Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

- Changing existing mining sites so they don't use deadspace effects (no warp/MWD limitations) is on my to-do list and will probably happen when I have some free time. No fixed ETA for this, but it's in the works

---

Originally by: Hattermad

---

Edited by: Hattermad on 30/04/2007 18:00:02

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

- Changing existing mining sites so they don't use deadspace effects (no warp/MWD limitations) is on my to-do list and will probably happen when I have some free time. No fixed ETA for this, but it's in the works

---

I know you'll be careful about this .

Whilst most miners will undoubtedly be happy to be able to warp closer to their roids in their lumbering barges, lower sec miners won't be happy if the removal of the deadspace effect suddenly means they're easier to find...

Hat.

---

1. Please dear God give me my flat solar system view back when using the directional scanner. I hate having to push F-11 and lose 1/8 of my screen real estate just to view the one small map.


2. Why can't the directional scanner and the overview use different filters? I don't mind if all the filters are stored in the same pool, but maybe I want my overview to show ships that are red to me, and I want the directional scanner to only show scan probes because I'm safespotted and paranoid.
   

1. Multispec probes should say *how many* of each type they've picked up. If there are two "Unknown" signatures in system, I'd like to know that.
   


2. Probes should tell us what sort of signature they've picked up. If there's an unknown and a radar in system, and I'm usin radar probes, I'd like to know which of the two signatures I'm tracking down.


3. I don't think that more types of multispec probes are the answer. More information with better filtering would be great. As it is one already has to go buy/build multispecs and 3 or 4 range variants of 4 races' probes. So I have to carry 13 to 17 different types with me when I want to go exploring. Necessary hassles are okay, but unnecessary ones are... just that: unnecessary.
   

1. Sounds like it behaves just like the exploration scanner, but originating at your point and with a 4au range. That sounds like a really great starting point for this idea. Off to a great and exciting start.


2. 1-day old players need to be able to use this, or else you can say goodbye to any new players joining EvE. I don't mean from an SP point of view, I mean from a UI and usability point of view. I don't mean to flame, but one of CCP's biggest weaknesses is their inability to design good UIs. You mentioned warping to a planet and spending 90 seconds to have a 50% chance to find an encounter (which seems very different from the current asteroid belts). I'm not sure new players are going to put up with that. I think it needs to find all the asteroids belts and plexes 100% of the time. Not ships, not exploration destinations, just asteroid belts and plexes. 100%.
   


3. I'm worried that this will just be one more poorly optimized (both from a programming and UI standpoint) window that takes up more screen real estate. Please spend a ton of time on this in-house and, frankly, hire an outside expert to validate your work.
   


4. If it takes time to run this scan, and it can only be done while not in warp, then it's going to take a very long time to find all/most of the belts in a system and form a mental picture of the layout. One way to address this is to "infolink" all gangmates' scan results. If a gangmember has picked up a plex or asteroid belt (or whatever), then it shows up on my system map and my results list (with his name denoting he found it). Duplicate results would automatically be filtered out, and would never be viewable. This should apply to old results that I have, not just new results we've gotten since the gang formed. This would open up the role of "recon" - someone scouts the systems a day or two in advance (depending on how often this stuff changes), maps everything out, and that way anyone in his gang the next day has all the info at their fingertips. I don't think this infolink should really require a new skillbook, but if you disagree, I'm not violently opposed to it. Definitely doesn't need its own module, though.
   


5. This brings up another point. I don't want to have to re-scan a system everytime I jump into it. PvP often takes place back and forth across a few systems. If I was just here 5 minuets ago, I shouldn't need to rescan everything. Bookmarks are one answer, but I don't think you want us to do that, as the numbers of bookmarks will very quickly start swelling again. So let us keep our scan results either for X amount of time, or until we delete them. If you let us delete them manually (the preferred answer), let us ctrl-click or shift-click so we can delete multiples. I don't want to individually remove 20 belts from my pre-loaded scan results list. Auto-delete would either happen too soon (we'll blame CCP for not being able to warp to that belt), too late (we'll blame CCP for warping to a belt that's not there anymore), or automatically when belts are moved (too unrealistic). If we're responsible for maintaining our own celestial databases, then we can only blame ourselves (and our gangmates if we use the infolink) for outdated information.
   


6. From what I understand, this new scanner is only designed to return "common" signatures (the asteroid belts and complexes now that they'll be unstatic-ified). It should only return exploration results, ships, etc. on a very rare basis, when someone gets particularly lucky. If that's the case, then I don't think we really need robust filters and other tools to filter those out. They'll essentially never come up in the first place.

Originally by: CCP Sharkbait

---

we are screwed. delaying startup again. soon as i have time i will fill you in on the details

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Originally by: Dal Thrax

---

Hum I see three issues with the whole "removing the belts thing"

1)Sorting results. If every system now has exploration content there needs to be some way to easly sort value of sites so as not to waste time and probes finding a veldspare belt in low sec.

2)Two step process: I would expect we will see a lot of scan/warp to results/come back with minning barge. This is a problem in systems without a station. The solution likely is to add a launcher slot and some more CPU to most of the mining bardges (maybe turn the Tier 1 bardge into a miner/prober).

3) Realism: belts in EvE are located in planatary rings (also explaining why asteroids are so close together). How hard is it to look at Saturn through a telescope and realize that it has a ring? On the other hand I can see how finding useful minerals in a gas giants ring could be chanllenging. Peronally I would like to see belts remain within <1 AU of planets except for high value "single rock" (or rock and moon) deep space finds.

Dal

---

1) Signal Strength will be a very clear indicator of whether a site is meant to be found by the onboard scanner or by using exploration probes, which should let you extrapolate both how hard it will be and the level of reward you're likely to get

2) For low-end belts you'll be able to use the onboard scanner to find them, so you won't need to switch ships. For high-end stuff yes, you'll either need to scout the sites yourself first or pay someone else to do it for you. We haven't yet decided (among other things) what constitutes "low-end" or "high-end" for any particular security status though

---

Originally by: Vandrion

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Originally by: Dal Thrax

---

Hum I see three issues with the whole "removing the belts thing"

1)Sorting results. If every system now has exploration content there needs to be some way to easly sort value of sites so as not to waste time and probes finding a veldspare belt in low sec.

2)Two step process: I would expect we will see a lot of scan/warp to results/come back with minning barge. This is a problem in systems without a station. The solution likely is to add a launcher slot and some more CPU to most of the mining bardges (maybe turn the Tier 1 bardge into a miner/prober).

3) Realism: belts in EvE are located in planatary rings (also explaining why asteroids are so close together). How hard is it to look at Saturn through a telescope and realize that it has a ring? On the other hand I can see how finding useful minerals in a gas giants ring could be chanllenging. Peronally I would like to see belts remain within <1 AU of planets except for high value "single rock" (or rock and moon) deep space finds.

Dal

---

1) Signal Strength will be a very clear indicator of whether a site is meant to be found by the onboard scanner or by using exploration probes, which should let you extrapolate both how hard it will be and the level of reward you're likely to get

2) For low-end belts you'll be able to use the onboard scanner to find them, so you won't need to switch ships. For high-end stuff yes, you'll either need to scout the sites yourself first or pay someone else to do it for you. We haven't yet decided (among other things) what constitutes "low-end" or "high-end" for any particular security status though

---

Just want to say how much I enjoy being forced to train a skill tree and a profession I never had an interest in!!!!! This means you won't be able to rat in 0.0 without spending countless hours scanning the belts!!!!! TYVM!!!!

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

However new belt exploration is implemented, it MUST allow/encourage combat to occur there. The current problem is that it is entirely to easy to avoid combat in belts by just pulling the plug warping to ss/cloaking. If properly implemented, belt exploration sites could actualy improve gameplay in this area:

I think the answer was alluded to earlier in the thread. Set up the exploration areas with an "environment" that you can't just warp out from.

For example your typical belt could be more like a deadspace pocket, with some modifications. You go in and once there the only way out is via an accelleration gate or someting similar.

The NPC/objects/roids are spread around a bit in it, and there is lots of stuff to interact with.

Further the pockets are designed so that it is not possible/desireable to sit on the exit point and shoot stuff from there.

Ctrl-Q inside a pocket gives you a 15 min pvp timer so you can be probed out.

NPC spawns work in wave style. So if the NPCer kills a wave off, it is very likely that a lot of next spawn will agro on attackers.

Typical of deadspace areas: lots of debris, objects, clouds, making cloaking problematic.

Now you have some interesting possibilities:

-Pirates have the time that it takes to get to an npcer area and the npcer can't just pull the plug or warp-out and cloak. They need to work their way to an exit point

-since the exit point is different than the entrance point "npcers" can camp the entrance and turn the tables on their attacker who can't just warp away if they don't like what they see their vagabond.

-Maneuver and weapon ranges will matter more in the pockets since you don't have the ability to warp out at will, and speed setups setup to operate outside of web range aren't invulnerable.

The key to this working of course is to design these sorts of belt pockets with PvP in mind from the outset.

---

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

However new belt exploration is implemented, it MUST allow/encourage combat to occur there. The current problem is that it is entirely to easy to avoid combat in belts by just pulling the plug warping to ss/cloaking. If properly implemented, belt exploration sites could actualy improve gameplay in this area:

...
blah blah blah
...

-Maneuver and weapon ranges will matter more in the pockets since you don't have the ability to warp out at will, and speed setups setup to operate outside of web range aren't invulnerable.

The key to this working of course is to design these sorts of belt pockets with PvP in mind from the outset.

---

Quoted because it's just so damn good. Something like this has the potential to seriously enhance gameplay for hunter and hunted.

---

Originally by: Igor Epocci

---

Edited by: Igor Epocci on 01/05/2007 05:51:51
Edited by: Igor Epocci on 01/05/2007 05:26:51
Edited by: Igor Epocci on 01/05/2007 05:26:02

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

However new belt exploration is implemented, it MUST allow/encourage combat to occur there. The current problem is that it is entirely to easy to avoid combat in belts by just pulling the plug warping to ss/cloaking. If properly implemented, belt exploration sites could actualy improve gameplay in this area:

...
blah blah blah
...

-Maneuver and weapon ranges will matter more in the pockets since you don't have the ability to warp out at will, and speed setups setup to operate outside of web range aren't invulnerable.

The key to this working of course is to design these sorts of belt pockets with PvP in mind from the outset.

---

Quoted because it's just so damn good. Something like this has the potential to seriously enhance gameplay for hunter and hunted.

---

You guys are missing a key point. The miners are there to MINE. Being hunted isn't an exciting feature if you don't want to be hunted - it's an annoyance. It's a risk that we accept when we go out to mine, just as us warping out is a risk you take when you hunt us.

NOTE: This rant is not directed at you two specifically (there is merit to your idea), but at the pirates that have posted here in general, wanting CCP to revamp this into a pirate-friendly hunting ground where the only options miner has is to go POP.

Improving a way to fight, creating entry and exit points and other such rubbish will do NOTHING except drive up ore prices until you cant afford to loose your oh-so-dear pvp ship. Is this what you're looking for?

What the change must bring is BALANCE. Equal chances for the miner/ratter and the pirate

Consider two things:
1. If the quoted system was implemented, would either of you be willing to camp either gate to protect the miner? If you would only do it for money, remember that you'll just be there longer because they'll mine for your pay too.
2. Woudl either of you EVER go mining if you had to get a gang together to do it?

Many of us play because it's such an open-ended game. If you stick entry and exit points on a belt, where's the open-endedness? Starting to sound pretty linear to me, and if we wanted linear, we'd play Mario Brothers.

The whole idea behind this game is that you have choices. There's no choice in ==>EXIT HERE==>
If I'm gonna get pounced on while mining, I'd like to be able to respond with any tactic at my disposal, not have it decided for me and then have 'combat' depend strictly on who brought the biggest guns or whether your scramblers are bigger than my stabilizers.

Pirates will almost always have the advantage in speed and firepower - they're fitted specifically for combat. While this holds true for the ratter, they're ratting (and NOT PvPing ) for a reason. It all boils down to choice. If the ratter or miner want to bounce out, that's just as much of a risk of the game for the pirate as getting jumped by pirates is for them. We don't need any game mechanics that force the issue one way or the other.

Quite honestly, if you can't pirate effectively without CCP handing it to you on a platter, maybe you should reconsider your chosen profession.

So if CCP is gonna give you another way to camp/trap me, I want my strip miners to be able to mine material off your hull. I'll carve my name in it and leave it floating for the next hot-shot pirate to find.

---

Originally by: Igor Epocci

---

If the ratter or miner want to bounce out, that's just as much of a risk of the game for the pirate as getting jumped by pirates is for them. We don't need any game mechanics that force the issue one way or the other.

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

However new belt exploration is implemented, it MUST allow/encourage combat to occur there. The current problem is that it is entirely to easy to avoid combat in belts by just pulling the plug warping to ss/cloaking. If properly implemented, belt exploration sites could actualy improve gameplay in this area:

I think the answer was alluded to earlier in the thread. Set up the exploration areas with an "environment" that you can't just warp out from.

For example your typical belt could be more like a deadspace pocket, with some modifications. You go in and once there the only way out is via an accelleration gate or someting similar.

The NPC/objects/roids are spread around a bit in it, and there is lots of stuff to interact with.

Further the pockets are designed so that it is not possible/desireable to sit on the exit point and shoot stuff from there.

Ctrl-Q inside a pocket gives you a 15 min pvp timer so you can be probed out.

NPC spawns work in wave style. So if the NPCer kills a wave off, it is very likely that a lot of next spawn will agro on attackers.

Typical of deadspace areas: lots of debris, objects, clouds, making cloaking problematic.

Now you have some interesting possibilities:

-Pirates have the time that it takes to get to an npcer area and the npcer can't just pull the plug or warp-out and cloak. They need to work their way to an exit point

-since the exit point is different than the entrance point "npcers" can camp the entrance and turn the tables on their attacker who can't just warp away if they don't like what they see their vagabond.

-Maneuver and weapon ranges will matter more in the pockets since you don't have the ability to warp out at will, and speed setups setup to operate outside of web range aren't invulnerable.

The key to this working of course is to design these sorts of belt pockets with PvP in mind from the outset.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

I'll try and make time to read recent posts properly soon, but in the mean time a couple of tidbits of progress I've made today that you may be interested in:

- 1/10 and 2/10 complexes are now staying in their static locations, so new players can find them easily
- Changing existing mining sites so they don't use deadspace effects (no warp/MWD limitations) is on my to-do list and will probably happen when I have some free time. No fixed ETA for this, but it's in the works

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

However new belt exploration is implemented, it MUST allow/encourage combat to occur there. The current problem is that it is entirely to easy to avoid combat in belts by just pulling the plug warping to ss/cloaking. If properly implemented, belt exploration sites could actualy improve gameplay in this area:

I think the answer was alluded to earlier in the thread. Set up the exploration areas with an "environment" that you can't just warp out from.

For example your typical belt could be more like a deadspace pocket, with some modifications. You go in and once there the only way out is via an accelleration gate or someting similar.

The NPC/objects/roids are spread around a bit in it, and there is lots of stuff to interact with.

Further the pockets are designed so that it is not possible/desireable to sit on the exit point and shoot stuff from there.

Ctrl-Q inside a pocket gives you a 15 min pvp timer so you can be probed out.

NPC spawns work in wave style. So if the NPCer kills a wave off, it is very likely that a lot of next spawn will agro on attackers.

Typical of deadspace areas: lots of debris, objects, clouds, making cloaking problematic.

Now you have some interesting possibilities:

-Pirates have the time that it takes to get to an npcer area and the npcer can't just pull the plug or warp-out and cloak. They need to work their way to an exit point

-since the exit point is different than the entrance point "npcers" can camp the entrance and turn the tables on their attacker who can't just warp away if they don't like what they see their vagabond.

-Maneuver and weapon ranges will matter more in the pockets since you don't have the ability to warp out at will, and speed setups setup to operate outside of web range aren't invulnerable.

The key to this working of course is to design these sorts of belt pockets with PvP in mind from the outset.

---

Originally by: Igor Epocci

---

Edited by: Igor Epocci on 01/05/2007 05:51:51
Edited by: Igor Epocci on 01/05/2007 05:26:51
Edited by: Igor Epocci on 01/05/2007 05:26:02

Originally by: Tsanse Kinske

---

Originally by: Clavius XIV

---

However new belt exploration is implemented, it MUST allow/encourage combat to occur there. The current problem is that it is entirely to easy to avoid combat in belts by just pulling the plug warping to ss/cloaking. If properly implemented, belt exploration sites could actualy improve gameplay in this area:

...
blah blah blah
...

-Maneuver and weapon ranges will matter more in the pockets since you don't have the ability to warp out at will, and speed setups setup to operate outside of web range aren't invulnerable.

The key to this working of course is to design these sorts of belt pockets with PvP in mind from the outset.

---

Quoted because it's just so damn good. Something like this has the potential to seriously enhance gameplay for hunter and hunted.

---

Improving a way to fight, creating entry and exit points and other such rubbish will do NOTHING except drive up ore prices until you cant afford to loose your oh-so-dear pvp ship. Is this what you're looking for?

---

Quote:

---

What the change must bring is BALANCE. Equal chances for the miner/ratter and the pirate

---