EVE Search - Miners need some love

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Miners need some love

» 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)
Sorra Hibra Cell Dwellers 1	Posted - 2015.04.05 23:46:34 - [31] - Quote thatonepersone wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: thatonepersone wrote: The solution is to make it so you can't afk mine. This would stop people players from multi-boxing 10 accounts. That alone would increase the profits for each individual account, because there wouldn't be as much ore on the market. To offset this, there would have to be a buff to mining yield and ore hold. At the very least, each individual account would be making more isk because of the lack of multi-boxers, and the market would stay the same because of the yield increase per ship. If to many players start mining it will eventually balance itself out when the profitability goes down, which will again raise the isk/hr again to somewhere inbetween. The player running 10+ mining accounts is not afk mining, not anymore. Having to alt-tab between accounts to keep the ore coming in pretty much requires you to be at the keyboard. Edit: You have to love how multi-boxing miners were the bane of mining, so the need nerfed by removing ISBoxer, and now that ISBoxer is banned, multi-boxers are still the bane of mining. If you couldn't afk mine with just one account, you wouldn't be able to switch back and forth between extra characters effectively. The point is to make multi boxing not viable. The problem with making multi-boxing not viable is there are not enough people willing to mine to keep up with the mineral demands, no matter how much ore is worth. And if you increase the single ship yield then you will run into the issue of people who can make multi-boxing viable and they will now make significantly more than they do now.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 199	Posted - 2015.04.05 23:59:23 - [32] - Quote Heres an idea....at least for Highsec. Let mining/Industrial Corporations have the ability to stake a claim on Ore sites or even entire singular belts. What i mean bythat is this: 1.) Only a Corp can deploy a structure to lay claim to a belt. 2.) Structure requires lets say an Orca to deploy (idk because its m3 is equal to almost the fleet hangar size or something) 3.) Said structure type is neer npve seeded it must be built by players and requires PI, minerals, and maybe other stuff. Now the structure one deployed and onlined....... 1.) Makes any non-corp member flashy yellow suspect when they atempt to mine in that location idk just an idea thought of on the fly....and yes i know the new proposal for structures is being worked on .
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 53	Posted - 2015.04.06 00:46:00 - [33] - Quote no more T3 bullshit plox I'd say just make industrial ships much more combat capable, I mean Galleons of yester century were armed from bow to stern, to fend off pirates, and lets face it New eden is a much more dangerous world than say the 17th century atlantic. the skiff and procurer are steps in the right direction, as for the haulers just give them battleship tanks and speed, but frigate sized weapons.
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 80	Posted - 2015.04.06 01:10:11 - [34] - Quote ^ sounds interesting, how would you make it able to fit battleship plates/shield extenders but only frigate weapons fitting wise (I guess give it a bonus to small weapons) Still it's not without implications which I cbf'd going into because I'm Ina **** phone Shamelessly stole this line, Alternatively, QFT One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia**
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12529	Posted - 2015.04.06 01:26:09 - [35] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: I mean Galleons of yester century were armed from bow to stern, to fend off pirates, and lets face it New eden is a much more dangerous world than say the 17th century atlantic. The really funny part about this statement is that Galleons were not industrial or merchant ships. They were warships repurposed as haulers. If you want that, just stick some cargohold mods on a battleship or a dreadnaught. Quote: the skiff and procurer are steps in the right direction, as for the haulers just give them battleship tanks and speed, but frigate sized weapons. You can have guns in your highslots the moment you can't fit strip miners and generate income at no risk to yourself. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 53	Posted - 2015.04.06 02:07:52 - [36] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: I mean Galleons of yester century were armed from bow to stern, to fend off pirates, and lets face it New eden is a much more dangerous world than say the 17th century atlantic. The really funny part about this statement is that Galleons were not industrial or merchant ships. They were warships repurposed as haulers. If you want that, just stick some cargohold mods on a battleship or a dreadnaught. Quote: the skiff and procurer are steps in the right direction, as for the haulers just give them battleship tanks and speed, but frigate sized weapons. You can have guns in your highslots the moment you can't fit strip miners and generate income at no risk to yourself. hmm interesting note on the galleon, I only know of this ship class for a game called civilization, excuse my ignorance. regardless none of this is fun, I'd actually be mining all the damn time regardless of security if the probability of a fight was high along with having the ability to fight back, more to the point what could possibly be detrimental to the game by industrial ships some actual teeth. if anything this would make solo battleships more of a thing. I flowen in the industrial revolution a few times, procures and ventures WILL surprize you but the have to surrender any industrial capability to get half the performance of an actual combat ship.... or a tenth of an ishtar. I'm just say'n it should be fun shoot at and be shot at by industrial ships, right now you land any disrupter and thats the fight. boring for both and perhaps frustrating one.
imariel Greuh Sacerdotium Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2015.04.06 07:19:05 - [37] - Quote thatonepersone wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: thatonepersone wrote: The solution is to make it so you can't afk mine. This would stop people players from multi-boxing 10 accounts. That alone would increase the profits for each individual account, because there wouldn't be as much ore on the market. To offset this, there would have to be a buff to mining yield and ore hold. At the very least, each individual account would be making more isk because of the lack of multi-boxers, and the market would stay the same because of the yield increase per ship. If to many players start mining it will eventually balance itself out when the profitability goes down, which will again raise the isk/hr again to somewhere inbetween. The player running 10+ mining accounts is not afk mining, not anymore. Having to alt-tab between accounts to keep the ore coming in pretty much requires you to be at the keyboard. Edit: You have to love how multi-boxing miners were the bane of mining, so the need nerfed by removing ISBoxer, and now that ISBoxer is banned, multi-boxers are still the bane of mining. If you couldn't afk mine with just one account, you wouldn't be able to switch back and forth between extra characters effectively. The point is to make multi boxing not viable. That's the reason why I suggested the mini game. Let's say we introduce on the fly strip miner calibration / ore vein pinpointing or something alike : if you are afk or multi boxing, then your throughput will decrease because you cannot be active on all accounts at the same time. On the contrary if you are active then your thoughput will increase. Multiboxing will still be possible but with a lower yield, while active players will be rewarded.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 821	Posted - 2015.04.06 07:40:49 - [38] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: regardless none of this is fun, I'd actually be mining all the damn time regardless of security if the probability of a fight was high along with having the ability to fight back, more to the point what could possibly be detrimental to the game by industrial ships some actual teeth. if anything this would make solo battleships more of a thing. I flowen in the industrial revolution a few times, procures and ventures WILL surprize you but the have to surrender any industrial capability to get half the performance of an actual combat ship.... or a tenth of an ishtar. I'm just say'n it should be fun shoot at and be shot at by industrial ships, right now you land any disrupter and thats the fight. boring for both and perhaps frustrating one. That's the point. Eve is a game about tradeoffs. You want to mine more safely? Fine, but it will cost you some yield. You can't make industrial ships competitive with combat ships or why would anyone fly a regular combat ship? Industrial ships can already fit guns and drones (well except Freighters who require support ships), and there are already variants that can be fit out in a decent combat loadout if you want to bait someone. And I already take great delight in shooting industrial ships - it is quite entertaining - so I don't see where you come off thinking it is boring. You are choosing to play the prey item in this game when you undock in that industrial ship. That is the social compact you are agreeing to: serving as a target for other players in exchange for the benefit of the resources you are putting into the economy of New Eden. If you want "gudfights" check your fetish for maximizing ISK/h for just a bit, and go fit up an actual combat ship and look for one like everyone else.
Juan Mileghere Incident Command Southern Star Dominion 17	Posted - 2015.04.06 08:14:00 - [39] - Quote Make mining active like how hacking cans is, would get rid of AFKers easy as can be Also I'd abuse that mining structure to hell, I'll put them up in major mining systems and kill unsuspecting miners left and right if that's introduced... Blobbing Explained
Hakan MacTrew MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance 892	Posted - 2015.04.06 09:59:16 - [40] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We don't need more isk being injected by an army of AFK skiffs. Want minerals to be worth more? reduce the flow of them. Best way to do this? Support ganking. I agree that Mining should not become an ISK faucet, thats a bad idea. I would actually be tempted to put an ISK cost on refining, which would actually make mining an ISK sink. However, Ganking miners only increases the value of low end minerals, mainly Tritanium, Pyrite and Mexallon. How does your proposal increase the value of the high end minerals which are only really available in Nullsec, which is the real issue for mining based income? All miner ganking actually does in inflate the prices of products which rely on the huge amounts of low end material, (such as Battleships.) But hey, Goons have been manipulating market prices for all sorts of materials for so long via ganking crusades, (ie: Ice Interdictions,) that they really are the experts. I've suggested T3 mining ships before. I still want one, but thats just because it Miner Bling, not because I feel that the game is missing something that only a T3 can fix. As for making mining a more ACTIVE and GROUP based occupation, HELL YES. I would say that, like group PVE, scaling needs to happen; once you get past about 3 guys running a site or mission the isk/hour ratio drops. This is not the case with mining. Boosters and haulers increase the efficiency of mining fleets, meaning that a 10 man mining fleet, with one booster and one hauler, can out mine 10 guys working alone. I've got no issues with that being 3 or 4 players each with 2, 3 or 4 accounts running, but when you see 20+ man mining fleets which are all one guy, that does bother me. An active 'mini-game' element whcih optimises yield would work well, i've suggested that before. "Mr Hulk3000" with his 30 man fleet can still mine reasonably well, but he will not have as high a yield/hour as someone working only 2 or 3 miners at once. ESS are a joke in my opinion. They only work in deep, heavily defended territories, otherwise they are just a target for invaders in interceptors. Forget the "Troll-Ceptor", a Mining ESS would see the dawn of the "Troll-Prospect". Actually, stick a Covert Cyno and an Entosis module on that Prospect, 3 birds 1 stone. Moon mining should become an active player process as well, instead of being a passive structure process. Goodbye top down income, hello ground up. I REALLY want to see this happen. If you really want to improve the lot of miners, give them more meaningful and profitable things to do. The concept of mining creating isk on top of resources is terrible. Friends
thatonepersone Son's of Plunder The Marmite Collective 21	Posted - 2015.04.06 12:17:14 - [41] - Quote Sorra wrote: The problem with making multi-boxing not viable is there are not enough people willing to mine to keep up with the mineral demands, no matter how much ore is worth. And if you increase the single ship yield then you will run into the issue of people who can make multi-boxing viable and they will now make significantly more than they do now. If you add some mini game just for the sake of preventing people from multi boxing, nobody will make it viable. Just imagine for the sake of the discussion they made it so you had to play dig dug to mine. How are you going to multi box that?
Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 26	Posted - 2015.04.07 10:47:39 - [42] - Quote Bump, this thread must not die :x I'm for a dedicated mining mini-game for a long time, but not a compulsory, something that add yield but don't prevent to get some. A simple survey scanner proposal : post
Gardav Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2015.04.07 11:45:56 - [43] - Quote Sorra Hibra wrote: thatonepersone wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: thatonepersone wrote: The solution is to make it so you can't afk mine. This would stop people players from multi-boxing 10 accounts. That alone would increase the profits for each individual account, because there wouldn't be as much ore on the market. To offset this, there would have to be a buff to mining yield and ore hold. At the very least, each individual account would be making more isk because of the lack of multi-boxers, and the market would stay the same because of the yield increase per ship. If to many players start mining it will eventually balance itself out when the profitability goes down, which will again raise the isk/hr again to somewhere inbetween. The player running 10+ mining accounts is not afk mining, not anymore. Having to alt-tab between accounts to keep the ore coming in pretty much requires you to be at the keyboard. Edit: You have to love how multi-boxing miners were the bane of mining, so the need nerfed by removing ISBoxer, and now that ISBoxer is banned, multi-boxers are still the bane of mining. If you couldn't afk mine with just one account, you wouldn't be able to switch back and forth between extra characters effectively. The point is to make multi boxing not viable. The problem with making multi-boxing not viable is there are not enough people willing to mine to keep up with the mineral demands, no matter how much ore is worth. And if you increase the single ship yield then you will run into the issue of people who can make multi-boxing viable and they will now make significantly more than they do now. We don't know there wouldn't be enough Miners to provide the Ore for the economy. Introducing changes to Mining as suggested in this thread as never been done before. Changing Mining to require more input and action from the Player and also reduce the occurance of multiboxing Mining may help the profession be a more attractive option for some Players. We won't know unless we try.... and considering that CCP is going to buff Null-Sec ores soon after that will be a very good time to try. .... Here is where I stand in this discussion: I support reducing overall yield from Mining but adding an additional gameplay mechanic that requires input from a Player using an UI similar to Data and Relic interface, a UI that if properly "played with" will increase Ore Yield and require Miners to spend time on each account to keep the Yield UP, thus rewarding Players that remain at keyboard and reducing the benefits of attempting to multibox Mining. Making Mining in EVE a more Active Profession IMO is the best change the Devs could do for Mining.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1039	Posted - 2015.04.07 11:51:34 - [44] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: baltec1 wrote: We don't need more isk being injected by an army of AFK skiffs. Want minerals to be worth more? reduce the flow of them. Best way to do this? Support ganking. I agree that Mining should not become an ISK faucet, thats a bad idea. I would actually be tempted to put an ISK cost on refining, which would actually make mining an ISK sink. Which would be paid for by everybody BUT the miners. More valuable minerals means the cost of everything rises across the board. I shudder to think what would happen if the miners all collectively decided to stop processing for a while.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1064	Posted - 2015.04.07 13:57:17 - [45] - Quote afkalt wrote: [quote=Hakan MacTrew]... I shudder to think what would happen if the miners all collectively decided to stop processing for a while. They'd get jittery and give in to ore cold-turkey within 2 days...
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12546	Posted - 2015.04.07 14:06:26 - [46] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: afkalt wrote: [quote=Hakan MacTrew]... I shudder to think what would happen if the miners all collectively decided to stop processing for a while. They'd get jittery and give in to ore cold-turkey within 2 days... If they actually had enough of an effect on the market to alter prices, people would pick up the slack by scabbing and raking in tons of cash. Capitalism is awesome that way. The only way the miners would be able to keep their strike going is by ganking scab miners, lol. It would be hilarious. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 1065	Posted - 2015.04.07 14:19:52 - [47] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: afkalt wrote: [quote=Hakan MacTrew]... I shudder to think what would happen if the miners all collectively decided to stop processing for a while. They'd get jittery and give in to ore cold-turkey within 2 days... If they actually had enough of an effect on the market to alter prices, people would pick up the slack by scabbing and raking in tons of cash. Capitalism is awesome that way. The only way the miners would be able to keep their strike going is by ganking scab miners, lol. It would be hilarious. That really would be funny, you could sell tickets to the PvP types to watch. PI schematic for popcorn would be handy in advance...
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 294	Posted - 2015.04.07 14:22:36 - [48] - Quote baltec1 wrote: We don't need more isk being injected by an army of AFK skiffs. Want minerals to be worth more? reduce the flow of them. Best way to do this? Support ganking. lol people thinking that mining creates isk....it creates minerals which others buy, it does not print isk. Infact now that the guy is ratting and making more isk (bounties come from nothing) is what prints isk. the isk printers is all found npc bounties and rewards Isk printing = incursions, mission rewards, rat bounties ( belt ratting/anoms/missions) not isk printing= PI, Mining, moon mining, Borderline isk printing = Loot from NPCs (modules created from nothing) currently all I can think of currently TL;DR payment for mining is just shifting isk from 1 player that's buying the mins or whats built to the seller of the mins/builder "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12547	Posted - 2015.04.07 14:45:01 - [49] - Quote Agondray wrote: lol people thinking that mining creates isk....it creates minerals which others buy, it does not print isk. Didn't read the OP, did you? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 498	Posted - 2015.04.07 14:53:18 - [50] - Quote Kiddoomer wrote: Bump, this thread must not die :x I'm for a dedicated mining mini-game for a long time, but not a compulsory, something that add yield but don't prevent to get some. I'm against a mini-game, but for more active gameplay in mining. My dad and I came up with what we think is a cool idea to allow for more active and attentive gameplay to result in higher mining yields through non-traditional ships and using mechanics that already exist in the game, to wit, energy transfers and deployables with limited AI. The post is here. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
0gopogo Earle Blitzkrieg. Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2015.04.07 15:16:37 - [51] - Quote Gardav wrote: Here is where I stand in this discussion: I support reducing overall yield from Mining but adding an additional gameplay mechanic that requires input from a Player using an UI similar to Data and Relic interface, a UI that if properly "played with" will increase Ore Yield and require Miners to spend time on each account to keep the Yield UP, thus rewarding Players that remain at keyboard and reducing the benefits of attempting to multibox Mining. Making Mining in EVE a more Active Profession IMO is the best change the Devs could do for Mining. I kinda like the idea of making it more active, or at least making mining more viable to a single account player, though I think the gameplay mechanic, if it were to share the Data and Relic UI, should be quite a bit different.
imariel Greuh Sacerdotium Nulli Secunda 2	Posted - 2015.04.07 16:58:07 - [52] - Quote 0gopogo Earle wrote: Gardav wrote: Here is where I stand in this discussion: I support reducing overall yield from Mining but adding an additional gameplay mechanic that requires input from a Player using an UI similar to Data and Relic interface, a UI that if properly "played with" will increase Ore Yield and require Miners to spend time on each account to keep the Yield UP, thus rewarding Players that remain at keyboard and reducing the benefits of attempting to multibox Mining. Making Mining in EVE a more Active Profession IMO is the best change the Devs could do for Mining. I kinda like the idea of making it more active, or at least making mining more viable to a single account player, though I think the gameplay mechanic, if it were to share the Data and Relic UI, should be quite a bit different. That's what i referred to as "strip miner calibration / ore vein pinpointing" Maybe having 1 "X/Y screen" per strip miner, with 2 cursors (1=actual strip miner position, and the second is the probing position). When you move the probing cursor the yield is updated, so you move it until you find a good spot and then define it as the new strip miner position. Regularly this screen is updated (=new best spots), so you have to continue moving the cursor to get a good yield. It would also give a new utility to the survey scan, to see the rich veins inside ore. It means that to achieve the best yield, we would not mine the asteroids until completion, but only until the veins are depleted. James Baboli, I took a look at your mining platforms and I'm not too fond of it : I like the idea of new ways to mine, but using other ships (than mining / hauling ships) just does not fit. If you are a miner you start with mining frigates, then barges and finally exhumers. Having to train cap transfer to enable these plateforms is just too different. However we could imagine some interaction between these and the mining ships (lens that magnify the strip miner ?)
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 54	Posted - 2015.04.07 17:59:43 - [53] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: That's the point. Eve is a game about tradeoffs. You want to mine more safely? Fine, but it will cost you some yield. You can't make industrial ships competitive with combat ships or why would anyone fly a regular combat ship? Industrial ships can already fit guns and drones (well except Freighters who require support ships), and there are already variants that can be fit out in a decent combat loadout if you want to bait someone. And I already take great delight in shooting industrial ships - it is quite entertaining - so I don't see where you come off thinking it is boring. You are choosing to play the prey item in this game when you undock in that industrial ship. That is the social compact you are agreeing to: serving as a target for other players in exchange for the benefit of the resources you are putting into the economy of New Eden. If you want "gudfights" check your fetish for maximizing ISK/h for just a bit, and go fit up an actual combat ship and look for one like everyone else. hmmmm I think I've mined for all but 10ish actual hours in the years Ive been playing, If I need isk I'll just run W sites, plex, rat, ect ect pretty much anything other than mine. why? It's about as engaging as watching paint dry. and yeah the trade-off is pretty much everything else for productive capacity. dealing with mining mechanics is a whole other topic, but one of main reasons I have no interest in mining is if anything shows up in local it's warp to SS and play keep away for a bit or safelog The only time is have enjoyed mining was actually when a small gang dropped on out skiff team, refit DDAs out of the orca and lol stomped them I'd be much more inclined to mine or haul if these ships had a real set of teeth to fight back with. and it would make actual fights with industrials and utility ships much more engaging than land scram and win.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12549	Posted - 2015.04.07 18:08:40 - [54] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: I'd be much more inclined to mine or haul if these ships had a real set of teeth to fight back with. and it would make actual fights with industrials and utility ships much more engaging than land scram and win. Barges can have guns the moment they can't just generate income and assets out of thin air with zero resistance or effort. Until then, they are nothing but targets, and targets they should remain. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Sorra Hibra Cell Dwellers 2	Posted - 2015.04.07 18:15:00 - [55] - Quote As a former miner who has multiboxed for years I would have to say that no viable form of mini-game will impact multiboxing or AFK mining. And while it will make it more interactive, it will not necessarily make it more fun. If we look at the two main ideas for the function of the mini-game (MG) we get a MG that if you donGÇÖt play you get standard yield and if you do you get more yield. I will call this MG1. We also get a MG that if you donGÇÖt play you get nothing and if you do you get standard yield, or MG2. Now lets look at the interaction required to play the MG. Firs t we will look and Input 1, same basic UI as hacking. Interaction starts when laser is activated, ore is collected when MG is won. Next we have Input 2, similar concept at PI, locate laser on green spot for more yield, red for less yield. Input 2 would also include shifting colors as you dig deeper in the asteroid. Now by combining these four classifications we get: MG1/I1 GÇô Input would have to be modified so that each time the MG was won, you get bonus ore. In this case, a mulitboxer would most likely run all the fleet on losing mode and win as he can to increase yield. MG1/I2 GÇô Same as above with the random bonus yield from moving lasers. MG2/I1 GÇô This would definitely kill multiboxing, as well as low/null/WH mining. Since this will require spending as much time watching your MG as you do watching D-Scan. MG2/I2 GÇô The input on this would have to be modified so that most of the asteroid was red, and red means no ore. This would be easier for low/null/WH since each interaction would only take a second to adjust. But because of the quick response to the changes in color, Input 2 would also be fairly easy to overcome with mulitboxing. As for the other targeted groups, only MG2 impacts AFK miners, and all would increase interaction from players.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2015.04.07 23:59:55 - [56] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Barges can have guns the moment they can't just generate income and assets out of thin air with zero resistance or effort. uhhhh they don't, they just move goods and gather minerals, giving guns wouldn't change that. incidentally things that do generate Isk and assets out of nothing with little to no effort include mission running drone / missile boats and they are well armed all things considered. Quote: Until then, they are nothing but targets, and targets they should remain. actually would you care to explain why? just leaving them unarmed makes them A.- really boring to fly B.- really boring to shoot at and there really isn't a good reason for it.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12554	Posted - 2015.04.08 00:22:41 - [57] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: uhhhh they don't They literally do create assets out of nothing. No effort, no risk, nothing involved but sitting there in a belt. Anything that can do that should never be permitted to have guns. Quote: actually would you care to explain why? just leaving them unarmed makes them A.- really boring to fly B.- really boring to shoot at and there really isn't a good reason for it. They are supposed to die. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 55	Posted - 2015.04.08 00:57:09 - [58] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: They literally do create assets out of nothing. No effort, no risk, nothing involved but sitting there in a belt. Anything that can do that should never be permitted to have guns. I'm sorry what? bringing a mining fleet in to null, W-space, or low takes no effort? hell even in high sec the unapologetically OP Uber space police cant do ** about a talos gank..... I've done this on several occasions. and adding guns and tank does not eliminate the risk at all, it just let's you actually fight back. and really the ones that can generate wealth, would be the barges and those would be the ships favored by the industrial revolution, and well Skiffs and Porcs they're quite combat capable as is. Nothing game breaking happened, I dare say it made engaging mining fleets abit more.... interesting. Quote:** They are supposed to die. as is true for actually every ship in the game, but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12554	Posted - 2015.04.08 01:23:45 - [59] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: and well Skiffs and Porcs they're quite combat capable as is. Nothing game breaking happened, I dare say it made engaging mining fleets abit more.... interesting. I would call what happened with Skiffs and Procurers game breaking. Now they're nigh invulnerable to smaller ships, taking yet more content away from the hands of people roaming around space. That's not only not a good thing, it's a downright terrible thing. I'd roll that back in a heartbeat, given the chance. Quote: but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless. Why should any ship that can create assets out of the blue with no effort be armed according to the standards of a combat ship? Just get rid of every ship designation, and homogenize everything why not. The answer to your question is that different ships are supposed to be different. Diversity is a good thing, and if you want a combat ship, fly one. If you want an industrial ship, fly one. But don't complain that your choice can't do everything, that's by design. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Mario Putzo 1167	Posted - 2015.04.08 02:33:41 - [60] - Quote Mining income....ships mining more.... The problem is, the more folks mine, the more gets mined the less stuff is worth. So increasing anything to do with mining actually decreases your net profit margins. What needs to happen is for consumption to rise, which it will likely do when Fozzie Sov kicks in. Of course you will be more so at the mercy of your local group of producers buying limit (if its cheaper to get it and transport it from elsewhere they will). Besides miners just got a big boost, Its now more profitable to mine, than it is to reprocess junk items. Which makes ore more valuable than mission loot. Besides the average price of ore and minerals should rise soon, they have been trending below demand for several months. Some have already maintained increases week over week (namely NS ore/minerals). The nerf to gun mining sucked a lot of available mid and high tier ores out. Mining in NS and LS then selling in HS should become quite profitable moving forward...especially since HS has no access to NS minerals otherwise, and NS is going to be getting a considerable buff to becoming independent of HS low tiers. Mining is going to be pretty profitable moving forward especially outside HS.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.