Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CMD KIM
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 22:24:00 -
[1]
Ok, we have had new stuff like wormholes etc. Tech 3 has arrived. How about an advancement to the basics of the game. The one thing almost every new player does and alot of players still do for Manufacturing and so on is MINING. so how about somert on the lines on a tech 3 mining ship or even Mining RIGS. The ships that are around are falling behind the times now, Best you can get lately as new addition is the Orca. Now players think what a waste of time, to some players yes but this is a ship that can carry on average 80,000 m3 cargo + ships.. with mods like a BS MWD the a good space hopper gate to gate but like I was saying ships like the Hulk are falling behind the times. we need maybe tech 3 mining ship and/or mining rigs to increase yields and speed up mining duration, the low slot upgrades available don't quite cut it especially when it comes to ice mining.
My advice to all miners in the game. (only advice) Hulk with low slot upgrades for ore mining Mack with low slot upgrades for ice mining (mack has advantage when ice mining - read ships details) Orca fitted with BS WMD to haul if in group of miners.
|
ingenting
20th Legion Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 22:57:00 -
[2]
learn to spell, grammar, and WALL OF TEXT.
also, ideas and suggestion forum _________________ - "Welcome to EVE, remember to insu *BAAOOM*... Told you, newb."
|
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 23:03:00 -
[3]
Belongs in Features and Ideas so it can gather dust.
Might want to outline a bit more and not so much wall of text style.
|
Bo Kantrel
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 23:52:00 -
[4]
There are drone mining rigs available on Sisi.
Bonuses are 10% increase yield for the mining drones.
|
Loco Eve
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 23:54:00 -
[5]
try mining in null sec. and see how much isk you make there.
|
Anane
Notoras Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 03:01:00 -
[6]
Drone mining rigs have been in game, on tranq.. every since rigs were introduced...
|
Ancallan
Petals of Derketo
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 03:33:00 -
[7]
He does bring up a pretty good point.
Tech 3 Mining Ship. A modular mining ship that you can make look like a SHARK (see Proteus for example) would be awesome. Just for the pure aesthetic value of laser-shark-mining.
|
Loco Eve
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 07:49:00 -
[8]
maybe ccp should nerf the high cpu penelaties for upgrades. dont see any need for t3 barge
|
Victor Maximus
Wormholes Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 07:49:00 -
[9]
This has come up time and time again. Increasing mining yields would cause an increase in mineral supplies. This in turn would cause a drop in the mineral market. The overall effect would not increase mining profits which is I think your underlying hope. That being said there is still plenty they can do to tweak and improve mining and it sounds like that is something ccp will be looking at sooner or later.
Features and Ideas this-away
-Vic Aeon of Strife |
Veldra Ferden
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 11:47:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Victor Maximus This has come up time and time again. Increasing mining yields would cause an increase in mineral supplies. This in turn would cause a drop in the mineral market. The overall effect would not increase mining profits which is I think your underlying hope. That being said there is still plenty they can do to tweak and improve mining and it sounds like that is something ccp will be looking at sooner or later.
Features and Ideas this-away
-Vic
Indeed this man speaketh the truth.
People like the OP seem unable to think past their own bellybutton, they only think what'd be a boon to them, what'd make them happy and entirely miss the bigger picture, the grand scheme of eve economy.
I'm going to enforce what was said above, increasing the yield won't bring up your profits. When all the people get more yield, the mineral prices go down and you'll just end up mining more, faster and gettign close the same amount of money per hour.
This would then just worsen the whines how "all highsec systems are empty of ore" and "impossible to find any good size belts in highsec", which aren't anything but whines from lazy people who think EVE universe consists of 3 regions, The Forge, Essence and Domain. Though indeed, this would most likely cause such people to discover the other regions and invade my turf, efficiently increasing the amount of ore void systems.
Increasing yield one way or the other is a bad idea and serves no purpose. That being said, there is a lot that could be done to mining. Not in terms of making it more profitable, but perhaps a lot more interesting, interactive, challenging and yet maybe even more convenient while not compromising the prior.
I would love to see an increase in stationless systems all across highsec space, maybe even long pipes or clusters of stationless systems that are a logistical nightmare to everyone cept the most dedicated mining groups.
The planetary rings that has been talked about would be awesome along with the requirement to scan everything out, doing research before you can get to mining and so on.
|
|
Sulg
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 17:59:00 -
[11]
Totally agree with the two posts above me. Well-made points. Warp speed is not fast enough. We must go straight to...ludicrous speed! |
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 04:28:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 20/07/2009 04:34:10 Edited by: Steve Thomas on 20/07/2009 04:31:59 ok lets review the basics
the Average player can only use up soo many resources per hour. that this value is absurdly low can be shown by the simple fact that on average the average account losses one ship every 50ish days or so in pvp.
the Average player can also only produce so many resources per hour.
usualy the average player is also the average producer in one way or another of the resources they need to continue playing the game.
that tends to mean that the average PvPer for example will only produce enough to "pay" for there PvPing. this does have the downside in that because of that (for reasons that are a bit too exaustive to go into. suffice it to say for now that trying to profit from esentualy selling to yourself just will not happen) that in and of itself makes it hard to have any real margins at this.
The short version explination is that when his "needs" goes up, his willingness to engage in the very cash generating activities has the nasty side efect of suplying a large chunk of the minerals and modules and salvage and whatever else is needed by the economy.
Thus the paradox. Anything that increases the "aparent" demand in the economy tends to have a backlash efect of adding "supply" to the economy.
now here is the other catch. Overall Demand tends to be constant. as I mentioned on average a ship kill in pvp for example happens once every 50 days for the average player. ship losses tend to be constant in PvP activities (barring yet another Ji-*****itletsbehonestandadmitthatI'mFREAKINGBOREDbecauseonaveragepvpdoesnothappenthatofften-had from Goonfleet causing a slight spike in Hulkprices for example, and even then that tends to be mindnumbingly predictable from them) if non existant.
This is further compounded by the fact that most PvE activities have a minimal sink rate that is mostly ammo consupmtion and the odd drone from someone who forgot to reel them in on that one mission he just turned in.
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developerd did 5 years and more ago no longer make sence. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 12:28:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Victor Maximus Increasing mining yields would cause an increase in mineral supplies. This in turn would cause a drop in the mineral market.
Indeed, or more likely, since the demand could now be fulfilled with less players, the amount you would get mining in the new super T3 ship per hour would end up being less than what people currently make in Hulks.
Good profit in this game comes from doing something first and doing it better than anyone else, as soon as everyone catches up, it becomes a grind.
|
Salpad
Caldari Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:45:00 -
[14]
Originally by: ingenting learn to spell, grammar, and WALL OF TEXT.
Learn to stop posting unjustified accusations of wall-of-text. His first paragraph is only 9 long lines (with my browswer setup) which is perfectly acceptable, and the second is shorter and I note that he has not edited his post, so it was that way when you wrote your reply).
-- Salpad |
m3rb3aSt
Minmatar Advanced Component Research Enterprise GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 04:55:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Loco Eve try mining in null sec. and see how much isk you make there.
hah this... god tech 3 miners would make getting the ark and bistot that much easier
|
Mugster
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 21:31:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Mugster on 21/07/2009 21:31:33 Tech III miner would look something like this
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5466/tect3miningbarge.jpg
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:03:00 -
[17]
Quote: the Average player can only use up soo many resources per hour. that this value is absurdly low can be shown by the simple fact that on average the average account losses one ship every 50ish days or so in pvp.
I question this as a "fact" as you haven't established it as a fact other than saying, "it's a fact".... though I don't necessarily begrudge the point.
CCP has promised a bunch of things out of t3 that haven't come about yet. I'm sure they are working on it. Eventually, I do expect there will be some sort of t3 mining capable ship with the ability to tank in wormholes against sleepers. We'll just have to wait.
|
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:47:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Barbara Nichole
Quote: the Average player can only use up soo many resources per hour. that this value is absurdly low can be shown by the simple fact that on average the average account losses one ship every 50ish days or so in pvp.
I question this as a "fact" as you haven't established it as a fact other than saying, "it's a fact".... though I don't necessarily begrudge the point.
CCP has promised a bunch of things out of t3 that haven't come about yet. I'm sure they are working on it. Eventually, I do expect there will be some sort of t3 mining capable ship with the ability to tank in wormholes against sleepers. We'll just have to wait.
read the developer blogs on Space ship losses in PvP,
they bascialy spelled it out, here
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=656
Quote: At the end of April, we had 299,064 active paying accounts, leaving us with about 0.67 ship losses per subscriber during that month.
Given THAT average daily loss rate, and the evidence that the lose rate is more or less flat from the chart below it its painfully obvious that most of the accounts in eve dont experience pvp.
there were a number of spinnoff discutions on that including how the developers could get around Smeeds law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developerd did 5 years and more ago no longer make sence. |
Clansworth
Farstrider Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 08:53:00 -
[19]
I think the introduction of more tech 2 items will have to wait until the current tech 3 ships gradually increase in use/availability, so as to stabilize the tech 3 material markets some. Adding anything to that fragile mix right now would just throw everything even further out of wack. Aside from that issue, more m¦/min/character is not something that I want to see. I think for it's risk, mining is currently earning quite well. The imbalance in ores is a bit skewed, but this is the nature of a true living economy.
Intel/Nomad |
Kusum Fawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 14:26:00 -
[20]
I would like more yield per hour just cause i want to build more carriers, really whats so wrong with lots of cheap ships? I think an increase in total materials on the market would yes drop the prices, but it would also make it more lucrative to do the hisec gank thorax route, and force more people into lowsec/0.0 which i approve of, but the 0.0 groups need to step up their recruitment in hisec, new players really have no contacts with lowsec miners, and corporations, (recruitment channel? the horror....)
I approve of new mining ships, screw the isk per hour equations, screw the materials market, lets get some cheap mats so you can all get more noob BS's mining in low/0,0
(on another note, there needs to be more wormholes to other parts of the eve 'verse, I want some more routes to deep 0.0, and less to random closed sleeper systems) |
|
Melchian Icerend
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 01:32:00 -
[21]
I just love how people spread the falsehood of the open economy where the prices of goods flux based on supply and demand.
CCP controls the price of minerals to a fairly refined degree.
If miners had a way to produce more minerals more quickly it would increase the amount of ISK in their wallet. This would NOT cause a lowering of mineral prices due to so called "supply/demand". What it would cause is an increase in the prices of the rarer dropped commodities.
mineral prices are still completely controlled at a lower limit by the insurance rate of the ships.
real solutions that are "possible"
1) make mining and industrial ships closer to their real world counterparts. In many cases mining vehicles can sustain more raw damage then a battleship could ever think to. so end result, simply buff the amount of armor and structure as well and the structural resists.
Folly - CCP wont do this as it would prevent many attempts at piracy.
2) Remove insurance payouts when concord kills a ship. This has been debated to death.
Folly - CCP feels that the "griefer" population is more important to them then the "carebears".(I would use the term PvPer , but those live in lower sec spaces and are not discussed here)
3) Track and remove the kill rights when a "baiter" docks. This way if you flip a can on a miner and he has the right to shoot you, if he does then you gain the right to shoot him back until you dock.
Folly - CCP once again would rather support "griefers" then "carebears". I could talk about the trend here , but its very evident.
SUMMARY,
mining will never see any marked improvements because it does not push people closer to low and nul sec spaces. |
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 04:24:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Melchian Icerend I just love how people spread the falsehood of the open economy where the prices of goods flux based on supply and demand.
CCP controls the price of minerals to a fairly refined degree.
If miners had a way to produce more minerals more quickly it would increase the amount of ISK in their wallet. This would NOT cause a lowering of mineral prices due to so called "supply/demand". What it would cause is an increase in the prices of the rarer dropped commodities.
mineral prices are still completely controlled at a lower limit by the insurance rate of the ships.
real solutions that are "possible"
1) make mining and industrial ships closer to their real world counterparts. In many cases mining vehicles can sustain more raw damage then a battleship could ever think to. so end result, simply buff the amount of armor and structure as well and the structural resists.
Folly - CCP wont do this as it would prevent many attempts at piracy.
2) Remove insurance payouts when concord kills a ship. This has been debated to death.
Folly - CCP feels that the "griefer" population is more important to them then the "carebears".(I would use the term PvPer , but those live in lower sec spaces and are not discussed here)
3) Track and remove the kill rights when a "baiter" docks. This way if you flip a can on a miner and he has the right to shoot you, if he does then you gain the right to shoot him back until you dock.
Folly - CCP once again would rather support "griefers" then "carebears". I could talk about the trend here , but its very evident.
SUMMARY,
mining will never see any marked improvements because it does not push people closer to low and nul sec spaces.
ok in order 1) Deep sea capable drilling ships and platforms were blown to crap in "Iraqi freedom" when they were hit by ~250-500 Kg conventional GP bombs. a single APDU round fired from an M-1 Abrams will slice through the engin block of a Catapillar 777F like it was not there.
Real Battleships (at least the ones built by the US Navy) on the other hand are usualy designed to survive direct hits from there own armamaments at range.
2) reduceing the supply of money will have the real result of driveing prices down.. .. .. that is untill the break even point hits the insurance fraud price
3) kill rights have exactly what to do in Sci and Ind? |
FireT
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 04:34:00 -
[23]
Ok wow, I am totally against this. and here is why:
1) I am a total carebear. Yes I am, mainly because I have a crazy summer and other priorities. So just letting my skills train while I afk mine and return once my ship is full is great for me.
2) Have you ever actually done any intelligent thinking here? No seriously, do it. The ships you mentioned have already insane stats that give great things. The only issue here is your laziness not to fully train them. I fly an Exhumer but am still lacking level 4 & 5. With those I could get more. Currently I like to mine Ice, and here is a simple formula you need to understand: 500 seconds is the base timer for the tech 2 ice miner. The reducers are the following: - 25% from skill alone - 15% from max exhumer skill - 15% from two ice mining upgrades - 5% from an ice mining implant
Now do the combining math and let me know, because currently at level 3 exhumer and without the implant I am at 280ish seconds. That's nothing. Just shut up and train the overall stuff CCP gave us.
3) I actually did mine for a short time in 0.0 sector. And its painful. Why? I am a Gallente pilot with spit for shield tanking skills. Now actually have a shield tanking pilot fly a Hulk, oh shock it has also shield skills, and toss in drone skills. Guess what that makes you? Adouble earner: resources that only low and 0.0 sector has access to, and income from killing the rats that spawn.
4) You are seriously lazy if you expect a tech 3 ship for something that has almost no real consequences. I mine when I want to make ISK when I don't have enough time to actually play. I have 0 risk and 0 attention requirements, so my income should be absed on that and the normal market fluctuation.
There hope your brain didn't explode. |
P3nelope
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 02:02:00 -
[24]
As a miner who finds herself inextricably pushed towards missioning, I say that miners should be begging for nerfs to afk/bot mining capabilities and mission loot drops way before there's any talk of new gear.
More penalties need to be imposed in a way which rewards the "real" miners who actively play and pay attention, just as the "real" pvpers who actively play and pay attention are so obviously rewarded with better kill ratios (well, controlling for player IQ first).
Mining -- especially of the hi-sec variety û just needs to become more demanding and even downright punishing at times. And the group that should be punishing miners the most is miners themselves. It shouldnÆt be any more complicated than that.
So, miners should be given tools to adversely affect other miners within range, perhaps enabled through various industrial espionage type skills, such as by booby-trapping certain asteroids, or by breaking strip-mining cycles in some fashion, or by redirecting and siphoning off other laser streams -- as long as certain countermeasures arenÆt actively being taken by their intended target.
Personally, I would like to see some way for miners to be able indirectly target and damage mining components on other mining ships as IÆd love nothing more than being able to cripple bots (or inattentive players!) both in terms of mining capability and profitability simultaneously. Since mining accidents can be presumed to happen ôall the time,ö it isnÆt hard to believe that Concord would merely turn a blind eye to such impossible-to-prove types of activity.
I imagine this type of game-mechanic taking place under the insidious pretense of ôadjusting mining laser frequenciesö as it wouldnÆt really require any changes to the game except, notably, through some dynamic aspect to be added to the UI; extra skills and equipment changes might be considered at the same time, but really shouldnÆt be necessary.
If I had to guess how it could be done, I think some inspiration could be taken from those word-challenge boxes that websites currently use to differentiate bots from real visitors trying to access certain site pages/features. The only other thing I think would need to be considered is some way to address the possibility of griefingà perhaps some kind of ammunition needs to be spent, along with an appropriate cool-off/recalibration period before the next espionage attempt can be made.
No matter how itÆs implemented, the key to all of this lies in giving the miners the ability to put this type of pvp into effect using the same ship they would normally actively mine in, and, in turn, they should be able to inflict or break any imposed penalties using a modi****of skill and attentiveness. Hi-sec mining, aka ôthe AFK profession,ö is just way too profitable right now. If miners ever want to see new, meaningfully uber T3 mining barges and skills, then the legion of zombies currently raping belts 24/7 and flooding the market with minerals needs to be effectively destroyed from within. Enable miner pvp first.
Then give us the EVE equivalent to Nf=h÷ggr, Galactus, Mega Maid, etc.
|
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 02:24:00 -
[25]
(P3nelope)As a miner who finds herself inextricably pushed towards missioning, I say that miners should be begging for nerfs to afk/bot mining capabilities and mission loot drops way before there's any talk of new gear.
(ST)Been there, done that, has a hulk-orca duo in mothballs
More penalties need to be imposed in a way which rewards the "real" miners who actively play and pay attention, just as the "real" pvpers who actively play and pay attention are so obviously rewarded with better kill ratios (well, controlling for player IQ first).--megasnipage--
frankly what I think they need to do is put level 1-4 agents in each station that send you out on combat-mining missions, heck all they have to do is take the EXISTING kill missions and add in a mini roid belt = to the security level of the system - agent level - number of rooms into the mission that mission is in.(that or better yet just add roid belts to existing kill missions using the same formula I outlined above)
have thoes mission roid belts respawn rats of comperable level when the room is cleared of the normal npcs
then delete all roid belts.
End
of
Problem.
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developerd did 5 years and more ago no longer make sence. |
MrNuby
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 02:56:00 -
[26]
Lower the amount of T1 loot in missions which is automatically reprocessed. Heck, remove all standard T1 loot and only leave named and above and mining will once again to worthwhile in highsec... maybe.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |