| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 09:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
Anomaly One wrote: this doesn't add to immersion at all, seeing rocks appear as I travel down the line . . . It was more of a technical point I was making about spawning/despawning objects and how that could be feasible. The idea would be to have it visually appear seamless. |

Reznik Pollard
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 09:21:00 -
[32] - Quote
I think that this would add significantly to the realism and immersion of the game. At present the asteroid belts are just these strange fairy rings floating in space, it may be somewhat of a technical challenge, but I feel that it is nothing that CCP couldn't handle. +1 |

Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
169
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 09:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
I don't mine, but +1 for real belts (and comets). W-Space Realtor |

Zerlestes
Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 10:26:00 -
[34] - Quote
nope you are not like me every isk i make is for mining nothing else i mean people who mine and only mine in eve every skill ship etc is for mining i dont enjoy getting isk the isk is only for plex skills and barges and if your idea is so implementet i cant maintain my accs and my playstyle is not possible
i enjoy manage a fleet alone and not getting simply more isk per hour i enjoy getting more yield out of my fleet setup and getting more accs up for mining
in my eyes your idea is more than bad for these who enjoy multiboxing |

Droidyk
Maniacal Miners INC No Safe Haven
41
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 11:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
+1 I would like to see more cooler environments such as very different asteroid belts, and not just a line of asteroids, there could be like asteroid belts that has some chemical reactions within them, while there being some bigger asteroids or asteroid (planetoids) around or under the belt itself, they could be remains of some smaller moon or comet that stopped circling its orbit. A cluster of asteroids that still hold a volcanic activity (some smaller, those are the ones that are to be mined) and bigger that would made the scene and environment interesting, with better fog effects and stuff. Maybe you could even fly the ship freely through the huge asteroids while watching out for the volcanic activity or just exploration. These things is what I would love to see in EVE in the future. And the game desperately needs it to make doing anything in space much more entertaining, something that would keep miners going back to mining with excitement. It would make environments much more interesting as or even more than going down to a planet. Anything that exists within eve lore and universe, or anything that we dont know about that exists in eve universe, and there s infinity of stuff there, could be added to the game. CCP said that these things or any features are just being opened to us but they already exist in the EVE Universe itself, some for a long time some may be new. Its known fact for example that with ships its the same thing. The ships that we can use as a capsuleers in EVE arent even 5% of the ships that may exist in the EVE Universe. This is what CCP wants, as much diversity as possible. (EDIT: just posted my opinion on asteroid belts from different thread didnt wanted to post all again.) |

Will Harold
Derelik Mining Coalition
14
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 20:36:00 -
[36] - Quote
As a similar note on the belts themselves, I would love to see them take on a similar role as what we see in real life. Currently our solar system has two kinds of asteroid zones; being surrounding rings and zones. We have two rings in particular. One is an inner ring between Mars and Jupiter, and then the other is the Kupier Belt. The other "zones" are just particular areas near planets that are more centralized. Look up the zones called Trojans, Greeks and Hildas. It would be nice to see an implementation of the real-life system in the game. However, while I understand the line drawn between high-sec vs. null-sec ore, regular ice really would have to be added into the belts, like you can find them in real life.
Asteroid "rings" should also be set-up based on the size of the system. Currently, there are two kinds in our solar system, being the inner and outer rings. Most of the smaller systems should only be given inner rings that are lighter compared to a system that's over 50 AU across. Then, for your systems that are 100 AU and over, give them both inner and outer rings, as well as having them more heavily laden. Size would also affect the types of centralized "zones" occur. That merely takes a modification of the current belts that are in game now. You move them to being focused around the Saturn and Jupiter kind of planets. The same option could be added for ice planets with the re-addition of static ice belts.
CCP really screwed up with converting ice to the depleting sites. As if the null-sec clowns didn't already have enough hold on the market and as if the old ice dynamic and systems weren't camp enough by gankers. Thanks, CCP.
Anyway, this is just a proposal. |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 02:55:00 -
[37] - Quote
Will Harold wrote:As a similar note on the belts themselves, I would love to see them take on a similar role as what we see in real life. Currently our solar system has two kinds of asteroid zones; being surrounding rings and zones. We have two rings in particular. One is an inner ring between Mars and Jupiter, and then the other is the Kupier Belt. The other "zones" are just particular areas near planets that are more centralized. Look up the zones called Trojans, Greeks and Hildas. It would be nice to see an implementation of the real-life system in the game. However, while I understand the line drawn between high-sec vs. null-sec ore, regular ice really would have to be added into the belts, like you can find them in real life. Asteroid "rings" should also be set-up based on the size of the system. Currently, there are two kinds in our solar system, being the inner and outer rings. Most of the smaller systems should only be given inner rings that are lighter compared to a system that's over 50 AU across. Then, for your systems that are 100 AU and over, give them both inner and outer rings, as well as having them more heavily laden. Size would also affect the types of centralized "zones" occur. That merely takes a modification of the current belts that are in game now. You move them to being focused around the Saturn and Jupiter kind of planets. The same option could be added for ice planets with the re-addition of static ice belts. That's really cool, actually. I learned something today. |

Will Harold
Derelik Mining Coalition
14
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 04:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
If said belt was put in, it would also be nice to have CCP look into random warp-in points. The belt would be a 360-degree ring around the solar system, well you can't just have everyone warping in on one point of it and it would be a pain in the ass to have a ton of individual warp-in markers all over the HUD, so instead; implement a single HUD mark that you can warp to, only it will warp you in on a random spot every time and never to the same spot. This would also force the use of fleet compositions and force gankers to scan ships down to actually find targets.
However, if you fly a single man fleet there's going to have to be a little leeway for that. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that there's a reason why you've never been able to take a single Retriever, with no boosts, out and mine your way into a PLEX before the month is out. CCP doesn't want everyone being able to take one character and PLEX-play their way through. They want cold-hard cash. That being said, a little leeway would need to be given to the three- or four-toon fleets run by one guy.
I would love to see system surrounding asteroid belts, CCP.  |

dratheon
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 06:45:00 -
[39] - Quote
Sounds good.
I also think that these belts should contain asteroids big enough that you can draw on with your mining lasers, so that you can grief miners by literally vandalizing the rocks. |

Sarah Stallman
International Unification
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 07:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
Will Harold wrote:ICCP doesn't want everyone being able to take one character and PLEX-play their way through. They want cold-hard cash.
CCP doesn't have any reason to care at all. Every PLEX is already paid for, they get their cold-hard cash either way. |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 20:59:00 -
[41] - Quote
Overall, a pretty positive response! It'd be good to see this gain some momentum. |

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
375
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 21:59:00 -
[42] - Quote
It would be nice if it looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5toQqcxcNc#t=180 Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 00:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: ...Wow!! Yeah, this video is somewhat close to what I was propsing :) |

Devlin Shardo
Gallivanting Travel Company Rebel Alliance of New Eden
12
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 00:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
+1 Love it, CCP make it so. I love everything that makes it more realistic \o/ |

Viaharo Musa
United Evian Peace Corp Veterans United Evian Peace Nation
16
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 02:35:00 -
[45] - Quote
+1 to this as well. It has bugged me from day one playing eve about the shape and mechanics of the belts. Not realistic compared to the rest of the mechanics in game. Actual belts that act much like the OP stated.... Dear god yes yes yes yes. |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
537
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 03:02:00 -
[46] - Quote
I actually would much rather belts be entirely removed as objects to do that kind of thing. Instead just do continually respawning grav anomalies. (Possibly not instantly, but on a fairly short timer at least) Then you only need three or four in a system, rather than 20 or 30 belts. So you can significantly reduce the number of grids in use for mining, as well as removing the time zone bias involved in mining.
This also turns mining more active since you can't just have 10 anchored containers you dump it into and warp to the same bookmark every time, but have to go to a new site each time.
You could easily use the few larger asteroids with veins and some form of yield finding to focus & improve yield as well (I'd say up to 50% yield increase sounds reasonable). But.... Would have to give mining barges real cruiser fittings if you want them all to have to choose how to fit. And just limit strip miners & MLU's the same way as command links are limited on command ships. That way they have enough fitting options to choose from, rather than the current 4 slots total to pick fittings from which are what make for such obvious fits. |

Sarah Stallman
International Unification
66
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 04:45:00 -
[47] - Quote
The time zone bias is seriously a thing. I knew I was getting too heavily into mining when my sleep schedule was adjusting so I would wake up at 3:30 AM so I could be ready to do as soon as the system came online. |

Onslaughtor
Alexylva Paradox
60
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 05:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
One of my friends who have been playing from the beginning once said that the belts used to be like the old ice belts. (ie a big line.) They were several hundreds of km long and very often covered multiple grids. Because of the grids and the terrible scanning system then, a person could hide in the belt at a off grid of the main warp in and be greatly protected from people trying to hunt them. Needless to say people were all upset and CCP changed it.
Now I don't know if this is true. But It would explain a lot.
The whole mining system needs a full overhaul and everyone knows it. |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 14:30:00 -
[49] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:One of my friends who have been playing from the beginning once said that the belts used to be like the old ice belts. (ie a big line.) They were several hundreds of km long and very often covered multiple grids. Because of the grids and the terrible scanning system then, a person could hide in the belt at a off grid of the main warp in and be greatly protected from people trying to hunt them. Needless to say people were all upset and CCP changed it.
Now I don't know if this is true. But It would explain a lot.
The whole mining system needs a full overhaul and everyone knows it. How far back was this? I've been playing since late 2004 and don't remember seeing ye olde asteroid belts of awesomeness. |

Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
617
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 15:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
Zerlestes wrote:its not terrible its a job i do i f i like to relax or like some income and read a book at the same time ( in empire)
some people have reached the perfect miner they like mining and cant get more yield per skill or imp and the find new ways to perfect mining
aka not managing 1 ship a fleet of ships
without is boxer even 6 accs is possible if mining changes to a playstyle were multiboxing isnt possible many people leave eve or many accs cant be used anymore
No. the OP never said that muliboxing shouldn't or wouldn't be possible with the suggestion he made.
Just because the attentive miner is being rewarded doesn't mean that the ISBoxer with his 6, 8 or 95 ships is worse of.
How much can you improve the yield of a miner with a mini game before it is considered broken?
10 - 20%?
If you pilot just as much as 2 ships, you'll already be at 200% compared to the single toon guy.
I honestly do not see or understand your problem. Stupidity should be a bannable offense.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |

Elsbeth Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:05:00 -
[51] - Quote
Like a lot of ideas this is a good one but won't be easy to implement software-wise. Remember EVERY object in eve needs to be tracked by the server; roids are the same as ships in that respect, in that they are interactible objects. Each sun having a belt like our (real life) sun would not be good for the server.
The current system isn't perfect, nor even lifelike, but it IS manageable. |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 18:34:00 -
[52] - Quote
Elsbeth Taron wrote:Like a lot of ideas this is a good one but won't be easy to implement software-wise. Remember EVERY object in eve needs to be tracked by the server; roids are the same as ships in that respect, in that they are interactible objects. Each sun having a belt like our (real life) sun would not be good for the server.
The current system isn't perfect, nor even lifelike, but it IS manageable. Which was why I proposed making the asteroids larger and further apart. Naturally, larger asteroids would come with their own set of issues, so I figured, in order to keep mining mechanics similar to what currently exists, multiple veins per 'roid would be a fair compromise. |

Batelle
Komm susser Tod
363
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 18:56:00 -
[53] - Quote
this is a really cool idea. Make current asteroid belts be warpable beacons along the belt. However you don't need to reintroduce scannable ore sites, just make them anomalies along the belt.
Lastly, through on grid travel or expired anomalies, you would end up with mineable ore in a location that can only be reached through combat probes. This would be okay, as the ore here would be less good than at the anomalies along the site.
This would make way more sense than the current asteroid belt system. Fighting is Magic |

Harlon Cordarii
The Black Ops Northern Associates.
7
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:07:00 -
[54] - Quote
+1
Would also be pretty cool if you could take damage depending on your ship size if you decide to fly through the most dense part of the fields. |

Punchy McFist
Pitchfork Militia Catastrophic Uprising
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:18:00 -
[55] - Quote
+1
Would love this. CCP are you listening? |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1119
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
I learned something very interesting during the CSM8 Town Hall.
"What did you learn, Alvatore?" Well, I'm glad you asked. I learned that while CCP does watch the threads in F&I for particularly good ideas, what really gets their attention is the number of individual accounts participating in a thread. This goes whether they're in support of or against an idea.
I don't think I need to explain much more than that, although I should point out that CCP does have a way to track which accounts share an email so keep that in mind when you interpret what I just said. |

Elsbeth Taron
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 22:40:00 -
[57] - Quote
novellus wrote: And it's not like the server has to keep track of every single bloomin' asteroid along the belt. Instead, asteroids would be procedurally generated on-grid. Tracking only, say, 30 asteroids on grid versus 100ish (as it is currently). And with procedural generation / removal, the number of 'roids the server has to keep track of would be more than manageable.
Server load wouldn't be as daunting as you'd think -- one person running missions generates all sorts of interactable objects for the server to keep track of. I don't see how this would be much different.
It would need to track them as you're not the only miner out there hitting this big belt, so a roid being out of range of you may be in range of another player. Multiple players in the area would require a LOT of roids to be generated, unless they are all close to you.
Also, once a roid has had some ore removed it can't be handled procedurally; the code can't predict how much ore you removed.
The idea isn't dead; I just think it's not an easy thing to implement. Certainly harder than you appear to believe. |

novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 23:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
Elsbeth Taron wrote:It would need to track them as you're not the only miner out there hitting this big belt, so a roid being out of range of you may be in range of another player. Multiple players in the area would require a LOT of roids to be generated, unless they are all close to you.
Also, once a roid has had some ore removed it can't be handled procedurally; the code can't predict how much ore you removed.
The idea isn't dead; I just think it's not an easy thing to implement. Certainly harder than you appear to believe. You bring up valid points -- but I'm still not convinced that there is a server-load barrier. Solo mission-runners require entire rooms to be instanced, tracked and followed. Sometimes with 200+ objects when multiple rooms, NPCs, decorative structures, and wrecks are all involved. All because of one player. There's a time-out, of course -- wrecks disappear, missions fail, so on and so forth.
That being said, there's no technical limitation to procedurally generating / removing asteroids with quick time-out timers. And with the deep-space (non beacon, non anomaly) 'roids giving mediocre ore, you may not even have to track these. You could probably remove generic 'roids immediately once a grid is vacated. Even the ones that were being mined. Because when you came back, since everything is generic, it doesn't matter what you've been mining before. Now beacon/anomaly sites, with the more lucrative ores, you'd definitely want to track that. As it currently is.
Also, traveling down an asteroid belt would spawn / despawn asteroids at a manageable rate. Server congestion problems tend to occur when things "burst" onto scene. If the fields are relatively sparse, this spawning process could probably occur as soon as you hit warp, with everything spawned by the time you arrive on-field. |

Will Harold
Derelik Mining Coalition
16
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 05:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:I actually would much rather belts be entirely removed as objects to do that kind of thing. Instead just do continually respawning grav anomalies. (Possibly not instantly, but on a fairly short timer at least) Then you only need three or four in a system, rather than 20 or 30 belts. So you can significantly reduce the number of grids in use for mining, as well as removing the time zone bias involved in mining.
This also turns mining more active since you can't just have 10 anchored containers you dump it into and warp to the same bookmark every time, but have to go to a new site each time.
You could easily use the few larger asteroids with veins and some form of yield finding to focus & improve yield as well (I'd say up to 50% yield increase sounds reasonable). But.... Would have to give mining barges real cruiser fittings if you want them all to have to choose how to fit. And just limit strip miners & MLU's the same way as command links are limited on command ships. That way they have enough fitting options to choose from, rather than the current 4 slots total to pick fittings from which are what make for such obvious fits.
No. Just no. And hell no. Why? The current ice belt debacle. Want proof? Go into one of those systems and mine in one.
No. |

Joe Boirele
Wrath of Shadows Orion Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 02:40:00 -
[60] - Quote
Yes. I never mine, but it's always bothered me that the asteroid belts aren't belts, just random collections of rock sitting around a planet. Of course, I'd also like to see planets that actually orbited, but that's probably not happening anytime soon. +1 This is my Myrmidon. -áThere are many like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my Myrmidon is nothing. -áWithout my Myrmidon I am nothing. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |