist that miners are a 'lesser race'. Mining to full efficiency is actually quite a busy process and even in highsec does involve use of Dscan. Hence this idea is bad because it starts from a false premise. And will actually increase the use of bots, because bots can play the proposed minigame better than humans.
"Mining to full efficiency" & "even in highsec" in one sentence. Wow.
But yeah, well, if use of dscan is what you define as quite busy, then i don't know what to say. I do know tho that starting at ~5 Hulks or ~15 Mackinaws it indeed gets busy. But that's if one player alone flies those. |
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
335
|
Posted - 2016.08.20 17:43:24 -
[28] - Quote
Mining is p2w: in order to do it efficiently, $15/month isn't enough. You can always find a fleet to mine in, but rewards scale linearly with the number of accounts you throw at it until you hit the physical limit of the number of accounts you can micromanage, which cost someone way more than $15/month.
Making efficient mean interactive is a good thing.
A signature :o
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3531
|
Posted - 2016.08.21 01:27:11 -
[29] - Quote
Autism Intensifies wrote: "Mining to full efficiency" & "even in highsec" in one sentence. Wow.
But yeah, well, if use of dscan is what you define as quite busy, then i don't know what to say. I do know tho that starting at ~5 Hulks or ~15 Mackinaws it indeed gets busy. But that's if one player alone flies those.
Travel for optimal beam range. Survey scanner to tell you when to cut the beam short. Constant beam targeting in highsec since the rocks are so small. Dscan regularly to spot catalysts on warp towards you, just like lowsec/null.
Between all that, you aren't going AFK at all, sure you might have 5-10 seconds you aren't doing anything but you don't have a full minute to go grab a bite. And that is if you are using just one ship. If you are multiboxxing a fleet you probably aren't doing everything I listed above unless you are one of EVE's best boxers and using screen layout software to help you with that.
The AFK miner is a myth pushed by certain groups in order to justify their abusive behaviour. (No I am not calling ganking abuse, I am calling the propaganda, abuse & dehumanising of the players that certain groups push abuse.) |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
12863
|
Posted - 2016.08.21 04:25:18 -
[30] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Crazy, off the wall
...of text.
Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Bumble's Space Log
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |