EVE Search - New Mining Mechanics: Multi Ore, Multi Methods

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

New Mining Mechanics: Multi Ore, Multi Methods

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 300	Posted - 2014.05.19 09:41:00 - [61] - Quote I do not mine, but my understanding is that current mining mechanics strongly encourage AFK gameplay. There is currently no good reason I know of to stay ATK just to watch your mining equipment cycle, except watching out for the occasional ganker. But even then, at least in highsec, tanking your mining ship and maybe mining in a group and taking turns keeping an eye on local is probably more than enough to avoid 99.9% of ganks. Don't get me wrong - I believe that anybody can play AFK or semi-AFK if they want to, but a game that encourages AFK gameplay is not a good game imo. One could argue it's not even an actual game! The two Top Carebear Reasons to Whine are arguably 1) cloaky campers in null 2) non-consensual wardecs in highsec. And the main reason people get upset about those two things is that they disrupt their AFK gameplay. Problem is, CCP on one hand encourage AFK gameplay, especially AFK mining, while on the other hand they include game mechanics that occasionally dirsupt it. WTF? No wonder people get confused! So +1 from me, OP, great idea.
Sorana Bonzari Paradox Collective Choke Point 6	Posted - 2014.05.19 17:46:00 - [62] - Quote The ONLY reason to actively mine is when you are managing multiple accounts. Even then (by true definition) you are afk mining on each charter for a short period of time before cycling to the next toon. This is heavy utilized throughout eve and accounts for a lot of ore. When balancing the amount of ore mined while active the inability to multi box needs to be considered. I honestly hope this idea gets to eve because busting roids has needed an overhaul for a long time. I personally believe the yield for AFK mining should stay the same and this mechanic should be implemented to gain higher yields, not to lower AFK yields for the multiboxers.
Abrazzar Vardaugas Family 3457	Posted - 2014.05.19 18:13:00 - [63] - Quote When one part gets boosted, another part needs to get nerfed to maintain balance. So AFK gets nerfed and ATK gets boosted. Personally I think multiboxing shouldn't even be considered when doing game design. Actually multi-player gaming should be considered. Multiboxers just have to deal with it and adapt. They're a emergent gameplay that was never part of EVE game design to begin with. The more multiboxers get exchanged by groups of real players, the better for EVE. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics
Sorana Bonzari Paradox Collective Choke Point 7	Posted - 2014.05.19 19:03:00 - [64] - Quote Abrazzar wrote: Personally I think multiboxing shouldn't even be considered when doing game design. Actually multi-player gaming should be considered. Multiboxers just have to deal with it and adapt. They're a emergent gameplay that was never part of EVE game design to begin with. The more multiboxers get exchanged by groups of real players, the better for EVE. Regardless of mine or your personal thoughts CCP will have to approach that balance with an analytical approach to balance the market. Multiboxing COULD be and I believe is a large part of ore obtainment. In this case it needs to be considered to balance the market and will NEED to be balanced regardless of personal feelings. I just wanted to get this aspect out these in case this idea is seriously considered.
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 143	Posted - 2014.05.19 20:51:00 - [65] - Quote Sorana Bonzari wrote: Abrazzar wrote: Personally I think multiboxing shouldn't even be considered when doing game design. Actually multi-player gaming should be considered. Multiboxers just have to deal with it and adapt. They're a emergent gameplay that was never part of EVE game design to begin with. The more multiboxers get exchanged by groups of real players, the better for EVE. Regardless of mine or your personal thoughts CCP will have to approach that balance with an analytical approach to balance the market. Multiboxing COULD be and I believe is a large part of ore obtainment. In this case it needs to be considered to balance the market and will NEED to be balanced regardless of personal feelings. I just wanted to get this aspect out these in case this idea is seriously considered. I agree that it would be bad to nerf afk mining too much, but in my ideal world it would be at least a little worse than it is current. I would want to a system where, in order from least to greatest, mining in the most rewarding: Mining in Hisec while in a NPC corp, mining in Hisec while in a player corp, mining in Losec, mining in Nullsec, mining in W-Space.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 300	Posted - 2014.05.19 20:54:00 - [66] - Quote Sorana Bonzari wrote: Abrazzar wrote: Personally I think multiboxing shouldn't even be considered when doing game design. Actually multi-player gaming should be considered. Multiboxers just have to deal with it and adapt. They're a emergent gameplay that was never part of EVE game design to begin with. The more multiboxers get exchanged by groups of real players, the better for EVE. Regardless of mine or your personal thoughts CCP will have to approach that balance with an analytical approach to balance the market. Multiboxing COULD be and I believe is a large part of ore obtainment. In this case it needs to be considered to balance the market and will NEED to be balanced regardless of personal feelings. I just wanted to get this aspect out these in case this idea is seriously considered. Yup, this makes perfect sense. Balancing the market could well mean rewarding single-box atk mining even more, which would be great imo.
Sorana Bonzari Paradox Collective Choke Point 9	Posted - 2014.05.19 20:59:00 - [67] - Quote Xavier Thorm wrote: I agree that it would be bad to nerf afk mining too much, but in my ideal world it would be at least a little worse than it is current. I would want to a system where, in order from least to greatest, mining in the most rewarding: Mining in Hisec while in a NPC corp, mining in Hisec while in a player corp, mining in Losec, mining in Nullsec, mining in W-Space. I'm not targeting or nit picking you but I would like to ask why you believe W-Space should yield more then 0.0 or lowsec. W-Space yes is "Scary" but overall maybe less risk of loss then lowsec or a known 0.0 with good ore.
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 143	Posted - 2014.05.20 02:26:00 - [68] - Quote Sorana Bonzari wrote: Xavier Thorm wrote: I agree that it would be bad to nerf afk mining too much, but in my ideal world it would be at least a little worse than it is current. I would want to a system where, in order from least to greatest, mining in the most rewarding: Mining in Hisec while in a NPC corp, mining in Hisec while in a player corp, mining in Losec, mining in Nullsec, mining in W-Space. I'm not targeting or nit picking you but I would like to ask why you believe W-Space should yield more then 0.0 or lowsec. W-Space yes is "Scary" but overall maybe less risk of loss then lowsec or a known 0.0 with good ore. I'll admit that a I have very little practical knowledge of wormholes. My belief that they should have the highest reward for mining is based on my understanding is that they have the highest rewards for other activities (at least C6) and no one seems to think this is poor balance.
Markus45 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 11	Posted - 2014.05.20 04:24:00 - [69] - Quote In terms of prospecting for ores it could be neat if the asteroids spawned dynamically in a massive area that is more than just a few grids in size, but perhaps dozens. This idea will involve tons of recoding, especially to the warp mechanics, so may not be practical. The anomaly would be scanned down in space, but your probes can only get a lock on one of a few warp-in points. From there you must venture using sub-warp propulsion, but you can warp to fleet members or bookmarks within the anomaly once you are actually in it. This will encourage team work as well as roles in a mining fleet. You have the prospector with his skills in the best and quickest prospecting ships. He heads out at blazing speeds of 20 km/s+ (links and imps of course), survey scanners in hand, in search of an asteroid site. There are patches of gas to indicate you are still in the grid; no gas, you've left the site. Once he's found a site the mining fleet warps to him and begins to chuck away as per the OP. Now let's imagine this in nullsec. Finally mining fleets are able to warp freighters, even Rorquals to these mining sites. When the coast is clear they warp the ships to the anomaly warp-in, and quickly warp to the fleet member who's prospected the site thousands of km away. Scouts can stay at the warp-ins in order to scout out any hostiles, giving the mining fleet enough time to move out. Some may wonder, "how can a hostile fleet actually have a chance then?". By having gotten to the site first and made their own bookmark. By having a cloaky scout waiting for a mining fleet to take the bite. If they are very patient, by warping in a scout cloaked and slow boating him around until a site is found. In these scenarios they can then jump into system, immediately warp some interceptors to the warp-in, immediately warp them to the bookmark/scout, and catch the larger ships before they have time to align out (i.e. the ones who don't know how to web-warp). Would love to see some exploration combined with mining, considering exploration died after the release of Odyssey. Children's books in my day. Children's books today.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1398	Posted - 2014.05.20 07:04:00 - [70] - Quote This is a really great idea to change mining into an engaging activity for those who want it to be. I especially like how Ventures will become more useful as they can take the extra time to hunt for veins and ultimately squeeze a lot more value into a single ore hold full of stuff. Some thoughts: * could have an option to command mining lasers to go into "strip mining mode" in which they would automatically scan across the asteroid and pick up ore in a pattern that eventually moves across the whole surface and then starts over * Just as there should be tech II non-modulated miners, there should be modulated and deep core miners that are tech I. This is especially important for newer players who will be flying a Venture and will have the most energy to devote to mining and will be the most willing to hunt specific ore types or veins to fill up their meager ore hold * perhaps instead of modulated variants, the mining laser would simply function in basic mode if it had no crystals, but you can put crystals on it to specialize. So all mining lasers would accept crystals. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!

Ray Kyonhe Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance 15	Posted - 2014.05.20 07:29:00 - [71] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: I do not mine, but my understanding is that current mining mechanics strongly encourage AFK gameplay. Don't get me wrong - I believe that anybody can play AFK or semi-AFK if they want to, but a game that encourages AFK gameplay is not a good game imo. One could argue it's not even an actual game! I should mildly disagree, though. Untill there is a method to somehow grant really exciting and thoughtfull gameplay to the mining, it should allow for AFK approach. But at the same type it should generously reward those selected ones who are still willing to make it manually. This is goal I think any proposal in this field should address. And to achieve this goal you have to include some strong, well thought anti-script/bot system in any new concept. For example, topic starter's idea of placing heads "like in PI" are pretty easy scriptable one and only will lead to bots' sofistication after which it will become ubiquitously abused and prices will just get balanced after some time resulting in small difference from what we have now. I don't even think some generic minigame would be enough.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1402	Posted - 2014.05.20 07:37:00 - [72] - Quote So, Ray, sounds like you are in full support of the OP. Right? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Ray Kyonhe Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.05.20 07:41:00 - [73] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: So, Ray, sounds like you are in full support of the OP. Right? Yes, what he proposes won't distrurb current state of affairs too much (as gathering ores are currently mostly facilitated by different kinds of automation), but it still leave the space and gives incentive for those who are willing do it manually. Of course, if there will be a method to secure this new mechanics against automation, too.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1402	Posted - 2014.05.20 07:46:00 - [74] - Quote With Abrazzar's suggestion, players can choose to mine AFK but will get better yield if they are present and playing actively. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Ray Kyonhe Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.05.20 07:55:00 - [75] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: With Abrazzar's suggestion, players can choose to mine AFK but will get better yield if they are present and playing actively. Yes, it is. But what concerns me more is devious minds of bots' authors. In case of mining, we are talking about AFK activity able to grant incomes measured in tens and even hundreds of billions (if you are botting in some secured null environment), it's a very strong incentive to them, very profitable in terms of real money. And if they'll manage to automate this new mechanics, I'm afraid all the benefits for "manual miners" will be lost soon. Well, at least in highsecs )
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1402	Posted - 2014.05.20 08:09:00 - [76] - Quote They only automate mining for bots so well because it's simple enough for bots to do it yet tedious enough to turn players away from it. Players with subscribed accounts don't want to waste time mining when they could be playing. Botters, on the other hand, make fresh accounts to do all the work. The current mining system is more conducive to botting than any other profession in EVE and even moreso than any profession in most other MMOs. But Abrazzar's suggestion would give players a strong advantage over bots. Sure, there would still be bot-mining but there is no doubt that the profitability of active mining would be much higher than it is now, and only at the expense of those bots. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 486	Posted - 2014.05.20 08:59:00 - [77] - Quote I find myself agreeing that the bot miners will find a way to exploit any minigame mechanism put in place and any captcha style mechanism would just be mindnumbingly annoying. I don't actually see the issue with afk miners. So what if they are? they are presenting a target to those who choose to gank and are participating in the risk/reward dynamis that is always used as the measure in Eve (not entirely correctly in my view). They risk loss of ship and gain rewards in return, surely that is risk/reward in its purest form.
Ray Kyonhe Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.05.20 09:00:00 - [78] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: They only automate mining for bots so well because it's simple enough for bots to do it yet tedious enough to turn players away from it. Simplicity is not an obstacle as long as it can be countered by high reward for bot author in the case of success. I've seen some attempts to create a bot for relic exploration (at least for solving minigames), for example, which seems pretty hard to automate from first glance. We should come up with all possible safeguards to this threat on the planning stage.
Abrazzar Vardaugas Family 3476	Posted - 2014.05.20 12:18:00 - [79] - Quote The real problem with bots is that any interface that can be navigated by a player can be handled by a bot. There are not only mining bots but ratting bots, mission bots, you name it, there's probably a bot for it. So the solution to bots is: Leave it to CCP and their bot hunting tools to deal with bots and ignore them from a game design perspective because whatever you come up with it will be handled by a bot. Focus on the players and player entertainment/involvement when designing features. Bots don't play the game. They're not even people. **** them. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics
Jessica Danikov Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 340	Posted - 2014.05.20 12:37:00 - [80] - Quote I like the core, fundamental idea that mining can be more rewarding to those that use an interactive form of mining over those that semi-AFK with the mining laser on. The details of achieving that are more fuzzy. Also, Nevyn is totally right about the downtime-orientated respawn mechanic of ore is anti-competitive against certain timezones and immersion-breaking.

Anthar Thebess 423	Posted - 2014.05.20 12:50:00 - [81] - Quote Think about adding also this : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345488 Summer: Moon Mining Changes
Abrazzar Vardaugas Family 3477	Posted - 2014.05.20 13:02:00 - [82] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Think about adding also this : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345488 Adding moon or PI materials into asteroid mining would require a bit more work on the respective moon mining and PI areas for balancing reasons. Also they would need to be filtered with scanning equipment to avoid senseless clutter on the asteroids. Maybe put them in specific types of asteroids and require different mining and scanning equipment. Of course it could be done, though I'd go one step at a time. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics
Ray Kyonhe Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.05.20 13:05:00 - [83] - Quote Abrazzar wrote: Focus on the players and player entertainment/involvement when designing features. Bots don't play the game. They're not even people. ** them. They don't play, it's true. But at the core of original proposal lies the reward. We grant those who wishes to do it manually some reward in exchange. If somehow this activity will be automated, it would be heavily exploited to maximize profit, and in no time market mechanics will cut the prices to the point when reward for manual mining becomes as neglectable as it is now. It is a problem, and it's not completely true that such problems should be only adressed with purely administrative measures. Those measures alone are ineffective. They must be accompanied by good mechanics designed to create environment where it will be hard to automate it fully and will requre much more effort to properly secure some location before you can even try to (like those ratting bots, for example; you have to secure ground of nullsecs for them; and even in highs they work so good just because PvE mechanics is an old linear crap; there isn't a PvP bots**, you know, it's almost impossible to automate fully). Thats why I think some additional effort in this field needed on the pure concept stage. 3D model of asteroid which you have to rotate and evaluate destributions of ore is good, indeed. Maybe there are some other features that we can come up with, that will both enrich expirience and will give some hard time to bots' writers?
Sorana Bonzari Paradox Collective Choke Point 9	Posted - 2014.05.20 15:00:00 - [84] - Quote Bots will always exist its apart of and MMO. We shouldn't restrict a players experience based on an anti-bot mentality. You are basically saying we want to forfeit good mechanics for anti-cheat. Mining does need to go active to make it more fun and dynamic. Solo mining needs to be more lucrative for players, but not so much to discourage the need to make friends and relationships in eve.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 1404	Posted - 2014.05.21 02:22:00 - [85] - Quote Ray Kyonhe wrote: If somehow this activity will be automated, it would be heavily exploited to maximize profit, and in no time market mechanics will cut the prices to the point when reward for manual mining becomes as neglectable as it is now. No, you're completely wrong. Encouraging active gameplay always works to the overwhelming advantage of players over bots. I don't know how this is difficult for you to understand, but just accept it from the statistics. Botted activities aren't always the simpliest, but the complex activities that are botted are botted poorly and sporadically, and players consistently do better in those arenas than the bots do. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Ray Kyonhe Ray's Relentless Research Special Circumstances Alliance 17	Posted - 2014.05.21 08:23:00 - [86] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: No, you're completely wrong. Encouraging active gameplay always works to the overwhelming advantage of players over bots. I don't know how this is difficult for you to understand, but just accept it from the statistics. Botted activities aren't always the simpliest, but the complex activities that are botted are botted poorly and sporadically, and players consistently do better in those arenas than the bots do. You are just repeating my words. What I was saying is just we should make this mechanics as active and complex to scripting as we can while it on stage of pure concept. The more complex, the better (but no to the point where it will place too much burden on a human player)
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 487	Posted - 2014.05.21 08:30:00 - [87] - Quote Unfortunately anything that you do to dissuade botting will make the process of mining sheer hell. It may be more involved to have a PI extractor head like interface but bear in mind most PI folks change their extraction positions daily at most as it is tedious. Imagine having to do this for each and every asteroid. Mining is fine as is I think, leave anti-botting activities to CCP and not the game-design department.
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 143	Posted - 2014.05.21 16:14:00 - [88] - Quote Sorana Bonzari wrote: Bots will always exist its apart of and MMO. We shouldn't restrict a players experience based on an anti-bot mentality. You are basically saying we want to forfeit good mechanics for anti-cheat. Mining does need to go active to make it more fun and dynamic. Solo mining needs to be more lucrative for players, but not so much to discourage the need to make friends and relationships in eve. You know, I was going to say something along the lines of "But if we pretend bots don't exist a change that seems like a good idea could end up wrecking some part of the game/economy because bots" but nevermind. I think you're right, and I think my mentality was leaning a little toward cart-before-the-horse.
Sorana Bonzari Paradox Collective Choke Point 9	Posted - 2014.05.21 17:42:00 - [89] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Unfortunately anything that you do to dissuade botting will make the process of mining sheer hell. It may be more involved to have a PI extractor head like interface but bear in mind most PI folks change their extraction positions daily at most as it is tedious. Imagine having to do this for each and every asteroid. Mining is fine as is I think, leave anti-botting activities to CCP and not the game-design department. Yes and No. PI is tedious and maybe needs improvements to become less of a chore but as with anything Im sure with a few key tweaks PI could be easy and fun but that's for a different topic Mining needs to be fun because its such a huge part of the game that had its dedicated class of ships to prove it. In this respect this is the fundamental difference between mining and PI, mining/ industry is supposed to be a long term career choice in eve PI..kinda maybe..not really .. Please correct me if I'm wrong but because of this fundamental difference and mining needs to have an enjoyable aspect to it other then turn on the strip miners and play a few rounds of CSGO or watch TV because it is a carrier path not a side job that any player can be good at without a large SP investment.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 488	Posted - 2014.05.21 18:07:00 - [90] - Quote I can't see anything that you can change to make mining fun that won't just kill the profession for the casual player which is frankly who I believe it is intended for. PI can be highly lucrative if you produce the right goods...I like making control towers as a hobby :)



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.