Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:00:00 -
[1]
I believe many irritating issues in EVE could be resolved by intorducing a mining claim system.
The system would allow corporations to file a claim on any number of specific belts in 0.9 and lower systems. Claims could be filed by secret auction on the day previous to the claim taking effect. So on Tuesday three corps could put in secret bids on a belt. On Wednesday right after DT, previous claims on the belt would expire, and the highest bidder on the belt would get the new claim until DT.
Claim jumping, or mining from a belt that has an active claim not owned by your corporation would be an offense similar to can flipping (you could be shot). In order to allow new players to mine, all belts in 1.0 systems would be considered "Property of the State" and not claimable - mineable by anyone who is not an enemy of the state.
What would this "fix"? Well, for starters it would force macro miners to leave NPC corps, allowing other corps to war dec them for belt access. It would also make lowsec mining more profitable as bids on belts in lowsec systems would be much less expensive. It would may also make merc. corps all that much more useful and viable (protecting claims - protecting claimjumpers) as well as improve the usefulness of alliances in highsec.
I'm not an industry guy, I just thought this might be a good idea. I know it should be in suggestions or some other area, and I'll put it there if people like the idea. There are probably other benefits or problems with this idea, as well as more areas to add depth/improvements - which is why I posted it here first.
--
Save the SEXY in EVE!
|
Quantar Raalsken
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:07:00 -
[2]
macro miners will just move to 1.0 and ruin things for noobs ======= Homeworld Hamachi Network
|
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:10:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Quantar Raalsken macro miners will just move to 1.0 and ruin things for noobs
I don't know about "ruin things". Perhaps make it more difficult until they can get into a player corp. Isn't anything that makes getting into a corp more attractive good for EVE? |
Riflektshon
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:12:00 -
[4]
Would this not drive the small corps out of the game as they could not compete with bigger corps in bids? |
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Riflektshon Would this not drive the small corps out of the game as they could not compete with bigger corps in bids?
Actually it would force some people to spread the %&úú out of the same damn systems. |
Corduroy Rab
Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:17:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Corduroy Rab on 15/06/2009 18:17:38 Sweet then my corp could buy claims on some nice systems, not to mine, but to pew people that came to our belts |
Le Sabre
Gallente The Dead Canary Mining Corporation Legion of Honor
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Riflektshon Would this not drive the small corps out of the game as they could not compete with bigger corps in bids?
It might make smaller corps seek out alliances more pro-actively, and in turn make small alliances bigger and more powerful. If it has this effect then sweet.
I think that the 'claim' should last a few days rather than just dt-dt, just cause miners dont like paperwork.
|
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:46:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Riflektshon Would this not drive the small corps out of the game as they could not compete with bigger corps in bids?
Actually it would force some people to spread the %&úú out of the same damn systems.
You would think that bare belts would force other corps to move someplace else...but you know, logic escapes some people.
I've been able to locate virtually untouched belts in Empire; just look! Systems without stations are great because macro miners don't go to them...although it's not the best solution unless you have a hauler with you (alt or otherwise).
|
Commander Yassir
Big Black Hole
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:47:00 -
[9]
Wouldn't work, Chribba would just buy every single belt, and no one could steal from Chribba right? On a more serious note... wouldn't the bigger mining alliances just buy it out from the smaller miners? ~ The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on. |
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:50:00 -
[10]
I like this idea on many levels...
Might want to start in .5~.8 systems and leave .9 and 1.0 alone.
Would make it so I could have a dedicated mining area. I could go pew pew with people who are mining my roids. I could try to be uber-ninja-miner and mine someone elses field with a little bit of risk. I could hire mercs to pummel my competition as they try to mine a field they bought in an area I like :)
Pick Three: Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
|
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Riflektshon Would this not drive the small corps out of the game as they could not compete with bigger corps in bids?
Actually, bids would only get as big as still made the belts profitable. So a mega corp could not outbid the smaller corps without cutting their own throat in the process. Also, the private bidding would eventually even out the costs of belts. Mega corps would not know how much they won by and would slowly lower their bids out of greed. --
Save the SEXY in EVE!
|
B1FF
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 19:27:00 -
[12]
The end result would be more trouble for miners.
The main flaw is that you have to predict how much you're going to mine. If you mine out your claims then what?
What if you bid and don't mine? There would have to be some penalty for that.
Third it's massive overheard with no gain of the current system. So you reserve a belt and fine someone mining it. You shoot at them. They run. You start mining. They come back and shoot you.
Remember if you ***** with mining you ***** with everything. |
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 19:55:00 -
[13]
/me bids high amount for all high sec Ice Belts. /me gets all combat wings plenty of juicy targets to shoot /me gets my miners plenty of ice to mine and a nice corner on the market :)
I really like the way it sounds.
And there is already a 'cap' to the high bid, no one would bid mroe than they can expect to make off of the belt.... wait, this is EVE where the minerals you mine are free
Pick Three: Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:27:00 -
[14]
how about agents providing missions that you can mine with 10% (or something) going to agent? could also provide standard standing rewards.
|
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:30:00 -
[15]
Originally by: B1FF The end result would be more trouble for miners.
The main flaw is that you have to predict how much you're going to mine. If you mine out your claims then what?
What if you bid and don't mine? There would have to be some penalty for that.
Third it's massive overheard with no gain of the current system. So you reserve a belt and fine someone mining it. You shoot at them. They run. You start mining. They come back and shoot you.
Remember if you ***** with mining you ***** with everything.
Predicting how much you will mine is something you have to do already. Belt's are already a valuable resource with or without this system. I don't think it would be as complicated as you think.
If you bid and don't mine, there is no need for penalties. Why would you need a penalty? Loosing your bid should be penalty enough. Plus it adds a industry PVP mechanic.
As I stated earlier, overhead would have to be limited to what would still make the belt profitable. Belt prices would self regulate, and the price of bidding belts would be divided into the ore that was mined from those belts. It would cause a shift in prices, but it would balance out with time. --
Save the SEXY in EVE!
|
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:31:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz
.... wait, this is EVE where the minerals you mine are free
Again, a small issue that screws up the market that this would help reduce. --
Save the SEXY in EVE!
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:46:00 -
[17]
Why would anyone bid on a low sec belt? |
Nuzzy Futs
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:50:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne I believe many irritating issues in EVE could be resolved by intorducing a mining claim system.
The system would allow corporations to file a claim on any number of specific belts in 0.9 and lower systems. Claims could be filed by secret auction on the day previous to the claim taking effect. So on Tuesday three corps could put in secret bids on a belt. On Wednesday right after DT, previous claims on the belt would expire, and the highest bidder on the belt would get the new claim until DT.
Claim jumping, or mining from a belt that has an active claim not owned by your corporation would be an offense similar to can flipping (you could be shot). In order to allow new players to mine, all belts in 1.0 systems would be considered "Property of the State" and not claimable - mineable by anyone who is not an enemy of the state.
What would this "fix"? Well, for starters it would force macro miners to leave NPC corps, allowing other corps to war dec them for belt access. It would also make lowsec mining more profitable as bids on belts in lowsec systems would be much less expensive. It would may also make merc. corps all that much more useful and viable (protecting claims - protecting claimjumpers) as well as improve the usefulness of alliances in highsec.
I'm not an industry guy, I just thought this might be a good idea. I know it should be in suggestions or some other area, and I'll put it there if people like the idea. There are probably other benefits or problems with this idea, as well as more areas to add depth/improvements - which is why I posted it here first.
Two general tips when making a suggestion: 1) use the proper area of the forums. 2) Be solving a problem or issue rather than just random (I have no clue about this but lets change it) |
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 20:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Furb Killer Why would anyone bid on a low sec belt?
Higher profit margin due to less bids. |
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar The Ronin Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Nuzzy Futs
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne
I'm not an industry guy, I just thought this might be a good idea. I know it should be in suggestions or some other area, and I'll put it there if people like the idea. There are probably other benefits or problems with this idea, as well as more areas to add depth/improvements - which is why I posted it here first.
Two general tips when making a suggestion: 1) use the proper area of the forums. 2) Be solving a problem or issue rather than just random (I have no clue about this but lets change it)
1) Read threads in their entirety before you troll them. 2) Don't hate so much in your troll, emotional trolling appears cheap and thin and is easy to see through. |
|
Corduroy Rab
Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:16:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne
Originally by: Furb Killer Why would anyone bid on a low sec belt?
Higher profit margin due to less bids.
I think you are missing what he was getting at in his question.
The ability to shoot "claim jumpers" is a bit of a non-issue in low sec. |
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:23:00 -
[22]
absolutly not
FOFF RECRUITING JOIN FOFF NOW INGAME CHANNEL FOR DETAILS
|
Nuzzy Futs
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne
Originally by: Nuzzy Futs
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne
I'm not an industry guy, I just thought this might be a good idea. I know it should be in suggestions or some other area, and I'll put it there if people like the idea. There are probably other benefits or problems with this idea, as well as more areas to add depth/improvements - which is why I posted it here first.
Two general tips when making a suggestion: 1) use the proper area of the forums. 2) Be solving a problem or issue rather than just random (I have no clue about this but lets change it)
1) Read threads in their entirety before you troll them. 2) Don't hate so much in your troll, emotional trolling appears cheap and thin and is easy to see through.
I'll stand by my comments - you know its the wrong area and posted it here anyhow.
You state you are trying to fix an unspecified problem and back that up with an idea that is severally flawed and highlights you lack of knowledge about the games mechanics.
It isn't hating to ask why you would try to address an unspecified problem with an area that you admittedly know little to nothing about. Usually when you suggest a change to a game mechanic it is done in the proper sub forum. Also you have some knowledge of the issue and its context in game play and mechanics. When you solve a problem you should be able to identify the issue or at least it symptoms.
If the best you can do when someone highlights that you have an unformed idea and no clue about game mechanics is say they are 'hating' you have a long way to go. Awww Nuts. |
B1FF
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:40:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tressin Khiyne
Originally by: Furb Killer Why would anyone bid on a low sec belt?
Higher profit margin due to less bids.
Total game mechanic fail. You can already shoot people in low sec why would you pay for the priveledge.
If you say sec status you're wrong. If you're pre-emptively shooting people in low sec that much there is no way you are going to be mining enough.
I second the question asked earlier. What problem does this solve? Seems like a great way to gank newbs with reverse flagging with no up side.
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:43:00 -
[25]
Moved to Features and Ideas Discussion.
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us
|
|
Toran Ceres
Deepcor Terrebellum
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:49:00 -
[26]
I dont think anyone brought this up, but wouldnt that increase prices as miners now add the cost of the claim to the price of the ore they sell?
|
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:51:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Corduroy Rab Edited by: Corduroy Rab on 15/06/2009 18:17:38 Sweet then my corp could buy claims on some nice systems, not to mine, but to pew people that came to our belts
As much as I despise you for thinking that way, I have to admit you have a valid point. It's an invitation to the gankers' ball!!! :)
|
Corduroy Rab
Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 21:54:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Toran Ceres I dont think anyone brought this up, but wouldnt that increase prices as miners now add the cost of the claim to the price of the ore they sell?
Likely, and then you would have an alliance "P" or alliance "GS" or some other group that would just buy up claims to f. with people trying to mine, which would also be reflected in the prices.
|
Kyrjanen Janen
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 22:27:00 -
[29]
i dont think this is a good idea.
there are allready mechanics in game for corps & alliances to "claim" belts. and that is by pvp in low- and nullsec.
|
Le Sabre
Gallente The Dead Canary Mining Corporation Legion of Honor
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 00:09:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kyrjanen Janen i dont think this is a good idea.
there are allready mechanics in game for corps & alliances to "claim" belts. and that is by pvp in low- and nullsec.
To counter this argument, a lot of small corps/alliances in high sec don't/wont go to low/null purely because of the risk of pew pew from random people and lack of resources to support a mining fleet + support.
At least by implementing a claim system they would get a taste of 'owning' their own area in space, even though there's little to no risk to them. Also by putting a time limit on the claim there is equal opportunity for all to 'own' and profit from their own space for a short time. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |