EVE Search - (Proposal) Replace static ore / ice belts with scanable sites

All Channels

Assembly Hall

(Proposal) Replace static ore / ice belts with scanable sites

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Voddick AFK 18	Posted - 2011.10.28 02:30:00 - [1] - Quote Issue Respawning belts just donGÇÖt make sense from a RP or anti-bot perspective. Remove them from the game and spawn random, small ice and ore Gravimetric sites instead. Criteria It is critical that these mining sites in empire be accessible from the system scanner and not probes to ensure mining remains GÇÿnew-playerGÇÖ friendly. These sites should be small enough to last 30 minutes or so (40,000 m3) in a hulk before running out of ore. Also, a site despawn time of 3 to 4 hours should be set to ensure that fresh sites are always available. Low Sec Low sec should have full access to the high end ores and ice currently found only in null sec. They should also offer increasing quantities of ore to facilitate large, group mining ops. Everyone knows that no one bothers mining in low sec because the ore value is trivial. Low sec is every bit, if not more dangerous than null sec. The rewards should reflect this. Null Sec Low and null sec mining sites should require scan probes to find to reflect their difficulty and value. Without this mechanic low sec roams would consist of jumping into a system, hitting scan and then warping in on a GÇ£helplessGÇ¥ mining op. With probes, the miners can at least have a fighting chance with the directional scan and local.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium 214	Posted - 2011.10.28 04:14:00 - [2] - Quote New players are given the Astrometrics skill, a probe launcher and a bunch of core scanner probes as part of the tutorials. There is no reason to move belts to anomalies, just go whole-hog into grav sites Moving to grav sites for asteroids and ice will also open the opportunity for new pilots to contribute to advanced mining fleets: the new pilot scans down new grav sites, scans the asteroids and reports to the fleet where the juicier sites are located. No need to train up for months to fly a Hulk with T2 mining equipment.
Astor Daeoli Eye of God 10	Posted - 2011.10.28 13:45:00 - [3] - Quote Severian Carnifex wrote: - make belts so that you must scan them... i dont think botts can do scanning very well. - static belts have only very small roids for new players... (strips dont have use if it) - when you left scanned belt its gone... you must scan again... I like the sound of that. It would also slow down 0.0 rat bots...i think? Severian Carnifex wrote: - make roid stealing criminal act so you can shoot that person - botts dont see what roid you mine... - make fleeting with other players and making real ops more rewarding then solo mining (orca boost better) - botts dont fleet I like the sound of that too. I have cc'ed your ideas to a similar post on assembly hall.
Yeep GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 20	Posted - 2011.10.28 15:43:00 - [4] - Quote Voddick wrote: Low sec should have full access to the high end ores and ice currently found only in null sec. Voddick wrote: Low and null sec mining sites should require scan probes to find to reflect their difficulty and value. What exactly is the value of a nullsec mining site if lowsec sites contain the same ores and ice?
Tenobia Aybara the Organ Grinder and Company Higginbotham and Bailey's Circus 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 17:31:00 - [5] - Quote I agree that all belts should be gravimetric sites BUT: - The lowest quality of these sites should be anomalies. This is for new players so that they can mine in a single ship without the need for a probe launcher. These sites should only appear in Hi-Sec. - Each system gains an ore-density statistic which governs the probability of sites forming. A combination of security and governing nation (for hi-sec) should decide what is in the fields. The size of field should be dependant solely on ore-density. - Null-sec ores should be available in very limited quantity in low-sec, however they will be displaced away from planets and require decent scanning skills to narrow down.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium 222	Posted - 2011.10.28 21:14:00 - [6] - Quote Tenobia Aybara wrote: The lowest quality of these sites should be anomalies. This is for new players so that they can mine in a single ship without the need for a probe launcher. These sites should only appear in Hi-Sec. Why can't the new players probe down a site in their exploration ship, then mine it out in their mining ship? Tenobia Aybara wrote: Null-sec ores should be available in very limited quantity in low-sec, however they will be displaced away from planets and require decent scanning skills to narrow down. Nullsec ores should be in null sec. I'd like to see ores more restricted by security status, such that Pyroxeres and Plagioclase were only available in 0.5 and 0.6 for example. Veldspar would be the only ore that is universally available, simply due to the vast quantities of Tritanium required for ship building (and because Veldspar is holy). If ores are too widely available, they become worthless.
Tenobia Aybara the Organ Grinder and Company Higginbotham and Bailey's Circus 2	Posted - 2011.10.29 09:32:00 - [7] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Why can't the new players probe down a site in their exploration ship, then mine it out in their mining ship? I just think the two ships thing is awkward for new players. Some more suitable alternatives to this could be allowing the 'mining frigates' to mount probe launchers alongside the 2 lasers, with a negative effect on probe capacity to prevent these ships becoming exploration vessels. OR just make veld sites anomalies. However I suppose making them all sig's would cut down on botting. Mara Rinn wrote: Nullsec ores should be in null sec. I'd like to see ores more restricted by security status, such that Pyroxeres and Plagioclase were only available in 0.5 and 0.6 for example. Veldspar would be the only ore that is universally available, simply due to the vast quantities of Tritanium required for ship building (and because Veldspar is holy). If ores are too widely available, they become worthless. Point taken.
Skyreth Revelation of Wrath 0	Posted - 2011.10.29 11:33:00 - [8] - Quote Personally, don't see the need to change things from what they are. Doing this would just mean people would need more characters or ships involved in mining operations. I know I'm not the only person that gets bored with probing things down, with mining boring enough as is, this would just kill it.
Nick Bison Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd 1	Posted - 2011.10.29 17:34:00 - [9] - Quote A possible viable option may be: 1. leave 0.8 thru 1.0 as they are. Gives the newer players something to mine and those belts are fairly small anyway. 2. move all ore and ice belts +0.6 down to lowest null to GRAV sites.
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate 61	Posted - 2011.10.29 19:08:00 - [10] - Quote How about system wide belts. You have to go to the star and there you run the on-board scanner, everyone has that and don't need skills to use it. This way we get dynamic belts, we get system wide "ring" belts that people have wanted for years, AND we pull people to a common location where they can shoot each other.
Max Von Sydow Droneboat Diplomacy 6	Posted - 2011.10.29 19:22:00 - [11] - Quote Supported if the mining ships could get a spare high for a probe launcher.
Manfred Sideous Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion 128	Posted - 2011.10.30 05:40:00 - [12] - Quote K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen K ugutsumen
Anshio Tamark Avitus Lugus 18	Posted - 2011.11.03 15:44:00 - [13] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: New players are given the Astrometrics skill, a probe launcher and a bunch of core scanner probes as part of the tutorials. There is no reason to move belts to anomalies, just go whole-hog into grav sites Moving to grav sites for asteroids and ice will also open the opportunity for new pilots to contribute to advanced mining fleets: the new pilot scans down new grav sites, scans the asteroids and reports to the fleet where the juicier sites are located. No need to train up for months to fly a Hulk with T2 mining equipment. Or, alternately, a more skilled mining-gang can already be out in the site when the new player shows up, and offer to hire them (I've experienced this once, back when we hired our first out-siders).
Wolodymyr Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos 2	Posted - 2011.11.03 17:13:00 - [14] - Quote Voddick wrote: Issue Respawning belts just donGÇÖt make sense from a RP or anti-bot perspective. Remove them from the game and spawn random, small ice and ore Gravimetric sites instead. pretty good but needs probing. Voddick wrote: Criteria It is critical that these mining sites in empire be accessible from the system scanner and not probes to ensure mining remains GÇÿnew-playerGÇÖ friendly. These sites should be small enough to last 30 minutes or so (40,000 m3) in a hulk before running out of ore. Also, a site despawn time of 3 to 4 hours should be set to ensure that fresh sites are always available. Actually to fight botting you'd want these sites to only be probe-able. There are haven / sanctum bots that can use the system scanner. If you are worried about new players there are two things you could do. 1. making a probing tutorial mission that comes before the mining tutorial mission. Hell you could use that bigass TV in the captains quarters to play that one youtube tutorial video. 2. Leave belts there but only fill them with veldspar and scordite. Voddick wrote: Low Sec Low sec should have full access to the high end ores and ice currently found only in null sec. They should also offer increasing quantities of ore to facilitate large, group mining ops. Everyone knows that no one bothers mining in low sec because the ore value is trivial. Low sec is every bit, if not more dangerous than null sec. The rewards should reflect this. I would give them one or two rare ores that do not appear in highsec but not ALL rare ores that show up in null. People fight for sov out there for a reason. Also in lowsec being in a probed site is actually a safety feature. When hostiles warp in they have to actually probe out the grav sites instead of just shotgunning the belts or running a quick system scan and heading to grav sites. Voddick wrote: Null Sec Low and null sec mining sites should require scan probes to find to reflect their difficulty and value. Without this mechanic low sec roams would consist of jumping into a system, hitting scan and then warping in on a GÇ£helplessGÇ¥ mining op. With probes, the miners can at least have a fighting chance with the directional scan and local. People already mine in grav sites out in null. All getting rid of belts would do out here is maybe stop some botters. Although I doubt that anyone would want to bot mine belts out in null. I'd be tempted to leave belts in nullsec.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium 255	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:15:00 - [15] - Quote Wolodymyr wrote: Voddick wrote: Issue Respawning belts just donGÇÖt make sense from a RP or anti-bot perspective. Remove them from the game and spawn random, small ice and ore Gravimetric sites instead. pretty good but needs probing. Rookies are given the Astrometrics skill book for free, along with a core probe launcher and a bunch of core probes. Probing is no more an obstacle than shooting enemies with non-civilian weapons. Wolodymyr wrote: 1. making a probing tutorial mission that comes before the mining tutorial mission. Hell you could use that bigass TV in the captains quarters to play that one youtube tutorial video. 2. Leave belts there but only fill them with veldspar and scordite. Using the CQ screen to play tutorial videos sounds like an awesome idea! I also like the idea of leaving Veldspar in belts (but only Veld, since it is the holy ore). Wolodymyr wrote: Also in lowsec being in a probed site is actually a safety feature. When hostiles warp in they have to actually probe out the grav sites instead of just shotgunning the belts or running a quick system scan and heading to grav sites. Leaving the veldspar belts means that roaming gangs have celestial targets to hang out at while waiting for "good fights". Wolodymyr wrote: People already mine in grav sites out in null. All getting rid of belts would do out here is maybe stop some botters. Although I doubt that anyone would want to bot mine belts out in null. I'd be tempted to leave belts in nullsec. No mining bots in null
FloppieTheBanjoClown Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 238	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:47:00 - [16] - Quote Severian Carnifex wrote: - when you left scanned belt its gone... you must scan again... Bookmarks would negate that. That, or you just put two miners in a belt and make sure only one leaves at a time. Severian Carnifex wrote: - make roid stealing criminal act so you can shoot that person - botts dont see what roid you mine... That's just laughable. "I claim this rock in the name of ME!" "But I claimed it first!" "Nuh uh!" Seriously, people. Think this stuff through before you actually click post. Severian Carnifex wrote: - make fleeting with other players and making real ops more rewarding then solo mining (orca boost better) - botts dont fleet Bots can fleet, they just don't because they don't need to. It would be simple to manually put a bot in a fleet, or to automate it joining to an advertised fleet. Using an orca is plenty rewarding right now. When I did mining as part of my exploration, I ran two hulks and an orca when I could have run three hulks. Why? Because it was a lot easier and more productive than three solo hulks.
Cyprus Black 82nd Assault Fleet 74	Posted - 2011.11.03 23:48:00 - [17] - Quote It's a smart idea and it makes sense. However that's not the issue. The issue is hundreds of thousands of bookmarks created as a result. Back in the day we didn't have a Warp To Zero on gates option which led to the result of hundreds of thousands of bookmarks created. It created a heavy strain on the server. With ice and asteroid belts having to be scannable instead of seeing it on the overview, the same problem arises. I am neither fanboy nor flamer. I am logic, dispassionate and cruel.
FloppieTheBanjoClown Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 238	Posted - 2011.11.04 01:36:00 - [18] - Quote Cyprus Black wrote: It's a smart idea and it makes sense. However that's not the issue. The issue is hundreds of thousands of bookmarks created as a result. Back in the day we didn't have a Warp To Zero on gates option which led to the result of hundreds of thousands of bookmarks created. It created a heavy strain on the server. With ice and asteroid belts having to be scannable instead of seeing it on the overview, the same problem arises. From what I understand, most miners (bots and otherwise) use bookmarks anyway.
Wolodymyr Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos 2	Posted - 2011.11.04 20:30:00 - [19] - Quote Can a bot do the little probing mini game? That might fix it.
Vitoc Slave Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.12.22 05:42:00 - [20] - Quote +1
Laechyd Eldgorn Molden Heath Angels 23	Posted - 2011.12.22 11:38:00 - [21] - Quote They were going to do this couple of years ago or at least thinking about it but miners went RAGEMODE for no reason. By some imaginary maths some ppl thought it would not be good idea to make botting more difficult and mining more rewarding and less repetitive.
Asuri Kinnes Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 95	Posted - 2011.12.23 20:18:00 - [22] - Quote Anything to make mining less-bottable would be a definite improvement. If the Bookmarks became an issue, add a line of code to the BM's folder interface (unseen by us) that creates a new kind of "'Roid - BM" that de-spawns with the site. I'm not a coder, so have no idea if that would even be possible, but if they're going to be "random" spawning belts throughout a system, you would never need the same bookmark twice... Random spawning belts, maybe a mining interface like PI so that you have to "target" the desirable portion of an asteroid to get the best ore in the 'roid - that should do a lot of botters in. It would also (I think) have the effect of reducing bot-mining, and make Miner - mining more financially rewarding. Wormholes: The NEW end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs. NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA!
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 950	Posted - 2011.12.23 21:00:00 - [23] - Quote Personally, I like being able to log into Eve, check out local, see no goons, get into a hulk and warp on an ice belt without having to probe out a site first. I think it should stay the way it is. Everybody in favor of this approach could move to whs instead. Make things harder for botters? In the short term, yes. Then they code smarter bots who can probe and you'll be back to square one. If Eve can ragequit over something as small as the Nex store.. watch the rage unfold over a big change like this.
Indahmawar Fazmarai The I and F Taxation Trust 22	Posted - 2011.12.23 21:20:00 - [24] - Quote Nice concept. Safeguards: Systems 0.5 to 1.0 keep their belts (being charted territoriy means everybody knows where the ore is... and gankers too) Sites should be small, so they wouldn't last more than three hours even to a solo Hulk (so botters should bother themselves to create new bookmarks each three hours) Sites should be rellocated on each shutdown and of course wouldn't ever respawn, refill nor anything that made the bookmarks usable for more than 3 hours of exploitation or 23 natural hours. Additionally, would be nice to create a lowsec miner, something with a tank parallel to its cost, 3 strip miner slots w/o Hulk bonus to mined amount and 1 slot for either a probe launcher or a cloaking device.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 270	Posted - 2011.12.23 21:29:00 - [25] - Quote I don't think it matters. You force ice and ore to be in sites and not belts and the bots will just start scanning. I would much rather see real belts in systems that actually span the entire system like real asteroid belts do and then add something else like sleeper rats that can kill the bots. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
Asuri Kinnes Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 95	Posted - 2011.12.24 00:27:00 - [26] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Personally, I like being able to log into Eve, check out local, see no goons, get into a hulk and warp on an ice belt without having to probe out a site first. I think it should stay the way it is. Everybody in favor of this approach could move to whs instead. Make things harder for botters? In the short term, yes. Then they code smarter bots who can probe and you'll be back to square one. If Eve can ragequit over something as small as the Nex store.. watch the rage unfold over a big change like this. You mean you couldn't do 10 seconds of system scan to find a random 'roid? That's just lazy. I don't pretend to be a coder, but Bots Probing? I find that difficult to believe... As for all of us in favor moving to WH's? I already live there. Wormholes: The NEW end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs. NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA!
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost 12	Posted - 2011.12.24 01:53:00 - [27] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: I don't think it matters. You force ice and ore to be in sites and not belts and the bots will just start scanning. I would much rather see real belts in systems that actually span the entire system like real asteroid belts do and then add something else like sleeper rats that can kill the bots. Bots have already had a good two years to start scanning. I betcha there's a reason why they haven't already...
Maxsim Goratiev Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent 29	Posted - 2011.12.24 10:42:00 - [28] - Quote Bots will not be scanning any time soon, it would be outrageously difficult to make them do so, you would probably need image recognition for that, since the position of probes and signatures is random. I support this motion.
Velicitia Open Designs 234	Posted - 2011.12.24 13:49:00 - [29] - Quote +1 Myself and a few other people were throwing around an idea similar to this a while back in S&I. edit -- found the link. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43723
Nevryn Takis University of Caille Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2011.12.24 17:06:00 - [30] - Quote There have been a number of threads on this topic .. I posted an idea myself in this thread Mining Mechanics Change There is also an opinion expressed in this thead that bots are quite capable of scanning, whether thats just using the ship scanner or with probes is another question.
Dutarro Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective 21	Posted - 2011.12.24 17:07:00 - [31] - Quote Nice idea. One comment from an astronomy nerd ... they should just be single, or maybe double asteroids in each location, not "belts". You could still have many targetable ore deposits sticking out of each roid so the gameplay is the mostly the same.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 7	Posted - 2011.12.24 17:57:00 - [32] - Quote Actually quite like this, but yes, unfortunately the backlash from Eve's botting community would be immense. Asuka Solo wrote: Personally, I like being able to log into Eve, check out local, see no goons, get into a hulk and warp on an ice belt without having to probe out a site first. (...) Make things harder for botters? In the short term, yes. Then they code smarter bots who can probe and you'll be back to square one. If Eve can ragequit over something as small as the Nex store.. watch the rage unfold over a big change like this. Personally, I like being able to log into Eve, check out local, see no goons, get into a Tengu and warp to the 6/10 without having to... oh wait. Also, bots that can probe... maybe. Bots that can probe quickly? No. Plus, from CCP's perspective, chances are they'd find those botters a hell of a lot easier if they four hours straight of terribad scanning to watch out for.
Velicitia Open Designs 239	Posted - 2011.12.24 19:08:00 - [33] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: Actually quite like this, but yes, unfortunately the backlash from Eve's botting community would be immense. I fail to see the problem with this (well, all the forum whines will suck ... but once they're gone, it'll be great)
Gerrick Palivorn Caldari Provisions Caldari State 66	Posted - 2011.12.25 05:18:00 - [34] - Quote +1 Never really liked mining that much, it would give good reason to mine in lowsec. Simply because of the rapid respawn rate of the sites it'll make it so someone will need to have to scan down a new system on the roam if they want to gank the mining op (or have it preprobed). This will give the miners time to GTFO before they lose there ships. I'm not saying that this will always happen, but it is more likely. I also agree that 0.8-1.0 systems need to have anomoly belts veldspar only. If people want more than that they'll have to scan down sites.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 273	Posted - 2011.12.26 17:21:00 - [35] - Quote I think I would like this idea more if you had one giant belt that went around the entire planet or solar system but you had to scan to find the 2 or 3 roids that you could actually mine in that belt. It would be impossible to just warp to the belt and then just travel around it because it would simply take too long. You could also use this as an excuse to add in new probes. Mining probes and maybe even a new skill for it. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! Support our boobies!-á[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=24221&find=unread[/url]
Seventh Seraph AFK Empire 1	Posted - 2012.01.13 22:10:00 - [36] - Quote Scan sites, eliminate 100% of belt rat bots. also force mining bots to reset / rescan all the time. It's a win-win imho. +1
Naj Panora Homless Nomads 3	Posted - 2012.01.16 15:32:00 - [37] - Quote Good idea. Make the sites with the common ores (Veld through omber and pyro) able to be scanned to 100% with 1 probe and astrometrics 1 at 16 AU. That should take care of the new player argument.
Karl Planck Heretic University Heretic Nation 107	Posted - 2012.01.16 15:51:00 - [38] - Quote while i like the idea in principle this would absolutely murder the activity of ratting, especially when grinding sec (which is bad enough as is).
Naj Panora Homless Nomads 3	Posted - 2012.01.16 19:15:00 - [39] - Quote Karl Planck wrote: while i like the idea in principle this would absolutely murder the activity of ratting, especially when grinding sec (which is bad enough as is). I have a friend who has great Sec rating and he almost never kills belt rats. There are other ways to raise sec standing.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 50	Posted - 2012.01.16 20:06:00 - [40] - Quote Naj Panora wrote: Karl Planck wrote: while i like the idea in principle this would absolutely murder the activity of ratting, especially when grinding sec (which is bad enough as is). I have a friend who has great Sec rating and he almost never kills belt rats. There are other ways to raise sec standing. Just out of interest, how? I've always done it by the old one BS each system null roams. A more boring approach would be awesome though Also, good point on this killing ratting. I would say just have this for the high value ores, but then it wouldn't really fix botting. Although it might make it less profitable.
Karl Planck Heretic University Heretic Nation 108	Posted - 2012.01.16 20:58:00 - [41] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: Naj Panora wrote: Karl Planck wrote: while i like the idea in principle this would absolutely murder the activity of ratting, especially when grinding sec (which is bad enough as is). I have a friend who has great Sec rating and he almost never kills belt rats. There are other ways to raise sec standing. Just out of interest, how? I've always done it by the old one BS each system null roams. A more boring approach would be awesome though Also, good point on this killing ratting. I would say just have this for the high value ores, but then it wouldn't really fix botting. Although it might make it less profitable. the only other effective method i am aware of is tagging multiple lvl 4 missions through a few systems. However, this isn't too viable without either having decent sec to begin with or a lot of blues in teh area. However I would be wiling to lose rats if I could purchase my way to good sec.
Bunyip Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2012.01.16 21:32:00 - [42] - Quote I had this idea when I was part of the CSM. AFAIK, things were pretty balanced on like vs dislike. I wrote a whole proposal for this concept as part of my redesign of the POS system, available here. To fix the scanning problem, I was thinking that barges (only) should be able to use the onboard scanner to find grav sites, and extend all sites in 0.8 or lower to grav only. In 1.0 and 0.9 systems (where schools are located and such) keep the sites static and visible without scanning, but maybe accessed by an acceleration gate that only allows frigates.
Naj Panora Homless Nomads 3	Posted - 2012.01.17 14:01:00 - [43] - Quote Bunyip wrote: To fix the scanning problem, I was thinking that barges (only) should be able to use the onboard scanner to find grav sites, and extend all sites in 0.8 or lower to grav only. In 1.0 and 0.9 systems (where schools are located and such) keep the sites static and visible without scanning, but maybe accessed by an acceleration gate that only allows frigates. This wouldn't fix the problem with afk botting seeing as the programs can use the on board scanner. The better answer would be to add an extra high slot that can only be fitted with a scan probe launcher and make the site scanable to 100% with 1 probe and astrometrics 1 at 8-16 au. anyone then could find them if there was an active player manning the controls.
Ya Huei Imperial Collective 46	Posted - 2012.01.17 14:13:00 - [44] - Quote The only losers to this change are botters and lazy players. I don't like either of them so +1
Aggressive Nutmeg 104	Posted - 2012.02.02 04:15:00 - [45] - Quote -1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players. It might even help botters if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day. Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet. Never make eye contact with someone while eating a banana.
Zircon Dasher Zirconia Trade Group 67	Posted - 2012.02.02 05:18:00 - [46] - Quote Aggressive Nutmeg wrote: -1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players. It might even help botters if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day. Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet. mineral prices going down would not necessarily be a bad thing. You are correct about the net effect on botting. It will be near zero. People who think scanbots are really hard are naive or terrible at programming.
Claire Raynor NovaGear 8	Posted - 2012.02.02 12:28:00 - [47] - Quote This is a super suggestion. It will make Mining more fun as well as helping eliminate Bots. I'd really love to see this put in the game. It is a really strong suggestion. I don't belive that the Bots will easily learn how to play the Probe game. I don't think it will alienate the newer players. I'd really love to see trhis happen. Totally +1 :)
Claire Raynor NovaGear 8	Posted - 2012.02.02 12:40:00 - [48] - Quote Aggressive Nutmeg wrote: -1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players. It might even help botters if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day. Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet. Hi Aggressive Nutmeg, I hear what you are saying. But from my limited understanding the Bot Programs have to "interface" with the game via a simulated keyboard and mouse and by "Seeing" and then interpreting the screen. I think this could make scanning very hard for Bot programs. Unless of course there is a sure-fire "method" that could become an algorithm that will always render a resolved "Site" then I don't see it happening. The "Bot" program would have to "See" the little arrows on the probe squares as well as interpret the image past the spinning spheres - as well as "Seeing" the sites and, (in 3 dimensions), allign the probe formation over the target sites. . . I just see the Probe mini game as the closest thing to a Captcha EvE has. I really think/hope it would defeat the Bots. I hope you are wrong - but I'm not a programmer and you may see how to get past the above issues - so it could come to be that what you predict is what happens. But I still think this is the most elegant suggestion I've seen for ages. It will add gameplay. It will add fun to mining. So even if it doesn't get rid of Bots it still has merit. If it can reduce Botting then that is just a brilliant bonus!
Benteen Drone A.I. Servicing Inc. 3	Posted - 2012.03.20 20:19:00 - [49] - Quote Claire Raynor wrote: Aggressive Nutmeg wrote: -1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players. It might even help botters if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day. Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet. Hi Aggressive Nutmeg, I hear what you are saying. But from my limited understanding the Bot Programs have to "interface" with the game via a simulated keyboard and mouse and by "Seeing" and then interpreting the screen. I think this could make scanning very hard for Bot programs. Unless of course there is a sure-fire "method" that could become an algorithm that will always render a resolved "Site" then I don't see it happening. The "Bot" program would have to "See" the little arrows on the probe squares as well as interpret the image past the spinning spheres - as well as "Seeing" the sites and, (in 3 dimensions), align the probe formation over the target sites. . . I just see the Probe mini game as the closest thing to a Captcha EvE has. I really think/hope it would defeat the Bots. I hope you are wrong - but I'm not a programmer and you may see how to get past the above issues - so it could come to be that what you predict is what happens. But I still think this is the most elegant suggestion I've seen for ages. It will add game play. It will add fun to mining. So even if it doesn't get rid of Bots it still has merit. If it can reduce Botting then that is just a brilliant bonus! It'd certainly add something to mining other than to warp around, lock the nearest shiney rock and shoot it until you've got it all in the hold then move to the next one. I'd love to see this in as it'll also make it a bit more complex for the Suicide Gankers to hit a normal miner... I'd assume a botter program would have to scan every so often as an algorithm which would probably make it easier to spot as it'd be scanning in a more regular pattern than a real player would. The only losers would be the lazy people and potentially the botters if it was implemented as has been discussed here and the new players are taught to scan (I never saw a tutorial for it though they might have one now).
Tina Mori Maniacal Miners INC Cosmic Maniacs 0	Posted - 2012.03.26 22:39:00 - [50] - Quote You are aware that Ice used to be available in very hi-sec system, ie Jita? CCP removed all ore from high traffic systems because of lag, now the lag problem is fixed, no ore has been put back If you look, you`ll find that Caldari regions have the least amount of Ice already, because of it
Tobiaz Spacerats 75	Posted - 2012.03.27 15:58:00 - [51] - Quote I support this idea. Make the sites contain only one type of ore, so people can look for ore-specific signatures instead of stripping sites of only a specific ore and letting it despawn. Give sites a despawn timer (unless they are mined out) of a week. This way it will reduce the amount of available resources in busy areas and create signature-rich pockets that explorers can search for (or a few rare null-sec signatures in high sec). A big advantage of using this system is that mining involves more steps and types of players. It is also much easier to tweak this system to modifiy spawnrate and location. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures!
Adrian Slave Toucher Slave Touchers 0	Posted - 2012.04.05 00:57:00 - [52] - Quote +1... Also, support touching your slaves
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1354	Posted - 2012.04.05 05:33:00 - [53] - Quote Voddick wrote: Issue Respawning belts just donGÇÖt make sense from a RP or anti-bot perspective. Remove them from the game and spawn random, small ice and ore Gravimetric sites instead. Criteria It is critical that these mining sites in empire be accessible from the system scanner and not probes to ensure mining remains GÇÿnew-playerGÇÖ friendly. These sites should be small enough to last 30 minutes or so (40,000 m3) in a hulk before running out of ore. Also, a site despawn time of 3 to 4 hours should be set to ensure that fresh sites are always available. Low Sec Low sec should have full access to the high end ores and ice currently found only in null sec. They should also offer increasing quantities of ore to facilitate large, group mining ops. Everyone knows that no one bothers mining in low sec because the ore value is trivial. Low sec is every bit, if not more dangerous than null sec. The rewards should reflect this. Null Sec Low and null sec mining sites should require scan probes to find to reflect their difficulty and value. Without this mechanic low sec roams would consist of jumping into a system, hitting scan and then warping in on a GÇ£helplessGÇ¥ mining op. With probes, the miners can at least have a fighting chance with the directional scan and local. Bots can be programmed to scan you know. And some of us just dont care about RP. So no.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 470	Posted - 2012.04.05 13:39:00 - [54] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Bots can be programmed to scan you know. Not that I particularly agree with the OP, but do you have any evidence that there is a scanning bot? I've certainly never heard of one. --Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK--
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1374	Posted - 2012.04.05 17:05:00 - [55] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: Bots can be programmed to scan you know. Not that I particularly agree with the OP, but do you have any evidence that there is a scanning bot? I've certainly never heard of one. If they can mine roids or gank rats... they can use d-scan or probes. Its all in the config. As for substantive evidence? I have none. But it doesn't take allot of imagination and common sense to see its plausible.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 485	Posted - 2012.04.05 17:29:00 - [56] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: If they can mine roids or gank rats... they can use d-scan or probes. Its all in the config. As for substantive evidence? I have none. But it doesn't take allot of imagination and common sense to see its plausible. I especially like the part where you use evidence to support your hypothesis. Probing is different from utilizing d-scan or killing rats, due to the fact that it requires intuitive use of a 3 dimensional interface. But if you wish for evidence beyond that, just look at the bots available. None of them have probing functionality. It doesn't take a lot of imagination or common sense to claim that incursion bots are plausible, that doesn't mean it's technically possible or viable. No matter how much imagination you have, technical limitations are technical limitations. --Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK--
Zircon Dasher 129	Posted - 2012.04.05 18:12:00 - [57] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: But if you wish for evidence beyond that, just look at the bots available. None of them have probing functionality. It doesn't take a lot of imagination or common sense to claim that incursion bots are plausible, that doesn't mean it's technically possible or viable. No matter how much imagination you have, technical limitations are technical limitations. "I was on the sites that sell botting programs just to do research...... honest!!" Discussing the way someone may go about cheating is frowned upon by CCP.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 487	Posted - 2012.04.05 18:20:00 - [58] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Simi Kusoni wrote: But if you wish for evidence beyond that, just look at the bots available. None of them have probing functionality. It doesn't take a lot of imagination or common sense to claim that incursion bots are plausible, that doesn't mean it's technically possible or viable. No matter how much imagination you have, technical limitations are technical limitations. "I was on the sites that sell botting programs just to do research...... honest!!" Discussing the way someone may go about cheating is frowned upon by CCP. Bots and their capabilities are well known, discussion of them is frowned upon only when you are naming them, linking to sites or (to a lesser degree) promoting their use. --Will Support Your Terrible Forum Thread For ISK--
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 1278	Posted - 2012.04.05 21:05:00 - [59] - Quote I've suggesting this for a while. Give barges and exhumers a new high slot expressly built for a new "mining probe launcher" that fires specialized probes that only detect grav sites. Remove belts and replace them with grav sites that always respawn in system during downtime. It won't eliminate botting, but it will make it harder. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you.
Kneebone K-H Light Industries 10	Posted - 2012.04.06 00:30:00 - [60] - Quote The ramifications of removing static belts goes beyond mining and I feel are being overlooked by many who are posting in this thread. There are plenty of people that rat in High/Low/Null for bounties, rep grinding, ISK making, etc. The static belts also give way to PvP in the belts. Removing static belts in low/null and requiring them to be scanned with a probe launcher will be a massive change to the fabric of low and null. CCP would need to balance the mining aspect with the PvE and PvP relationships of belts.
Zircon Dasher 130	Posted - 2012.04.06 02:25:00 - [61] - Quote Kneebone wrote: The ramifications of removing static belts goes beyond mining and I feel are being overlooked by many who are posting in this thread. There are plenty of people that rat in High/Low/Null for bounties, rep grinding, ISK making, etc. The static belts also give way to PvP in the belts. Removing static belts in low/null and requiring them to be scanned with a probe launcher will be a massive change to the fabric of low and null. CCP would need to balance the mining aspect with the PvE and PvP relationships of belts. Already a large portion of PVP happens on gates and stations, and "waiting at top belt" PVP would just change to "waiting at top planet" PVP. So is your objection that ratters and miners will be too safe from roaming ganks?
Zircon Dasher 131	Posted - 2012.04.06 02:32:00 - [62] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Remove belts and replace them with grav sites that always respawn in system during downtime. It won't eliminate botting, but it will make it harder. Didn't CCP rework roid spawning specifically to counter stripping belts immediately after DT? Seems to me that if there was ever an incentive to bot an "all or nothing" mechanic would be a good one. vOv
Kneebone K-H Light Industries 11	Posted - 2012.04.06 03:59:00 - [63] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Kneebone wrote: The ramifications of removing static belts goes beyond mining and I feel are being overlooked by many who are posting in this thread. There are plenty of people that rat in High/Low/Null for bounties, rep grinding, ISK making, etc. The static belts also give way to PvP in the belts. Removing static belts in low/null and requiring them to be scanned with a probe launcher will be a massive change to the fabric of low and null. CCP would need to balance the mining aspect with the PvE and PvP relationships of belts. Already a large portion of PVP happens on gates and stations, and "waiting at top belt" PVP would just change to "waiting at top planet" PVP. So is your objection that ratters and miners will be too safe from roaming ganks? A large potion of PvP also happens away from gates and stations. You can also disguise "waiting at the top belt" to look like PvE or other activities. It is part of the risk factor of low/null. Most lowsec combat probers can usually nail anything bigger than a frig in 2-3 scans tops so it's not a matter of tracking things down either. Ratting in ships with tight setups that now need to squeeze a probe launcher or PvP setups without a dedicate scout would be most affected. Contrary to popular belief the solo pilot is not dead yet.
Zircon Dasher 131	Posted - 2012.04.06 04:57:00 - [64] - Quote Kneebone wrote: A large potion of PvP also happens away from gates and stations. You can also disguise "waiting at the top belt" to look like PvE or other activities. It is part of the risk factor of low/null. Most lowsec combat probers can usually nail anything bigger than a frig in 2-3 scans tops so it's not a matter of tracking things down either. Ratting in ships with tight setups that now need to squeeze a probe launcher or PvP setups without a dedicate scout would be most affected. Contrary to popular belief the solo pilot is not dead yet. I don't worry about solo pilots. "Solo is dead" has been around for so long I cannot remember the first time I saw it. Out of all players, the solo ones are the most adaptive. In regards to disguising things to look like PVE: When I find a ship in a belt with dscan I usually think "bait. Can I kill him before his friends show up? Can I GTFO if I can't handle it?" When I find a ship in a mission/DED/anom I am much more tempted to get cocky and be like "IMA KILL DIS CAERBARE!!!LOLOLOL". I wonder if making belts scanned doesnt make baiting more effective. Your point about ship fitting/ selection changes is true, but I am not sure this is a convincing argument for Dev's like Soundwave given some of the comments he has recently made. vOv Anyway I was just curious about the reasoning behind thinking it constitutes a massive change to the fabric of low/null. Not trying to argue any point.
Avila Cracko 304	Posted - 2012.04.09 15:49:00 - [65] - Quote proposal based on this, from one older thread with some my edits: (there are and anti botting things included) - make belts so that you must scan them with probes... its also anti-botting thing - I dont think botts can do probing very well... (maybe add some more statics on scans too so that you must have brain to see its only static) Also, probing is now in starter profession agents so and noobs must learn to probe things. - static belts have only very small roids for new noob players (strips dont have use if it)... and they are objects in space so that space is not empty... - when you left scanned belt its gone after like 5 minutes... you must scan again... (so that botters cant scan all in the morning and and make bookmarks so that their botts can mine all day long) - make fleeting with other players and making real ops more rewarding then solo mining (orca boost better) - botts dont fleet - Boost rats and make them smarter - maybe give them scram and let them escalate - botts have more problems with defending themself then real people - and it would be more involving. - Make exumers the way that they cant fit active shield boosters but give them more EHP - you have more time to react before rats kill you but you must kill them - no more active tank fits where you don't even pay attention to rats - and mining ships need more EHP overall, they are just too easy targets. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 1486	Posted - 2012.04.09 18:41:00 - [66] - Quote Since they revealed at Fanfest that the idea of Ring Mining is the intended goal in the "nearish" future...I think it puts this thread in the "no longer relevant" box. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!!
Hexor V Galactic Terran Command 0	Posted - 2012.04.09 18:58:00 - [67] - Quote Avila Cracko wrote: proposal based on this, from one older thread with some my edits: (there are and anti botting things included) - make belts so that you must scan them with probes... its also anti-botting thing - I dont think botts can do probing very well... (maybe add some more statics on scans too so that you must have brain to see its only static) Also, probing is now in starter profession agents so and noobs must learn to probe things. - static belts have only very small roids for new noob players (strips dont have use if it)... and they are objects in space so that space is not empty... - when you left scanned belt its gone after like 5 minutes... you must scan again... (so that botters cant scan all in the morning and and make bookmarks so that their botts can mine all day long) - make fleeting with other players and making real ops more rewarding then solo mining (orca boost better) - botts dont fleet - Boost rats and make them smarter - maybe give them scram and let them escalate - botts have more problems with defending themself then real people - and it would be more involving. - Make exumers the way that they cant fit active shield boosters but give them more EHP - you have more time to react before rats kill you but you must kill them - no more active tank fits where you don't even pay attention to rats - and mining ships need more EHP overall, they are just too easy targets. I know Carebear's get a ton of **** and I'm outing myself having flown as one and with many bears in the past, but I can't agree with that change (bolded). Sometimes I'm just tanking little rat(s) and don't really care enough to kill it and risk interrupting my entire operation on a re-spawn. I like the idea of making mining more fun, but I don't see how nerfing exhumers will make for a better game.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.