| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Taisuke Black
   |
Posted - 2011.01.22 00:35:00 -
[1]
Mining is a pretty hot topic, considering how simple and boring it looks to the majority of Eve. I think the system could benefit from some small but powerful tweaks.
CCP has tried to keep mining on the same risk-to-reward scale as everything else in Eve: you stay in Hi-sec, you get to sc**** up Veldspar pebbles. You go to some rare, remote places in nullsec, you're chewing on juicy ABC ores. You go to lowsec, you're either a ninja or you have a heavy escort to keep pirates from chewing on YOU. If you see where I'm going with this...nobody mines in lowsec.
At the same time, macro miners are a problem. Some people believe mining shouldn't happen at all, but I say if a person is willing to sit around at a belt for hours on end, he should get MORE money than a person warping about, killing NPC's and salvaging wrecks. Macro miners depress the mineral market and take a lot of the profit away from people who actually put thought into their mining ops. The only thing more annoying than sitting around mining is sitting around in a PVP ship protecting miners.
I have a proposal that could change all that: a new type of special belt rat. These rats would be completely separate from the current system of belt rats and take a different form in different security areas.
When a player mines from a belt, it activates the spawn trigger for "adaptive" rats (as I'm calling them for simplicity). As long as he continues mining, there is a small chance to get an adaptive spawn. This spawn is completely separate from the regular belt spawn, and they do not interact which means it is possible for both spawns to show up at the same time. In hi-sec the spawn would be 1 frigate, maybe 2-3 in .6-.7 space. This frigate announces itself to the player but does nothing. 30 seconds after its arrival the frigate will orbit and warp scramble the mining ship. If the player warps out before it attacks, the frigate will warp off and he can return and resume mining. This will function as a counter to macro miners, plus encourage humans to have friends nearby to assist in case they weren't paying attention.
In lowsec and nullsec, however, the spawns will be much more powerful. They will still come with a 30-second delay and warp-off if the belt becomes empty, so they don't pose a much greater effect to afk miners and bots than to humans. However, these spawns include battleships with the same level of bounty as truesec rats (600k-1.5 million ISK each).
What this will mean:
-macro miners have a much harder time exploiting the system.
-lowsec and nullsec mining operations need escorts already. With this, the escorts don't come away from their job with empty pockets.
-a belt with a miner in it PRODUCES MORE RATTING INCOME than otherwise, creating a powerful synergistic effect between belt ratters and miners. You get a sort of "bonus income" when your alliance diversifies its operations.
Finally, the rats should be exactly the same for nullsec and lowsec. Lowsec is every bit as dangerous as 0.0 space, and most players agree it needs new sources of income. When I first started playing Eve the idea of a mining expedition, deep into uncharted space with a team of 20-some miners and escorts sounded amazingly cool. I have since learned that it doesn't work that way, but I think that it should.
---
A second, related proposal I have is to modify the Rorqual. I believe it should have a significantly reduced volume and mass to allow better access to wormholes, as well as the ability to deploy and pack-up faster. Having a Rorqual deployed ON THE GRID with your mining operation should provide bonuses unlike anything we have today. I mean like 30%. There should be Rorquals getting hotdropped and killed in nullsec, and the owners are willing to field another one
---
If you have any more ideas or changes to suggest, please do. I want to tune this until we have a perfect idea.
To anybody who actually read this entire post, I sincerely thank you.
|
Saju Somtaaw
Department of Defence
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 02:27:00 -
[2]
I see no real issues with this, certainly better then what we have now.
---- --- ---
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 03:04:00 -
[3]
Not so sure if a single frigate will be able to interfere with hisec macroing that much really, unless it puts out a rather significant amount of damage.
And that is assuming the macro cant be easily adapted to avoid them completely.
Still, a good idea as far as lowsec goes imo, with a good spawn rate of the rats this might even make it worthwhile for organized mining ops.
|
Cassus Temon
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 03:19:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Cassus Temon on 22/01/2011 03:20:23
This I think I would support. Compared to the last proposal I read; it's absolutely golden, and all covered in honey. Can't even think of a way to improve upon it; or work in some sort of balance right now. That's how bad the last one was
It needs polish, and it need's balance; but it's probably the best idea yet.
/supported
edit:
Forgot about the Rorqual bit.. not sure thats a good idea.
|
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 04:45:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Bunyip on 22/01/2011 04:45:28
The main problem I see with this is that macros would be programmed to detect said communication from the rat, and immediately warp off, only to return and continue. Macros are pretty advanced (some can even do scanning, from what I've heard).
I think there should be normal NPC frigates with scrams, and if they're not killed within 1 minute (an easy task for a person at the keyboard), they call in significant reinforcements, including maybe a commander rat. This would make it easy to take them out before the onslaught begins, and would work the same way as your current proposal for low-sec.
The Rorq idea I'm also unsure about, but for now, I would like them to do something with mining and low-sec, so I'll support this proposal.
========
"The civilized man is rude, for he knows that laws protect him from recompense; whereas the savage is not, for his actions can meet a bloody end." - Robert E. Howard |
Gallians
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 05:30:00 -
[6]
Excellent idea.
And by the way, I think you are forgetting just how annoying these sigs are. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 10:35:00 -
[7]
The main consequence of this is that bot creators would spend five minutes writing a new bit of code that says 'if scrambled by NPC, pull in mining drones, pop out combat drones, kill NPC, return to mining' and then make even more cash as macro miners would have to pay out for the new updated version.
Not sure how this is good either for for CCP or the (non bot-creating) players.
-----------------
|
Severian Carnifex
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 11:06:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Scatim Helicon
The main consequence of this is that bot creators would spend five minutes writing a new bit of code that says 'if scrambled by NPC, pull in mining drones, pop out combat drones, kill NPC, return to mining' and then make even more cash as macro miners would have to pay out for the new updated version.
Not sure how this is good either for for CCP or the (non bot-creating) players.
so you are saying "dont do anything so that macro users dont need to buy new macro programs"??? :/
|
Taisuke Black
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:06:00 -
[9]
(Supporting my own Proposal)
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
The main consequence of this is that bot creators would spend five minutes writing a new bit of code that says 'if scrambled by NPC, pull in mining drones, pop out combat drones, kill NPC, return to mining' and then make even more cash as macro miners would have to pay out for the new updated version.
Not sure how this is good either for for CCP or the (non bot-creating) players.
You have a point, I'm starting to realize that bot creators could adapt to just about anything and my idea won't solve the problem permanently. However, making bot programs for Eve is currently very easy to do and I think a feature like this would still have an impact. It would completely knock out bot mining for a short time, until new macros can be written, and that should be enough for players to take back some ground.
Regarding the Rorqual, maybe a straight mining bonus would be problematic. What if a few of the ores were made slower to mine, and the Rorqual got bonuses to bring those ores back to normal mining rates?
---
Even if you disagree with an idea, please give your support if you think this thread is at least going in the right direction. I'm willing to keep changing my ideas until I FIND the correct answer, but getting CCP's attention is a bit harder. In order to get the CSM to recognize these concerns, I want to have as close to 100% approval as possible.
|
Dirk Decibel
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:31:00 -
[10]
Supported. CCP said they would do something about mining years ago. Still haven't though... Unless they consider the Orca 'doing something about mining'.
|
DeftCrow Redriver
Best Path Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 17:50:00 -
[11]
The Rorqual bit is tricky, but I like the idea of adaptive belt rats.
I suggest shortening the attack timer according to security status; base announcement delay would be 30 seconds, and for every 0.1 sec level lowered the delay will decrease by 3 seconds. Installing Sleeper AI into those rats may also be nice.
|
wr3cks
Reliables Inc
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:14:00 -
[12]
I support the idea of doing something.
The goon is right that bot programs will take like 30 seconds to adjust.
Plus, I have to wonder if the OP has ever even mined in nullsec, because any hulk out there is going to be set up to permatank double or triple BS spawns -- you'd need more than 1 BS to pop in to cause problems.
Rorqs already provide monster bonuses. I do support requiring them to be on grid to provide the boni. Seems to me this should be the case for all gang links; pretty dumb having unprobeable lokis boosting a gang on the other side of a system...
Anyways, there have to be 50+ fix mining threads over the past... 5 years? since it was created and has basically been unchanged. If CCP gave a ****, they'd go thru them and brainstorm and workshop the ideas into something good. But, they're tired of this game and more interested in WoD and Dust.
So it goes.
|
Lars Konrad
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:27:00 -
[13]
I like the "adaptive" belt rat idea.
Even putting the bot part of the issue aside, it adds an interesting dynamic to the game. Double points because it's added to a mind-crushingly dull (but necessary) part of the game.
|
Avlec Starshine
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:59:00 -
[14]
im in on this !
and i would like to extend it to include WH-Space making it a good idea to have guards on hand for those too
|
rock crawlermne
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 02:03:00 -
[15]
Edited by: rock crawlermne on 23/01/2011 02:04:20
Not bad, overall a good idea.
the only problem i have with adaptive rats would be newbies. a couple week old character mining in a frig would have some issues with rats.
other then that, i love the idea of actually being able to pull off a low sec mining op.
i think if you where to take your idea...and merge it with my idea the mining problem could be fixed. for the sake of gratuity here's a link to my idea.
|
CarnegieSteel
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 08:09:00 -
[16]
This would do nothing to combat macro mining.
If the adaptive spawns were worth enough, they would just add a macroed drake to kill them. If they werent, they would just be programmed to warp off when they spawned and return later.
Worse case, they just refit the macro-hulks to tank the spawns. |
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 09:11:00 -
[17]
Having bots scramed, even if for a small time, increases the chance for them to be caught by roaming gangs. Supported.
Ofc they could fit WCS, but at the expense of mining upgrades, so it would still hurt botters bottom line. |
Elanor Vega
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 20:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Aineko Macx
Having bots scramed, even if for a small time, increases the chance for them to be caught by roaming gangs. Supported.
Ofc they could fit WCS, but at the expense of mining upgrades, so it would still hurt botters bottom line.
+1
scrams and faster, stronger NPCs must be a part of the solution...
if nothing it will make them to loose some mining upgrades...
|
Kwashi
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 08:30:00 -
[19]
IMO the way to make mining less boring and simultaneously remove mining bots would be to make mining into a minigame. E.g., you must solve Tetris blocks or something which represent your ore processor machinery, in realtime, to get any ore while your laser is on.
|
NinjaSpud
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 14:59:00 -
[20]
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 24/01/2011 15:01:10
Originally by: CarnegieSteel
This would do nothing to combat macro mining.
If the adaptive spawns were worth enough, they would just add a macroed drake to kill them. If they werent, they would just be programmed to warp off when they spawned and return later.
Worse case, they just refit the macro-hulks to tank the spawns.
I disagree slightly, it may not stop the macroers but it will help to combat them. Eve...or any economy for that matter is all about checks and balances. The system is simply out of ballance right now in favor of the macro. I honestly dont blame them, mining is boring. With respect to your hard core miners that can chew on a rock for 3 hours  chin up and keep hope, we're fighting for you.
To corectaly combat the social distress that is macro mining, you need to balance the system again. Right now, it's more profitable to macro mine...simply becuase you cannot mine in 3 hours what you can in 23. Change that scale, and make the new system complex and adaptive(and hopefully void of exploitation)...you not only increase player interest in 'doing it the right way', but its one step closer to decrease the value of a macro.
Having nasty spawns won't stop it...but its one gold nugget stacked back on our side of the scale.
I still give a +1 to OP
|
Herping yourDerp
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 23:20:00 -
[21]
even if it doesnt stop bots, it is a decent change
|
Ephemeron
Lubricous
Rebel Alliance of New Eden
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 23:25:00 -
[22]
I would agree that ratting in low sec - belts or plexes - are equally or more dangerous than in 0.0
Especially if you are in friendly 0.0 alliance, the danger is much less than in low sec. In 0.0, whenever a single hostile enters the region, his name is reported all over the friendly intel channels so you know what's coming for many jumps. Not to mention all the super safe JB travel.
Certainly low sec deserves same quality rats and plexes as 0.0
Or make 0.0 dangerous again, nerf JBs, nerf local chat, nerf cynos
|
Taisuke Black
|
Posted - 2011.02.02 23:32:00 -
[23]
I admit that I care more about the Lowsec/Nullsec implications more than the Highsec/macro related ones. Anybody involved with RMT (the part CCP really wants to stop) is probably in nullsec, where the money comes a lot faster and there are fewer people who would write petitions about them.
I liked an idea I saw a few weeks ago: penalizing nullsec alliances for bot miners in their space. The truth is, player organizations know about 90% of the macro mining/ratting in Eve, and simply ignore the problem or even endorse it. There should be consequences for groups that allow it to go on.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.02.03 11:36:00 -
[24]
Bots don't have a bottom line. After they've made their PLEX money, it's all gravy. You could nerf their activities very badly, but that will hurt legitimate players far more due to the fact that "real" pilots are playing for far fewer hours in the day.
A better idea for "fixing" mining and ratting bots has been suggested elsewhere :)
--
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Shobon Welp
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2011.02.03 12:50:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Shobon Welp on 03/02/2011 12:50:01
Originally by: Taisuke Black
I liked an idea I saw a few weeks ago: penalizing nullsec alliances for bot miners in their space. The truth is, player organizations know about 90% of the macro mining/ratting in Eve, and simply ignore the problem or even endorse it. There should be consequences for groups that allow it to go on.
Its CCP's job to enforce EVE's EULA, not that of alliance leaders.
|
wiersma
Caldari
Ookami no sekitsui
|
Posted - 2011.02.03 12:57:00 -
[26]
Edited by: wiersma on 03/02/2011 12:59:16
there are some downsides to this.
I dont like macro miners myself but i do like to mine while i do other things. Read news, email, surf the web etc and even play another game while i mine. Ofcourse turning the eve sound off because those mining lasers make a terrible noise.
This way i look much like a macro miner and dont get warnings (minimized window) it does take a while to fill up a hulks cargo hold so a minute will pass by easy when you are not paying atention.
if somehow this can be incorperated into the design of the "new mining idea" i love the ideas to get rid of macro miners.
================================================
Mining is the extraction of valuable minerals or other geological materials from SPACE... :-P |
Sepheir Sepheron
Between Ordeals
|
Posted - 2011.02.03 16:19:00 -
[27]
I'd rather mining have some sort of mini-game where I get to aim the laser or something...
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.03 19:59:00 -
[28]
They really need to get rid of static belts. The more analysis and critical thinking required, the less likely a macro could do it and the more engaging it will be for humans.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Henry Haphorn
Gallente
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2011.02.03 21:18:00 -
[29]
Well, I guess making mining a more interactive profession wouldn't be a bad idea to combat macros. I know, I know, I've always been a stern advocate of the "gank the living crap out of the macros" policy. But after reading so many ideas around here, I realized that maybe ganking alone won't solve the problem. Hey, I can be open minded at times.
I don't know whose idea it was (of whatever I'm about to talk about), but after seeing how planetary interaction has developed into a complex process that requires quite a bit of careful planning, adjusting, etc., perhaps CCP could adapt the same concept towards mining (well, the planning and adjusting part I mean).
Let's say that when you engage the mining lasers or strip miners, a window will pop up showing the complex process in which the mining modules are working at (depending on their tech level and type). The mining process would be represented by what looks like a series of circuit boards that need to be adjusted every 5-6 minutes for variations in the mining yields and amount. These adjustments can be anything from rerouting the pathways of the circuits for achieving optimal yield to realigning the mining crystals to ensure the yields are maxed. A graph (much like the PI survey graph) would show how your adjustments and tweets have affected the module.
This should create a big problem for macro developers as they won't know how to teach a computer to make these constant adjustments. I am willing to wager that even the best macro software will yield INaccurate results with this setup as it also requires visually clicking and aligning the circuits to achieve maximum yield. REAL miners will profit since they are human and can compensate for sudden changes while macros will suffer (yield wise) for a very long time because the computer can't compensate for the fluctuations as it doesn't know how to align the circuits every 5-6 minutes.
Of course, the time between adjustment can be debated as I know some players have multiple monitors with 3-5 Eve clients running at the same time and have to constantly switch between monitors looking at the adjustments they need to make.
What do you think?
|
gunnar aztek
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 10:36:00 -
[30]
i'll support ANYTHING that makes mining less boring!
also rorq bonuses, the tractor bonus f.ex is USELESS 99.9% of the time because they are NEVER in a belt...
--
The Resurrection: The Dead Horse pos thread Comes back to LIFE!! |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |