EVE Search - Miners need some love

Check My IP Information

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)
imariel Greuh Sacerdotium Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2015.04.05 09:27:03 - [1] - Quote Hi everyone, When I started to play, I was a lonely miner. Then I integrated a mining corp, then another, and then joined a French corp in 0.0. There I mined enough to buy / build my first capital ship, a carrier. The problem is, I now make much more money killing pirates than mining (even with rorqual boosts), so when my exhumers undock, I feel I am losing my time (and wealth). The only comfort I have is that now the belts really look amazing. Anyway I feel that the mining income should be higher. We could have ships mining more, the problem is it would most likely decrease the ore price, so that's not a realistic option. Here are the solutions I thought of : 1)Easiest one : Concord decreets that the drifter threat is really high and that we all need to prepare for that. To encourage pilots getting more / bigger / better equiped ships they create a subvention to ore/ice mining (yeah, that's a kind of bounty on ore). No drawbacks on the economy, just wealthier miners. It would also be possible to apply that through a "mining ess" (subventions stocked in until shared / stolen) 2)new mining ships ie t3 mining ships, with same ore/ice throughput, but with one added capacity (linked to subsystem choice ?) I thought that they could use some kind of electromagnetical device that would gather things around them (possible new mini game here). The things could be : -gas (would decrease the booster prices) -moon mining components (0.0 repartition is quite bad, you need a large zone to gather all you need. This solution will decrease the moon mining profitability) -new thing to sell at Concord -other, keeping in mind that what you gather will have its price decrease. Thanks for reading until the end :-) Imariel
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15569	Posted - 2015.04.05 09:36:45 - [2] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Madd Adda 59	Posted - 2015.04.05 09:38:23 - [3] - Quote yeah more money! nay t3 miner, that's a CODE wet dream right there. Carebear extraordinaire
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 236	Posted - 2015.04.05 09:39:37 - [4] - Quote Sorry, but no. The real way to increase miner income is to stimulate demand and kick bots. Npc's dropping small-run bpc's instead of modules has been touted before, another would be to trigger another r-b/asakai. Also, increasing the 'high end' ore requirements for most modules and ships would have the same effect on the 'high end' ores..... For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 25	Posted - 2015.04.05 10:06:34 - [5] - Quote A way more active mining gameplay would make go away a lot of afkers, each time a mining mini-game is proposed, there is always someone to say "may I say nay, I love my boring (aka easy to multibox) gameplay about pressing F1. But that's not what I want as a miner, I really want a dedicated profession that doesn't involve only very expensive ships and dedicated long-times to train skills, I want to make a difference by my (player) skills. That would already make a big change, we don't need other ships or NPC stuff, except better mining missions but solo only maybe. A simple survey scanner proposal : post
Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 304	Posted - 2015.04.05 10:15:41 - [6] - Quote I think the devs have plenty on their plate for the rest of the year and beyond - fixing sov and redoing the structure system is a massive undertaking. PvE and mining content does need addressing but it's not as pressing as those issues. Perhaps next year "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
imariel Greuh Sacerdotium Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2015.04.05 10:44:54 - [7] - Quote Galphii wrote: I think the devs have plenty on their plate for the rest of the year and beyond - fixing sov and redoing the structure system is a massive undertaking. PvE and mining content does need addressing but it's not as pressing as those issues. Perhaps next year The future new drilling plateforme can go in the same direction also
Fabrizio Faggetino University of Caille Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2015.04.05 10:59:40 - [8] - Quote The problem with mining isn't that miners don't get enough ores, It's that they get too much of it. There is a very large supply of it, hence why it's worth so little. It's also the reason why there's so many ******* super caps and titans. And now CCP is going to buff null sec ores, massive mistake IMO. What they should do is nerf them across the board. And I do mine, by the way.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 16229	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:04:28 - [9] - 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. Or as supplementary alternatives, promote increased demand. Support nullsec & sov reform to increase the number of fights; support BS rebalancing to make these mineral-hoggging hulls popular agai, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Raphael Celestine Celestine Inc. 58	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:20:35 - [10] - Quote There's no way to increase mining income across-the-board without causing major ripples in the rest of the game: mining's just too big a part of EVE's economy for that. The 'ore subvention' would create a massive new ISK faucet - quite possibly of a similar size to the ISK produced null-sec ratting, which CCP has elsewhere mentioned is insanely high and could easily crash the economy if they don't tread carefully. If you suddenly increase the amount of money in the economy, prices jump along with it... and sudden massive price spikes are generally considered 'drawbacks on the economy'. Otherwise, if you're not providing an NPC ISK faucet, you've got to pull any extra mining income out of the money currently flowing through the economy - so changes to what can be mined or how fast will either push up prices for consumers, or push down prices of minerals etc so that miners end up with the same income as now.

Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 25	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:26:43 - [11] - Quote Raphael Celestine wrote: There's no way to increase mining income across-the-board without causing major ripples in the rest of the game: mining's just too big a part of EVE's economy for that. The 'ore subvention' would create a massive new ISK faucet - quite possibly of a similar size to the ISK produced null-sec ratting, which CCP has elsewhere mentioned is insanely high and could easily crash the economy if they don't tread carefully. If you suddenly increase the amount of money in the economy, prices jump along with it... and sudden massive price spikes are generally considered 'drawbacks on the economy'. Otherwise, if you're not providing an NPC ISK faucet, you've got to pull any extra mining income out of the money currently flowing through the economy - so changes to what can be mined or how fast will either push up prices for consumers, or push down prices of minerals etc so that miners end up with the same income as now. Why not thinking it to be funnier instead ? Every isk earned, even if it stays a low income across the game, would make it more rewarding to the miners. I don't know for others but for me fun is way more important that in-game money, plus as a solo miner I just don't need isk, just enough to pay my ships and fit. And a miner isn't supposed to lose his ship every two days, but supposedly never. A simple survey scanner proposal : post
admiral root Red Galaxy 2646	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:26:49 - [12] - Quote imariel wrote: Anyway I feel that the mining income should be higher. Here are the solutions I thought of : 1)Easiest one : Blow **** up. Lots of it. I took the liberty of fixing your post. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. A recent survey of applicants to CODE. corporations showed that 100% accepted James 315 as their saviour. You can't argue with facts.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12527	Posted - 2015.04.05 11:59:06 - [13] - 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. Exactly this. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Korvus Falek Syndicate Society Drop the Hammer 100	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:32:56 - [14] - 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. Skiffs dont directly inject ISK into the market. What a fleet of miners does do, however, is increase the supply of ore and minerals. ISK is not created by mining (except for the bounties of rats when your fleet is attacked). Id suggest going after the massive number of mission runners, incursion runners, and site runners in all areas of space before suggesting that miners flood isk into the game. There is a large difference between item flow and isk flow; mining does not create ISK.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 821	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:35:15 - [15] - Quote Kiddoomer wrote: Why not thinking it to be funnier instead ? Every isk earned, even if it stays a low income across the game, would make it more rewarding to the miners. I don't know for others but for me fun is way more important that in-game money, plus as a solo miner I just don't need isk, just enough to pay my ships and fit. And a miner isn't supposed to lose his ship every two days, but supposedly never. Why isn't a miner suppose to never lose his ship? The game (or at least the economy) would be pretty broken if resource generating industrial ships like miners would be invulnerable. But if you find mining fun and don't want to ever lose your ship just mine on the test server. 100% safety there and all the fun! As to the OP, the ease of multiboxing, and especially botting, is what is keeping mineral prices down. Pressure CCP to step up their efforts to stop bots, and longer term, work on changes to the mining mechanic itself to make it much less easy to multibox if you want mining incomes to rise.
Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 25	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:57:07 - [16] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Kiddoomer wrote: Why not thinking it to be funnier instead ? Every isk earned, even if it stays a low income across the game, would make it more rewarding to the miners. I don't know for others but for me fun is way more important that in-game money, plus as a solo miner I just don't need isk, just enough to pay my ships and fit. And a miner isn't supposed to lose his ship every two days, but supposedly never. Why isn't a miner suppose to never lose his ship? The game (or at least the economy) would be pretty broken if resource generating industrial ships like miners would be invulnerable. But if you find mining fun and don't want to ever lose your ship just mine on the test server. 100% safety there and all the fun! As to the OP, the ease of multiboxing, and especially botting, is what is keeping mineral prices down. Pressure CCP to step up their efforts to stop bots, and longer term, work on changes to the mining mechanic itself to make it much less easy to multibox if you want mining incomes to rise. I agree 100% with the third part, as for the "losing mining ship", I was saying that a (not afk) miner should and do avoid combat at all cost, while most of the time a pvp player undock knowing that there is a high probability that he will get destroyed. And no that's because I find mining boring that I want it to change, not because I don't recieve "enough" isk for doing it. A simple survey scanner proposal : post
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 918	Posted - 2015.04.05 12:57:35 - [17] - Quote Cutting down on the flow of ISK into the game is another way to buff mining. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 96	Posted - 2015.04.05 13:25:12 - [18] - Quote Wealthier miners... Sounds not really good. There are too many miners so it's an obvious oversupply.. CODE is not doing it'sr job as it should be.
Raphael Celestine Celestine Inc. 58	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:02:26 - [19] - Quote Korvus Falek 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. Skiffs dont directly inject ISK into the market. What a fleet of miners does do, however, is increase the supply of ore and minerals. ISK is not created by mining (except for the bounties of rats when your fleet is attacked). Id suggest going after the massive number of mission runners, incursion runners, and site runners in all areas of space before suggesting that miners flood isk into the game. There is a large difference between item flow and isk flow; mining does not create ISK. One of OP's suggestions was that CONCORD should pay an ore bounty, which would be an ISK source.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15574	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:25:54 - [20] - Quote Malcanis 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. Or as supplementary alternatives, promote increased demand. Support nullsec & sov reform to increase the number of fights; support BS rebalancing to make these mineral-hoggging hulls popular agai, We get more demand from more gankers. Remember, not only does the miner need a new ship but also the gankers Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 260	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:19:03 - [21] - Quote Do you even care using the search tool before posting? Now I know you don't. Reported for redundancy
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 617	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:23:04 - [22] - Quote You are looking at this the wrong way but as always CCP has listened to the Band of Developers needs and will change all the nullsec ores so you can make all your sooper-dooper-boats in nullsec without any need to trading. Anyhow, you believe that the resource you collect should always translate into raw cash but you are mistaken. When I was with RAGE I always wondered so many things and the desicions they made and why and I could never figure out why we didn't do things much better.. But as always, nobody listens to the fury of New Eden - their loss. Think! You have access to x-amount of ores which you can bake into ships and modules - things your alliance buddies like to have available to them. Why would you need chash in the first place? You can make all this stuff and get some other stuff from your buddies in return, one back scratches another. And here I wonder why alliances fail.. signature
Sorra Hibra Cell Dwellers 0	Posted - 2015.04.05 17:03:36 - [23] - Quote As a player that has mined for most of my 10 yrs of Eve, I would have to say that barges/exhumers are the key to the downfall of mining. Back when you had to have an Apoch to mine it took far too much concentration to run 30 accounts.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 152	Posted - 2015.04.05 20:22:21 - [24] - Quote Have you seen Megacyte and Zydrine prices? GO MINE NOW! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 25	Posted - 2015.04.05 20:43:45 - [25] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Have you seen Megacyte and Zydrine prices? GO MINE NOW! Already doing that ^^ but seriously I think that it's time ccp look at mining gameplay mechanics, not urgent of course (as usual with peon stuff) but really needed. A simple survey scanner proposal : post
Oshien 2nd Suns ArK Alliance 1	Posted - 2015.04.05 22:41:34 - [26] - Quote Current Mining Implementation: Asteroids have only 1 ore type ex Veld, Dense Veld, Spod Asteroids have an exact amount of units that can be pulled from the rock Survey Scanner can be used to see how many units in the asteroid Very easy to determine isk/hr - no real "reward" feeling Some ideas for change: No more single ore Asteroids Survey scanner used on an asteroid will show veins in the rock *get a pop up that looks similar to hacking window target the vein itself *low quality lasers have very little effect on high end ores **example: Miner I > arkonor vein has very little yeild (If any) but high waste of units in the Asteroid 10 units in the vein - 1 unti mined 9 units wasted Severe penalties for off crystal strip miners example: Veldspar mining crystal used on a Arkonor Vein will have a high waste factor **High reward for correct crystals example: Arkonor crystal on an Arkonor Vein Can target different veins on the same Asteroid simultaneously Add reward to mining Once a vein is used up a new vein may open up in the asteroid possible better ores closer to the center of the asteroid new types of super high yield ore - very rare spawn - think faction spawn for miners more veins per rock the lower security space you get into Better mining cycles Have mining lasers charge up Mining lasers start with lower yields close to the start of a cycle mining amount grows until reaches optimal amount Stays at optimal until lasers are deactivated - continues until next cycle unless shut down More "collection" ticks - not just when the cycle ends I think this would make a much more interesting experience. Afking would be a lot less profitable since you would need to target the veins themselves, and have the correct crystals. Stripping out just the most valuable ores in a belt would be impossible. Sorry my thread was closed. But I was thinking if you could mine through a vein of veldspar and discover a vein of Compressed Dense Veldspar (for lack of a better idea). A lot more lucrative and would be exciting to find. I think there may be some who will still mine and it would be a lot more exciting.
thatonepersone Son's of Plunder The Marmite Collective 21	Posted - 2015.04.05 22:43:21 - [27] - Quote 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.
Iain Cariaba 1228	Posted - 2015.04.05 22:48:39 - [28] - Quote 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. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better.
Oshien 2nd Suns ArK Alliance 1	Posted - 2015.04.05 22:51:48 - [29] - Quote 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. Afk these days is a general term. If he has 10 accounts he is only spending 6 mins/hr avg per account. I would consider that afk even if he is technically at the keyboard.
thatonepersone Son's of Plunder The Marmite Collective 21	Posted - 2015.04.05 22:58:34 - [30] - Quote 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.

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.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2016	Posted - 2015.04.08 11:21:22 - [61] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: 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. Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income. I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed.
Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 27	Posted - 2015.04.08 12:20:14 - [62] - Quote What about making miners who do the active or mini-game stuff to get something different than ore ? Very little amount of moon goo ? gas ? PI or even ice ? A simple survey scanner proposal : post
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12568	Posted - 2015.04.08 12:24:26 - [63] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: 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. Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income. I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed. "Waah, explosions are allowed to happen". The fact of the matter is that less ships being destroyed directly equates to less economic demand for that particular ship. Every ship in this game exists to die, as far as the economy is concerned. This is most important for mining ships, since they are the ship type that contributes by far the most minerals into the game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12570	Posted - 2015.04.08 12:29:58 - [64] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income. Oh, and then there's this. "My ship should be able to do everything because I think I'm special". No, Nevyn, your industrial ships should and never will be able to have a "real ability to protect themselves". If you want that, fly a combat ship, it's what they're for. What your ships are for are generating income and assets without risk, so they get to be fodder when a real player decides to destroy you. If you want to have a big tank while doing this, you get the Proc/Skiff and the slightly reduced income they bring. Oh, shock and outrage. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 242	Posted - 2015.04.08 12:31:16 - [65] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: 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. Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income. I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed. "Waah, explosions are allowed to happen". The fact of the matter is that less ships being destroyed directly equates to less economic demand for that particular ship. Every ship in this game exists to die, as far as the economy is concerned. This is most important for mining ships, since they are the ship type that contributes by far the most minerals into the game. that last bit is bullshit - every ship exists to die, true mining ships particularly - false this is especially true for frigates, since they are supposed to be semi-expendable or you could say it's especially true for titans, since they require the most minerals to produce if you check the retail volumes, I'm pretty sure that frigs and dessies will be the most purchased class across the whole of new eden. If mining ships were supposed to be destroyed, they'd all have paper tanks, no fitting options, be cheap to replace, and cheap to make. oh wait - I've just described shuttles, lol For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12570	Posted - 2015.04.08 12:34:03 - [66] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: If mining ships were supposed to be destroyed, they'd all have paper tanks, no fitting options, be cheap to replace, and cheap to make. Barring two of them, they are all of those things. If you want to include industrial ships in general, the proportion increases considerably. They're 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 61	Posted - 2015.04.08 13:01:48 - [67] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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. Hmm giving industrials more defensive capabilities = more cheep low SP industrials in dangerous space, instead of blockade runners and JFs, = more things to shoot at, and more things that shoot back = more content particularly for new players who cant fly T2 industrials or JFs more industrials in not high sec. so that is an ass backwards argument there. and I'm not proposing, industrials should also have a full flight of sentuires, rack of 250 rails, and bomb launchers, Im just say'n they should be able to fight back, the whole PVP thing is much more entertaining and engaging when both parties are shooting. which on this note you know what ship generates a lot of isk with no effort or risk, PVEs ships..... just say'n they'd still be slow, close range, hulls
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12570	Posted - 2015.04.08 13:14:46 - [68] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: and I'm not proposing, industrials should also have a full flight of sentuires, rack of 250 rails, and bomb launchers, Im just say'n they should be able to fight back, the whole PVP thing is much more entertaining and engaging when both parties are shooting. If you want to shoot back, you get to fly a combat ship. Period. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 245	Posted - 2015.04.08 14:07:25 - [69] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: If mining ships were supposed to be destroyed, they'd all have paper tanks, no fitting options, be cheap to replace, and cheap to make. Barring two of them, they are all of those things. If you want to include industrial ships in general, the proportion increases considerably. They're supposed to die. yes, if you bar half the list, they are all of those things, I could probably turn red into blue by that logic head-desks it's primary, it's a colour, oh there we go, the whole list is satisfied..... and what do you mean by including industrial ships in general? explain that in a paragraph instead of half a line? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12571	Posted - 2015.04.08 14:10:38 - [70] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: yes, if you bar half the list, they are all of those things, I could probably turn red into blue by that logic head-desks it's primary, it's a colour, oh there we go, the whole list is satisfied..... and what do you mean by including industrial ships in general? explain that in a paragraph instead of half a line? They have paper tanks, tightly restricted fitting options, are cheap to replace, cheap to make. Fits the bill if you ask me. The majority of industrial ships follow suit. "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 61	Posted - 2015.04.08 17:38:08 - [71] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: and I'm not proposing, industrials should also have a full flight of sentuires, rack of 250 rails, and bomb launchers, Im just say'n they should be able to fight back, the whole PVP thing is much more entertaining and engaging when both parties are shooting. If you want to shoot back, you get to fly a combat ship. Period. Can't tell if you're being deliberately think or actually believe the bilge you're posting. - you still have not given a single reason why should not be armed other than they're supposed to die, and makes it impossible for week old toons to kill some mythical armed badger. One is not an argument, and the latter is absolute bullshit, a week old toon can kill a damn N.Apoc if caught with the right frig regardless of SP limitations, more to the point with these ships being capable of holding their own in a brawl. you'd think there'd be more of these cheep industrials flying around all over the place in null, low and W-space. which means easy high value targets for upcoming proper pirates. - You state, these ships generate wealth without effort or risk. uuuuummm as these ships are some of the most lucrative things to kill at no point in time are you not at risk while on grid, and mining or hauling is no more effortless than running L4s half AFK in say a Golem really lets talk about PVE ships they actually spawn Isk, minerals, BPs, mods you name it, and are quite combat capable. why should the same logic not be extended onto those ships?
Lienzo Amanuensis 78	Posted - 2015.04.09 00:02:46 - [72] - Quote Things we want: We want to punish AFK/Bots/Multiboxing bots, etc GÇó Move the rocks further apart. By a lot. -This makes it harder to support an afk fleet. -It promotes frequent relocating. -It promotes the utility of transport ships like the miasmos. -It promotes investment in high capacity support ships. -I like big belts and I can not lie.=ƒÄ¦ GÇó Make players manage rock hazards -How aggressively players attack rocks should govern how hazardous they are. -A smartbomb effect with falloff could be matched with an ore laser falloff mechanic. -Damage clouds could build up over time, demanding active management or roid swapping. -More lasers on the same asteroid should keep pumping up a damage cloud with almost no limit. -New modules could be implemented for damage mitigation. -Warfare links could support extend laser falloff to mitigate risk. -Ore damage bonuses could be a feature of industrial ships, allowing them to weaponize it against attackers. We don't like wings of mining ships in npc corps GÇóMake anchor for corp structures important for mining. -Perhaps they could be some kind of access difficulty modifier for ore density. -Perhaps they could help find or ID rocks. -Perhaps barges could merely liberate ore, and most of it would get hoovered up by these structures. -Structures could be useful for damage mitigation from aggressive asteroid operations. -The inherent purpose of corps and structures is to promote conflict. See ESS. We want to even the playing field GÇó We need deep space asteroid belts with deadspace mechanics, but no acceleration gates. -This prevents support for either party from simply dropping in to play. -This prevents bots (and us) from warping between asteroid bookmarks and their dumping point. -They can still be anoms instead of sigs with no real penalty, allowing hunters to hunt. -It allows for a unique environment in which we might be able to use something like an industrial ship cyno. GÇó We need each asteroid to those in its vicinity from d-scan like a mobile scan inhibitor. -This puts everyone on an equal footing in all areas, especially WHs. -In the shadow of a rock, every ship has the same advantage as a recon. -Predators, prey and bait can scurry from rock to rock. -If you mine out a rock, afk or otherwise, you lose your cover. We want pirates to get a sporting chance too GÇó Put a variable size warp disruption bubble inside of each asteroid. -If hostile show up on grid, there should be a fight, a race for the edge of the bubble, or a race to kill the rock. -The greater the prize, the bigger the bubble -This forces hostiles to commit, exposing them to risk from defense forces. - This limits or negates warping from asteroid to asteroid, forcing some travel, deadspace or no. We want risk to match reward GÇóOre density should follow exposure and effort. -Make ore density propensity follow system security, rewarding WHs best. -Dense forms should be significantly more dense than standard or weak forms. -Seed low density ABCs and Ice in secure space. -Make asteroid cluster density be a function of how deep we travel into belts. -Make concord/faction police response time slower deep in belts.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 85	Posted - 2015.04.09 14:04:47 - [73] - Quote imariel wrote: Hi everyone, When I started to play, I was a lonely miner. Then I integrated a mining corp, then another, and then joined a French corp in 0.0. There I mined enough to buy / build my first capital ship, a carrier. The problem is, I now make much more money killing pirates than mining (even with rorqual boosts), so when my exhumers undock, I feel I am losing my time (and wealth). The only comfort I have is that now the belts really look amazing. Anyway I feel that the mining income should be higher. We could have ships mining more, the problem is it would most likely decrease the ore price, so that's not a realistic option. Here are the solutions I thought of : 1)Easiest one : Concord decreets that the drifter threat is really high and that we all need to prepare for that. To encourage pilots getting more / bigger / better equiped ships they create a subvention to ore/ice mining (yeah, that's a kind of bounty on ore). No drawbacks on the economy, just wealthier miners. It would also be possible to apply that through a "mining ess" (subventions stocked in until shared / stolen) 2)new mining ships ie t3 mining ships, with same ore/ice throughput, but with one added capacity (linked to subsystem choice ?) I thought that they could use some kind of electromagnetical device that would gather things around them (possible new mini game here). The things could be : -gas (would decrease the booster prices) -moon mining components (0.0 repartition is quite bad, you need a large zone to gather all you need. This solution will decrease the moon mining profitability) -new thing to sell at Concord -other, keeping in mind that what you gather will have its price decrease. Thanks for reading until the end :-) Imariel 1) Okay seem plausible that a faction which keeps the peace, sees a big danger in rocks. 2) no, no, no aaaand no. if you buff mining --> even more people go mining --> price low --> crying in the forum --> buffing --> etc. and this for a activity that require not much actions an not much sp-¦s. Seems not very fair. -1
erg cz Tribal Core 192	Posted - 2015.04.09 14:25:39 - [74] - Quote Lienzo wrote: Things we want: We want to punish AFK/Bots/Multiboxing bots, etc ... We don't like wings of mining ships in npc corps ... We want to even the playing field ... We want pirates to get a sporting chance too ... We want risk to match reward ... All you want is in here. Stop afk boring mining - make mining more interactive. No bot can adapt to really interactive mining.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 218	Posted - 2015.04.12 07:11:06 - [75] - Quote Malcanis 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. Or as supplementary alternatives, promote increased demand. Support nullsec & sov reform to increase the number of fights; support BS rebalancing to make these mineral-hoggging hulls popular agai, Well I would have said we would never even remotely agree on anything but if you believe as I do that the blue doughnut needs to be running 23/7 with splattering clone blood and space carnage rather than the the current status quo which is more "Space Farmer" than EVE the PvP game then I'm plussing you....just this once. +1 Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Chaotix Morwen Ugly Duckling Inc 23	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:01:01 - [76] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: 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. Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income. I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed. Are you seriously suggesting that indie ships being able to take on combats ships is a realistic fitting request? So what a retriever should be able to evenly fight a thorax? Why fly a thorax then? Just fight with the retriever and have the bonus of being able to mine if you ever need to.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1278	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:17:10 - [77] - Quote I disagree with the original post and I do write for miners in a few instances. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12606	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:54:33 - [78] - Quote Chaotix Morwen wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that indie ships being able to take on combats ships is a realistic fitting request? That's exactly what he wants. It's splattered all over his post history, too. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 126	Posted - 2015.04.12 18:09:30 - [79] - Quote Miners get plenty of love already. Antimatter counts as love, right? HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1386	Posted - 2015.04.12 18:31:48 - [80] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Miners get plenty of love already. Antimatter counts as love, right? My love for miners is like the mutual self-annihilation of antiparticles indeed. Where once was two opposites in beautiful attractions, there exist only energy and explosions. Just like the majestic miner, and the anti-miner catalyst. OP: L2Skiff.

Ivarr Kerensky Kerensky Tactical Group 44	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:19:29 - [81] - Quote Lets see - Orca - Orca with hangar meaning they don't need to use jetcans to transfer ore - crimewatch system massively favours miners - crimewatch doesn't require you to be in the same corp anymore to defend assets, meaning less wardec issues - massively improved CONCORD - making insurance variable rather than fixed, meaning mineral prices are no longer held back by it - Venture - massive changes to mining ships, massively more EHP and an ore hold so that even the dumbest miner can now make the choice to fit a DC and shield extender rigs I'd say that miners have been getting too much love over the years. Excellence is an attitude.
Max Deveron Deveron Shipyards and Technology 199	Posted - 2015.04.14 04:17:42 - [82] - Quote Juan Mileghere wrote: 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 that Max proposed if something like that was added, I'll put them up in major mining systems and kill unsuspecting miners left and right if that's introduced... uhm that was the point....at least more so for those corps that want control of the belts where they live.
O2 jayjay Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem. 22	Posted - 2015.04.14 05:24:06 - [83] - Quote I think Null and Low sec mining needs to be worth more. Low sec should be able to pull in just as much as a incursion (LP included) and null sec mining should pull in as much as lvl 5 missions. Matches the risk vs rewards and gives me more stuff to shoot at. Increase rewards in low and null=more miners trying to mine and more hunters roaming. Win Win P.S. i don't see how miners can sit in a belt and mine. you get a cloakie ship or a recon ship and you're done for. d scan wont help you and you will have to run and hide if anyone came in system. Doesn't make any sense with the risk vs reward at its current state. Its boring and take way to much time. hinting why there is so many problems with afk mining. Increase the rewards in those spaces will give better game play (don't forget to reduce high sec mining)
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 113	Posted - 2015.04.14 06:41:25 - [84] - Quote O2 jayjay wrote: I think Null and Low sec mining needs to be worth more. Low sec should be able to pull in just as much as a incursion (LP included) and null sec mining should pull in as much as lvl 5 missions. Matches the risk vs rewards and gives me more stuff to shoot at. Increase rewards in low and null=more miners trying to mine and more hunters roaming. Win Win P.S. i don't see how miners can sit in a belt and mine. you get a cloakie ship or a recon ship and you're done for. d scan wont help you and you will have to run and hide if anyone came in system. Doesn't make any sense with the risk vs reward at its current state. Its boring and take way to much time. hinting why there is so many problems with afk mining. Increase the rewards in those spaces will give better game play (don't forget to reduce high sec mining) But null sec is already rewarded by abc ores which you can't find in empire and low sec. As well as ability to boost up with rorq+orcas bonuses. Ofc you have to manage index's but it's not a biggie issue. If we are talking about smaller gangs or either solo individuals the low secnis the right place.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 696	Posted - 2015.04.14 13:38:07 - [85] - 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. /thread EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Quintessen Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing 498	Posted - 2015.04.14 14:16:07 - [86] - Quote Arya Regnar 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. /thread OR... increase demand. You could increase the mineral costs of all items by 20% and minters would make more per hour. Or you could do what Fozzie mentioned at Fanfest and change up the composition and make certain minerals more valuable because of increased demand.
Kiddoomer ScrewWork Inc. 29	Posted - 2015.04.14 14:25:00 - [87] - Quote Quintessen wrote: Arya Regnar 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. /thread OR... increase demand. You could increase the mineral costs of all items by 20% and minters would make more per hour. Or you could do what Fozzie mentioned at Fanfest and change up the composition and make certain minerals more valuable because of increased demand. Zydrine and megacyte are supposed to doubled in quantity in nearly every blueprint of the game with next expansion, but it's only a nullsec buff, for all over highsec it will become even worse to produce with a decent benefit. A simple survey scanner proposal : post


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.