| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ritzenhoff
Gallente
Ritzenhoff Industrial Design
   |
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:23:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Entrepaz
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
THIS. Go post in CSM!!!
I second that.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:27:00 -
[32]
OP:
Do you want mining to be
(i) difficult, dangerous and competitive --> well paid
(ii) safe, easy, and ore widely available -> poorly paid
(iii)safe, easy, and ore widely available -> well paid
At the moment we're in state (ii). State (i) is conceptually possible. There is no chance of state (iii) - it is now impossible.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Barkaial Starfinder
Minmatar
Conflagration.
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:32:00 -
[33]
I thought it was lumberjackers.
|
CeneUJiti
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:32:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
Nice idea, might help mining. But!
5. & 6. are most certainly undoable without killing TQ. Way to much things to care about and calculate. Even moving belts might be too much, think about how many roids are there in EVE, server would have to calculate and track movement of every each one. Impossible.
|
Apollo Sci
Gallente
Citadel Logistics Group
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:46:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
Signed.
CEO, Citadel Logistics Group |
Aurum Bellator
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:48:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Malcanis
OP:
Do you want mining to be
(i) difficult, dangerous and competitive --> well paid
(ii) safe, easy, and ore widely available -> poorly paid
(iii)safe, easy, and ore widely available -> well paid
At the moment we're in state (ii). State (i) is conceptually possible. There is no chance of state (iii) - it is now impossible.
You forgot (iv) safe, difficult, and ore widely available but requires some active effort to find -> well paid
I think that (iv) is possible. Make gravimetric sites common and fairly easy to scan but difficult enough to preclude the use of macros. Make each gravimetric site contain a comparatively limited amount of ore so that you are engaged in 'finding' the next site while you are mining the first.
That would be a good first step.
AUB
|
Exploding Tukey
Gallente
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:54:00 -
[37]
This is stupid, the servers have enough to try to process, and when you have to take collision detection of asteroids into question... well we are stuck with another blob issue.
not like this really helps macro miners, set asteroid on follow, turn on small shield rep, and set all ships/tractor ships to follow that asteroid. switch asteroid once one is depleted.
this also make hiding in asteroid fields harder when being chased, as well as making mining, a basic profession require a few mil SP before it can even be tries, requiring a complete rewrite of the tutorial, forcing players to go into the pve path before they can even get to mining.
<Signature Type="Clever" Width=100% Height=5 Edible="No" /> |
Zeet A'Dron
New Artisian and Mercenary Association
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 18:59:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Zeet A''Dron on 21/06/2010 18:59:32
Originally by: Malcanis
OP:
Do you want mining to be
(i) difficult, dangerous and competitive --> well paid
(ii) safe, easy, and ore widely available -> poorly paid
(iii)safe, easy, and ore widely available -> well paid
At the moment we're in state (ii). State (i) is conceptually possible. There is no chance of state (iii) - it is now impossible.
All of the above are possible:
Safe and easy = poorly paid
safe and difficult = better paid
dangerous and easy = to about safe and difficult
dangerous and difficult = best possible outcome
However, id like to see each of the above "tiers" have sliding scales whereby ore yeilds improve with time as some interactive process is engaged.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 19:35:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Unless they are working on something right now, you will probably have to wait a minimum of one year for anything being done directly with mining. More likely 2-5 years. It's been almost 2 years since this thread, which pretty much is why I have given up on it.
So many players are sent into belts by aurora and one has to wonder how many havent logged in since, talk about a great first impression.
This is a good candidate for the "Excellence" assmebly hall thread.
-
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 19:36:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Legs Mackenzie
I like the pun though.
Came here to post this 
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
|
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:07:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts
I like how people who have no experience automating tasks with macro scripting software come up with ideas to 'make it harder' for the macro guys. The only problem is that the changes only make it harder for a very short period of time, and once the macros are re-written everything is back to where it was before. So the only real way to thwart the macros is to completely change the whole system every couple weeks, and I seriously doubt that is going to happen.
Capcha it. Cloaked concord patrols hit the belts at random (something like a poisson distribution set with an average arrival of an hour or so), send you a message to make sure you're a registered capsuleer. No (correct) reply in 5 minutes? You lose CONCORD protection and be attacked by anyone, being considered an unregistered craft/rat by CONCORD.
While you could perhaps write a macro to return to base and dock whenever you turn red and wait out the 15 minute timer, you're at least forcing macro'ers to lose an average of something like 20-30% of their mining time. And you'll have added a pvp minigame of tailing macro-miners and trying to scramble them as soon as they turn red, which could be entertaining.
|
Kerfira
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:14:00 -
[42]
In an MMO with a free economy, an activity will pay roughly proportional to the EFFORT involved, NOT the chronological time spent.
In effect, this translates to at-the-keyboard time. So if a 30 minute activity (for example mission running) requires 30 minuts ATK time, it will pay 6 times as much as a 30 minute activity (for example mining) that only require 5 minutes ATK time.
This is of course just a simplified example, since there are more variables in play. The principle remains the same though.
The free economy will (now that the last artificial constraint has been removed) see that miners will receive EXACTLY the reward they deserve relative effort-wise to EVE's other activities!
If you want mining to pay better, you'll have to lobby CCP to make it require more effort. That is the only way it CAN happen!
If CCP gives you better tools, you'll earn less!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:15:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Lost Greybeard
Capcha it.
I'm willing to bet that there are catpcha bots that have a higher chance of giving the right answer than I do.
àso, yeahà
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Kacer Xenro
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:34:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Kacer Xenro on 21/06/2010 20:35:04
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
best idea in a while tbh, it would also stop some of the suicide gankers, the miners are gonna love this one
|
Belid Hagen
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:57:00 -
[45]
how long will miners get shafted? for as long as you mine..
welcome to EVE online, a pvp game.
|
northwesten
Amarr
Trinity Corporate Services
Novus Ordo Mundi
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 21:11:00 -
[46]
Originally by: 000Hunter000
When i started playing, the best miningship was a battleship followed by the Osprey... There were only regular type ores (no rich plags or massive scords or any of that nonsense.)
Now lets move forward in time!
We now have T2 barges, orca's and rorquals, mining implants and skills and all sorts of new mods...
Saying ccp has done nothing for miners is... well... not true!
Only point u have is the macro/sweatshopmining thing... but finding an answer for that seems to be as illusive as finding a solution for world peace
Well said and I don't see the problem with mining. I been doing it here and there since 2004. I guess people really want the easy game like WoW.
I think people need to STFU when it doesn't need fixing.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 22:19:00 -
[47]
Heheheheheh.... shaft!
----
I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Zeet A'Dron
New Artisian and Mercenary Association
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 13:40:00 -
[48]
Originally by: northwesten
Well said and I don't see the problem with mining. I been doing it here and there since 2004. I guess people really want the easy game like WoW.
I think people need to STFU when it doesn't need fixing.
I was wondering how long it would take for trolls to play the 'you want wow' card.
Anyone with any common sense whatsoever, any inkling of cognitive thinking, can see that many other facets of the game have seen improvements while this one has seen nominal improvements and mining could stand some.
The whole production industry relies on macro miners keeping the price down.
Some of us are brainstorming some ideas that would change the current icon wars style mining to something a bit more entertaining while at the same time thwarting macro miners. I'm not entirely sure what World of Warcraft has to do with it unless you're just trying to be a ****y troll.
|
Scout Ops
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 13:59:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
woah sir, now these are good ideas
+1
|
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 13:59:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Widemouth Deepthroat on 22/06/2010 13:59:19
I'd rather mining just got nerfed into oblivion and we can abandon it to afk macroers (good idea would be make high sec roid give scrap metal instead of ore).
|
|
|
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 15:14:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Exploding Tukey
This is stupid, the servers have enough to try to process, and when you have to take collision detection of asteroids into question... well we are stuck with another blob issue.
not like this really helps macro miners, set asteroid on follow, turn on small shield rep, and set all ships/tractor ships to follow that asteroid. switch asteroid once one is depleted.
this also make hiding in asteroid fields harder when being chased, as well as making mining, a basic profession require a few mil SP before it can even be tries, requiring a complete rewrite of the tutorial, forcing players to go into the pve path before they can even get to mining.
I am assuming this is in regards to my post above.
1: Asteroids already have a collision sphere, it just currently does not trigger damage on a ship if you make contact with it. Collision spheres on many asteroids (and structures) already need to be fine tuned.
2: Keep in mind that certain asteroids already do a burst of damage to ships periodically, it is simply done as AOE damage similar to a bomb. The difference would only be what game event (collision) triggers the damage, and the damage would be focussed on a single target instead of an area.
3: If the coding were done to allow the collision sphere to trigger damage, the only thing that would generate significantly more calculations for the server would be the asteroid movement calculations. In effect asteroids would move in a manner similar to how NPC's move now, except they would move slower than NPC's and be restricted to either linear movement (drift across system movement) or orbital (smaller asteroids would orbit the larger asteroids, just as Concord/Faction vessels orbit stargates now). Another similarity would be the behavior of drones orbiting a ship now.
4: If you wish to free up some system resources to deal with it, eliminate the NPC convoys that undock from stations now (although I'd really like to see something more interesting done with those eventually).
5: I wouldn't mind them being treated like anoms are now, with a set number allowed per system. One must be mined out completely before another will spawn... but once that happens a new one spawns immediately.
The honest truth is that there may be factors in the game code concerning asteroids that will not allow them to be treated in this fashion. But with CCP's stated future emphasis on revisiting existing game mechanics/code and revamping them, mining would seem to be a prime candidate. I think we can all agree that the basic code for mining is one of the oldest components in the game, and one that is in the most need of being redone from the ground up.
This would provide the mini-game many miners have asked for, an element of danger, the necessity for new PVE tactics to be developed, adds a whole new dimension to PVP activity in one of these belts, and makes it much more difficult for simple macro's to operate effectively (by requiring you to "think" about what you are doing to be sucessful in the long run).
System wide asteroid belts have already been discussed as a possibility, but that has issues with making macroing even easier to do.
Comet mining has also already been discussed as a possibility, and this mechanic would be very similar in concept... so apparently it can be done. With comets however I think the speeds involved would be quite a bit higher, countered by the fact there would be fewer things in the vicinity to blow up on.
Anyway, as a concept I think/hope it has merit.
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 15:17:00 -
[52]
did someone say miners?
|
Decimus Octavius
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 15:19:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Decimus Octavius on 22/06/2010 15:21:41
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
lol sorry but these suggestions are seriously lame and i wonder if you actually mine at all. Seems like your way to fix mining is to just make it really tedious and painful rather than boring. Anyway i cbf pulling ur suggestions to bits so ill just pick on the one you marked as IMPORTANT:
Quote:
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
Yes my 100mn mwd stabber would have a riot bumping barges into asteroids n watch them explode. Im sure the miners would love it to.
|
Planktal Vyurr
Gallente
Kenshao Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 15:21:00 -
[54]
Everything I have read here is interesting and all but your missing the big point. Everyone is looking at the supply side of things. What about the demand?
Maybe, oh I don't know, CCP on a random DT have CONCORD take a break for the day but don't tell anyone. I'm sure the amount of ship loss would have demand go up for minerals to replace them.
Course, it's only an idea...
|
Aran Proximus
Fleetworks
Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 15:28:00 -
[55]
I believe the next T3 Discovery should go to the Exhumer Community.
Anyone have any ideas for sub systems other than seriously expanded cargoholds and 6 more mining lazers :)
Fleetworks Promo Video |
Ranger 1
Amarr
Dynaverse Corporation
Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 16:37:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Decimus Octavius
Edited by: Decimus Octavius on 22/06/2010 15:21:41
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
lol sorry but these suggestions are seriously lame and i wonder if you actually mine at all. Seems like your way to fix mining is to just make it really tedious and painful rather than boring. Anyway i cbf pulling ur suggestions to bits so ill just pick on the one you marked as IMPORTANT:
Quote:
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
Yes my 100mn mwd stabber would have a riot bumping barges into asteroids n watch them explode. Im sure the miners would love it to.
Good luck with that in a ship that takes 20km for the slightest course correction. 
Impracticality of your 100mn MWD on a cruiser example aside, bumping would be an issue that would need to be looked at closely.
It should actually be a possibility to do what you describe, however:
1: Bump mechanic changes now make it much more difficult to bump a heavier ship any significant distance or at a high velocity (not impossible however). Larger vessels like Orca's may need to be tweaked further.
2: Mining vessel would probably want to stay in motion (orbit with occasional course corrections to avoid asteroids that cross their path). This makes it much more difficult to hit them squarely. Larger vessels like Orca's should be kept at some range from the belt anyway.
3: If the ramming vessel misses, they are very much at risk of destroying themselves for no gain as their velocity is much higher than the mining vessels would be. I would be highly amused to see a nanophoon (or better yet, a Mach) miss their bump and destroy themselves on an asteroid. 
=====
If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Zeet A'Dron
New Artisian and Mercenary Association
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 17:12:00 -
[57]
one of the things I noticed with my mining alts these days vs the old days is how much less I'm using jet cans. I think steps further in that direction would be cool.
Cargo rigs and the ability to store the ore being mined are steps forward. Perhaps we need large giant secure anchorables or perhaps mobile platforms.
some interesting ideas in this thread. I for one fancy the idea of being able to come into orbit around a giant planet sized rock just to be able to mine the solid trit core, or the spots of sweet stuff---- as the rock barrels towards the sun over a 2-3 day period.
|
price checkinho
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 19:07:00 -
[58]
i thought this was going to be a whine thread about ore price. they tried to fix the ore prices but failed hard.
Which means my orca pilot is going to be a waste of several months time and half a bil isk, or rather not a waste, but a ****ty investment.
Anyway, Thats my opinion, make it worthwhile to be a miner and then add some bling. or just fix it.
most likely they'll not fix it, add some bling after its permabroken, and say they fixed it.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 19:34:00 -
[59]
Originally by: price checkinho
i thought this was going to be a whine thread about ore price. they tried to fix the ore prices but failed hard.
They are fixed ù but "fixed" does not mean "more income for miners".
Quote:
Which means my orca pilot is going to be a waste of several months time and half a bil isk, or rather not a waste, but a ****ty investment.
Oh I don't know. You still get the best anti-gank transport in the game.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Celestine Santora
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 19:53:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 21/06/2010 16:17:29
I know a lot of people like to zone out while mining, but honestly that may have to go if we are ever going to see an end to massive macro mining gangs.
The following should be considered for a mining revamp.
1: All belts should have to be scanned out.
2: Asteroids should not be easily identifiable on the overview. They should have to be survey scanned to determine their exact type or visually identifiable as to what general type they are.
3: Asteroid belts should drift at a slow but contant speed (some faster than others), perhaps orbiting around a central large asteroid. Ships should have to follow/change position to stay within mining range. The enhanced range of tractor beams becomes more important on certain vessels.
4: Mining lasers with the highest yield should have the shortest range.
5: Important: Collision with an asteroid should cause serious damage to a ship, depending on the size of the asteroid and the ship. Ship destruction should be a distint possibility if the pilot is not paying enough attention to keep his ship out of the path of slowly drifting asteriods.
6: Drifting/orbiting asteroids should occasionally collide, changing their path. Perhaps even flying away from the belt and dissappearing when they finally get off grid.
These steps should complicate matters for macro miners as well as make mining a moderately challenging mini-game. (Yes, there is a resemblance to the classic "Asteroids" game.) However, it would not be a recommended occupation for the "watch vid's on the second monitor" crowd.
I like all of these ideas except 5. Collision mechanics are so laughably bad in EVE that the last thing I would like to see is the ability for my ship to die based on what the EVE server thinks is me hitting something.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |