|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Amphetaminer
   |
Posted - 2007.03.21 18:37:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Amphetaminer on 21/03/2007 18:35:56
 Originally by: Miranda Ceres
And these changes are required because?
Mining is already profitable enough.
Your idea for mining ships to have huge mining cargo holds is ridiculous. It's like a macroers wet dream.
These are required because mining at the moment is very tedious, there are alot of anoying parts to it that could be fixed. Ore thieving thats basicly unstoppable... You mining for 3mins on an ore that only had like 2units left.. A retriever being worse in mining then a BC while it takes lots more time to train for one! (not even talking about BS here!).. Having paperthin armor while also being slow and no offensive powers..
i can go on and on.
Now for your second point "Mining is already profitable enough" says who? A solo mission runner makes more then a miner. While i also depend on others (hauler) + i dont even have a chance to get a rare item like mission runners do wich makes them multi millions.
Only mining in 0.0 can be pretty profitable if you find a good ore belt wich is safe + not being mined by others and you dont have to pay rent etc etc. (most people who mine in 0.0 give all there ore to the corp) so again not a viable option for making the "big bucks"
Now about the cargoholds. What i think is rediculous is that in 3mins my cargohold is full of ore and 1 of my lasers shuts down because i mined more then can fit in my cargo hold. Who designs a ship that cant even hold what his t1! strip miners mine in 1 cycle?!
edit:
oh and about the macro'rs so because there are macro miners all of us real miners should be punished? I hear there are also mission running macro'rs following the same logic: lets nerf the rewards for the missions aswell and the favorite mission running ships
|
Amphetaminer
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 01:03:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Firebyrd
Every thing you've suggested improves Macro'rs, and makes them invulnerable to other people. We dont need to be making them easier to be created...
and i have been running lvl 3 missions, to improve standings, lvl 3 missions dont make any more isk, then a miner in Covertor with T2 lasers and crystals, with maxxed skills, and mining bonuses....
in fact most of your ideas Dumb mining down.... Hard core Miners are more effecient then any of your ideas... and you just made us look Stupid.... So I say no to these ideas....
and if i would agree on any would be the bigger cans, but we dont need more lag and clutter in the belts
nice so you are saying a miner with maxed skills (months of training) in a 25m ship with 3 t2 lasers that will cost him 75m + makes more then someone doing lvl 3 missions. WELL I WOULD HOPE SO. Fact is you can do lvl 3's in a cheap ship with less training and come near the amount the miner makes... If you would spend the equal money + training and went to do lvl 4's you would make much more.
It also seems you didnt really read the post because half of the suggestions would not help macro'rs at all. And then there is the part that real players shouldnt suffer because of cheaters. And if you think they do then plz nerf mission running because they get macro'd aswell.
thanks for your constructive post and its nice that you yourself wrote some good suggestions ... <-- Sarcasm
|
Amphetaminer
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 19:16:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Harisdrop
CCP stated that mining is the farthest thing they ever would dedicate any time to. PVP and ship combat is more important than mining.
here is the top five cool things I think CCP likes to work on.
5. Petitions.
4.Forum posts
3.mining.
2.NPC.
1PvP
plz give me a source where you got this info?
|
Amphetaminer
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 17:43:00 -
[4]
yes what you suggest about the cans is a good idea but why post it in this thread what has this got to do with mining? i think u could better just make a new thread about it.
|
Amphetaminer
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 20:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Vivus Mors
Originally by: Amphetaminer
yes what you suggest about the cans is a good idea but why post it in this thread what has this got to do with mining? i think u could better just make a new thread about it.
Well, seeing as it's my thread, I'll let myself off with a warning. But just this once! I'm going to be keeping myself on a short leash from now on though, I don't know when myself will get away from, well, myself... errrrr... yeah...
Also, as per my linked document and previous discussions in this thread about "alternative" containers for mining, it's perfectly appropriate in this thread as it lends more credence and reasonability to having specific, and yet vastly fewer "mining secure containers" instead the countless litter there currently is.
As anyone in any significant mining operation has found out quite quickly, performance is like in a decent battle, lots of ships, with lots of lasers, and lots of drones all zipping about does wonders for performance, but the "fog of garbage" in many asteroid belts further amplifies the problem.
Players that actually use their anchored containers is one thing, but at some point enough is enough, and only those that actually use them should be maintained "indefinitely", and node-per-node that would help not just the miners but everyone in the area.
Yes treu miners definately need bigger GSC's but the 3months not Active GSC's i think is something they should implement as soon as possible because i think it will improve the performance alot. And i think most people will agree on this. Since CCP doesnt seem to care about mining much and for some reason alot of people are against trying to help a miner a bit. I think making a seperate post about the GSC dissapearing after 3months will have more chance being seen then in this thread (sadly)
|
Amphetaminer
|
Posted - 2007.04.05 13:40:00 -
[6]
getting suicide ganked in a covetor is no risk?
|
Amphetaminer
Grumpy Old Men
|
Posted - 2007.04.22 22:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: DragonRiderTao
blahblah
I geuss when you can't bring any good arguments to counter what was said you just go and correct the spelling to try and make you look less like an idiot? I don't care how many spelling mistakes where made good arguments still rank higher then the nonsense you wrote.
|
|
|
| |
|