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

Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
65
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 19:14:00 -
[31] - Quote
A good read, thanks.
Manufacturing Papercuts ***CSM Interstellar Debate - Mining Profession**
|

Megnamon
HOMELE55 FORECLOSURE.
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 19:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
Not running for CSM, but here is my 2 cents on the issue of mining bots...
I think CCP should develop a method for identifying bots such as follows...
In high sec, a pilot can project an electronic verification tag onto a miner (done through either a new module or whatever). This tag gives the ship owner an audio and message warning and has a 15 minute countdown. The ship owner can at any time make a few simple clicks to disable the tag. If this is not done by the end of the countdown, the tagged ship is classified by CONCORD as being "abandoned" and can be aggressied without facing a CONCORD response. Sort of like a reverse global criminal flag.
Thoughts? |

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
If it's just clicks it will be defeated by whatever botting program is out there. If it's words (i.e. captcha or something similar), it will just serve to make mining a somehow even more annoying profession than it is. Hugely prone to abuse as well - imagine flying in and tagging every single member of a mining op. It also loses most of its effectiveness if someone is playing with audio disabled.
|

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2389
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:27:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tiger Would wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Who is going to speak for the silent majority of players who like mining bots because they keep ship prices low? I think you are looking for mittens, though he is part of a not so silent minority. Bots don't whine in local when you gank them. |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2389
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
Megnamon wrote:Not running for CSM, but here is my 2 cents on the issue of mining bots...
I think CCP should develop a method for identifying bots such as follows...
In high sec, a pilot can project an electronic verification tag onto a miner (done through either a new module or whatever). This tag gives the ship owner an audio and message warning and has a 15 minute countdown. The ship owner can at any time make a few simple clicks to disable the tag. If this is not done by the end of the countdown, the tagged ship is classified by CONCORD as being "abandoned" and can be aggressied without facing a CONCORD response. Sort of like a reverse global criminal flag.
Thoughts? sounds like a great way to kill anyone who autopilots to jita, and something every bot will be programmed to instantly shut off |

Grumpy Owly
241
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:42:00 -
[36] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Tiger Would wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Who is going to speak for the silent majority of players who like mining bots because they keep ship prices low? I think you are looking for mittens, though he is part of a not so silent minority. Bots don't whine in local when you gank them.
Some players wont whine to give satisfaction either.
Bounty Hunting for CSM 7
Stop EvE Apathy |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
970
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 21:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
Since I am the only CSM 7 candidate that has made mining my major focus I am happy to address some things I think need to happen.
1. While drone loot changes will put money in miners pockets, isk per hour is not the only problem with mining. To think make that change and mining is fine is just wrong.
2. CCP clearly is not serious about making mining with bots go away. You could easily modify the UI to make screen scraping harder and change client internals to make more sophisticated bots more difficult. In addition patches could change those internal elements regularly to break any bots that did manage to overcome the more complicated requirements. (before anyone says "cannot" I'm a software engineer by trade, I know what I'm talking about).
3. The casual social mining experience we have today should remain, be we are long overdue for another level of mining. There should be new things to mine (comets that drop moon goo for example), new ships and fittings and the upper level of mining should be dynamic (for example ore that can produce multiple minerals that you have to select and mining lasers and drones the need real time input to produce optimal results). Maybe introduce rocks that could require archaeology to recover ancient artifacts.
Think about how combat and mining differ. In combat I make active choices about ships selection and configuration and my real skills affect the outcome. At the highest level mining should offer that same experience.
Those are my ideas, but I want to point out I am creating a panel of advisers to help brainstorm the best suggestions to offer CCP.
I'd be glad to answer any specific questions of offer more details to anyone that is interested.
Bottom line, mining has never really changed. Mining needs to be more than isks/hour. It need fun per hour and diversity in challenges that are more in line with combat.
Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate |

Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 07:16:00 -
[38] - Quote
I personally would like to call out people in this thread (some of you are pretty smart guys) to make some noise with the upcoming CSM candidates.
The more aware they are that you're here the easier it is to get these things changed in the next iterations.
The less noise you make, the less that will happen for industry.
Consider threads like this where most ice miners in high-sec are either semi-afk, or bots. Where someone has observed the facts and got the killboard stats to prove it.
No matter your thoughts on his methods, you can't really dispute his observations about industry in the game. Things need to change so this profession doesn't just die.
Be your own lobbyist. Get in their individual threads and question the candidates on this stuff. It doesn't really matter who you're voting for as long as you make them understand there are people out there very interested in an industry iteration to make CCP start to re-evaluate the industry problems. Manufacturing Papercuts ***CSM Interstellar Debate - Mining Profession**
|

Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 13:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
Nice to see how we got the ball rolling here. Let's keep this up guys.
As for some of you who posted links to my thread in your signatures, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I also greatly appreciate that the people here have remained quite civilized in this discussion.
Revolution Rising, you are absolutely right when you say that if anyone here in the forums wants the mining profession to be iterated on then they will have to make sure they make their voices heard. If no one tries, then no one should be surprised if this doesn't get iterated on in the foreseeable future. ***CSM Interstellar Debate - Mining Profession*** ***CSM Interstellar Debate - Combat PvP*** |

Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1728
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 16:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:2. CCP clearly is not serious about making mining with bots go away. You could easily modify the UI to make screen scraping harder and change client internals to make more sophisticated bots more difficult. In addition patches could change those internal elements regularly to break any bots that did manage to overcome the more complicated requirements. (before anyone says "cannot" I'm a software engineer by trade, I know what I'm talking about).
This is actually what CCP claims they want to try. Unfortunately, we have 30 years of evidence that it is not a cost effective approach.
These technical fixes will always fail because they mean the defender is engaging in a technological arms race with the attackers, who are always more numerous, have more time, and (due to the law of large numbers) are smarter. In addition, they require constant and significant human attention (programmer time), which makes them a constant expense.
Example of these arms races: the copy-protection wars starting in the late 70's; the virus wars.
The only cost effective solution is behavioral detection ("spam filtering"), because bots face an inherent conflict -- if they act exactly like a human (which is hard!), they are less efficient at their task (which raises the cost of doing business). Modern machine learning techniques can tease out behavioral signatures that would never occur to humans, and you can tune the false positive rate down to any level you want.
If CCP wanted to be really clever, they would do what Netflix did - release anonymized databases of log information (of known human players, known bot players, and a set of unclassified players) and have a content for interested parties to come up with the best adaptive bot detector. That would reverse the equation, because now the defenders will be more numerous, have more time, and be on-average smarter than the bot writers. I am sure such a contest would attract attention from outside the EVE community.
WRT what else needs to be done with mining, apart from tweaking down non-mining sources of minerals, an update to the mechanic so that miners who are actively involved (for example, steering their lasers at hotspots) can extract more than AFK miners would seem reasonable.
And it would provide yet another signature for bot-detection.
Trebor -- the true miner's friend Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
|

Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 17:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: If CCP wanted to be really clever, they would do what Netflix did - release anonymized databases of log information (of known human players, known bot players, and a set of unclassified players) and have a content for interested parties to come up with the best adaptive bot detector. That would reverse the equation, because now the defenders will be more numerous, have more time, and be on-average smarter than the bot writers. I am sure such a contest would attract attention from outside the EVE community.
Interesting concept, but what are the downsides of this idea (if any)? Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |

Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1731
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 00:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote: If CCP wanted to be really clever, they would do what Netflix did - release anonymized databases of log information (of known human players, known bot players, and a set of unclassified players) and have a contest for interested parties to come up with the best adaptive bot detector. That would reverse the equation, because now the defenders will be more numerous, have more time, and be on-average smarter than the bot writers. I am sure such a contest would attract attention from outside the EVE community.
Interesting concept, but what are the downsides of this idea (if any)? There are always downsides. For example, care has to be taken to anonymize the data so that information can't easily be datamined out of it -- not just character names, by the way; you wouldn't want people to be able to easily cross-corrrelate the logs to other information available in-game and get useful intel about it. That's going to require a little effort up front, and you'd probably want to use older data so that if someone did manage it, the information they get is out of date and thus of marginal value.
The bottom line for me is that the experiment would be useful, cheap to run, and would be a significant PR win.
Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1001
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 00:29:00 -
[43] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Updated as of 12 Feb YC 114 I feel that perhaps I should have required all candidates to post a reply with their own personal answers to the following questions. Current Questions to all Candidates:
- What do you candidates propose that CCP do in terms of gameplay to curb or discourage the use of mining bots without making it too much of a hassle or inconvenience for the legitimate miners out there?
- How do you feel about the whole buff/nerf debate regarding the stats of certain exhumers such as the Hulk and Mackinaw? Do you think either/neither should happen?
- Should the Orca have its corporate hangar/ore hold become scanneble and should any loot drop from such storage areas of the ship upon destruction of said ship or do you wish to leave it alone as it is?
- Do you or do you not believe that iterating on the mining profession is overdue? If so, do you or do you not feel that it deserves its own dedicated expansion?
- How hard will you press the issue of the mining profession when you are elected as a member of the Council of Stellar Management?
1. CCP needs to modify the client UI to make screen scraping impractical and modify client internals to make more sophisticated bot systems difficult to implement. In addition that should change these elements enough every patch to break any bots that did manage to get around the anti-bot elements of the client.
2. The only class of barges I feel need immediate attention are the small barges. They have no practical purpose for the majority of miners.
3. Orrca is fine as is.
4. Mining is long overdue for a revamp and it is my major campaign focus. I has remained virtually unchange with the exception of ore nerfs since I started in Eve 8 years ago.
5. Mining will be my primary focus.
One thing I will add, mining needs to be the primary source of minerals in Eve.
Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate |

Triskian
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 01:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
What do CSM candidates have to say about ore/mineral compression, considering how broken things are right now? |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1001
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 01:13:00 -
[45] - Quote
Triskian wrote:What do CSM candidates have to say about ore/mineral compression, considering how broken things are right now?
There should be more "in belt" ways to compress ore/minerals to make the feature more interesting.
Someone in the mining miners channel suggested something I thought was a great idea.
T3 mining modules for T3 cruisers. An ore compression module that included an ore hold.
An idea I came up with in the discussion was the idea of creating a "tug" class ship (or use the small barge for this) that could tow a portable ore processing array to the belts so when you mine you could refine and/or compress on site.
But in general, compression was a good idea that largely seems unused.
Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate |

Triskian
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 01:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
My original post got eaten by the forums and was much longer and explained where my question was coming from, perhaps I should've retyped it because you seem to have not really understood what I was trying to get at.
What about the fact ice compression takes so long it's actually safer and faster to not compress it in the first place and just make multiple trips with a rorqual?
How about modules/loot being the highest compression source of minerals in the game? Scrap metal is the most-compressed form of tritanium, and when it comes to importing minerals into null-sec from hi-sec, you usually buy pre-manufactured guns. This arguably makes non-ice ore compression worthless for anything other than small-trip movement, and even then you end up moving less while using more fuel.
These issues need to be addressed as well as the drone region nerf beofre null-sec mining becomes truly viable. Why would I risk my rorqual to lead a mining op when for less work, risk, and cost, I can import the mineral cost for a supercap in one trip from hi-sec?
Having more mining lasers and allowing compression to be used by other ships would not really address these issues. Personally they aren't ideas I would agree with, why would I risk my expensive rorqual when I could just fit a cheap T3 to do the same thing and not have the system-wide broadcast of HEY THERE'S A CYNO HERE! I don't mind risking my expensive special snowflake, but only if I have a reason to do it.
As for in-belt refining, why? Why would you have such a module instead of something like an in-system tower that has a refinery mod? Would the in-belt mod offer better or worse refining? Why would it be a good idea for one or the other?
I don't want things to be necessarily safer than they are now, I just want them to make sense. I would like it to be easier (i.e. cheaper) to gather minerals locally rather than import from the other side of the galaxy. I'd be more willing to present my big expensive ship as a fat juicy target if the situation wasn't more risk than the potential benefit. |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1002
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 02:09:00 -
[47] - Quote
Triskian wrote:My original post got eaten by the forums and was much longer and explained where my question was coming from, perhaps I should've retyped it because you seem to have not really understood what I was trying to get at.
What about the fact ice compression takes so long it's actually safer and faster to not compress it in the first place and just make multiple trips with a rorqual?
How about modules/loot being the highest compression source of minerals in the game? Scrap metal is the most-compressed form of tritanium, and when it comes to importing minerals into null-sec from hi-sec, you usually buy pre-manufactured guns. This arguably makes non-ice ore compression worthless for anything other than small-trip movement, and even then you end up moving less while using more fuel.
These issues need to be addressed as well as the drone region nerf beofre null-sec mining becomes truly viable. Why would I risk my rorqual to lead a mining op when for less work, risk, and cost, I can import the mineral cost for a supercap in one trip from hi-sec?
Having more mining lasers and allowing compression to be used by other ships would not really address these issues. Personally they aren't ideas I would agree with, why would I risk my expensive rorqual when I could just fit a cheap T3 to do the same thing and not have the system-wide broadcast of HEY THERE'S A CYNO HERE! I don't mind risking my expensive special snowflake, but only if I have a reason to do it.
As for in-belt refining, why? Why would you have such a module instead of something like an in-system tower that has a refinery mod? Would the in-belt mod offer better or worse refining? Why would it be a good idea for one or the other?
So the time required needs looking at and you pointed out something very broken.
My corp recently needs to move a huge pile of minerals through some low sec. When we started to work out the details it was clear building it into modules and then reprocessing them was the only way to minimize the trips. That is so wrong on every level. From the intended purpose of the compression feature to the RP science explanation of what is going on. How would a module have more of the mineral that pure compressed block of it?
As to the observations about the in belt processing and ship balance of the T3 against a Roq, these are just brainstorming of possibilities. If elected I'll be working with a group of advisers to collect the best ideas, share and discuss with the players and then I would bring them to the CSM and hopefully eventually CCP. I just offered them as a starting point for our conversation.
A mining processing towers is an idea that also warrants discussion.
Edited to add I'm not looking for safer either, but risk and reward need to be in balance and mining is a place where they are definitely out of whack. For example, mining in low sec makes very little sense.
Thanks for making a great case that CCP has left many aspects of mining screwed up and it is time for CCP to really give mining some attention!
Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate |

Triskian
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 02:24:00 -
[48] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: A mining processing towers is an idea that also warrants discussion.
Refining mods for towers already exist, they are pointless to use as they are so inefficient as to usually warrant just flying the ore to any station with a reprocessing plant. |

Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 03:03:00 -
[49] - Quote
I'm gonna seriouspost here as I do that sometimes.
The basic problem is that mining in its most fun form is basically hanging out and chatting with people while pushing a button or two every twenty to thirty minutes, which is how I remember it from the days when I shamefully mined in S-U. Mining is virtually unaffected by actual player involvement in the activity, which is why botting is so effective.
Make it so if people want to just mine and chill, they can get as much as they do now, but add an additional, optional puzzle game to the process. It's not like there're any shortage of those. Make it so performing well in it results in a significantly increased yield of minerals. It's not like the end user cares whether his or her ship is made from botted or player mined minerals, and counterbalancing the removal of bots by adding an activity that would make mining mildly fun like a nice crossword puzzle is sensible enough that CCP would probably never do it. |

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 03:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote: it was clear building it into modules and then reprocessing them was the only way to minimize the trips. That is so wrong on every level. From the intended purpose of the compression feature to the RP science explanation of what is going on. How would a module have more of the mineral that pure compressed block of it? Its probably something like how a secure container can fit more stuff than it takes up space.
Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
|

Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
201
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 15:08:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mining - Why it needs to be saved and how to do it
Even though I am just hosting this thread, I figured I would include this other thread someone else posted now that we are discussing mining.
What do you candidates think about the ideas proposed by Mors Sanctitatis?
Actually, let me break this down for you for easy understanding:
- What is your take on the idea of a compressed ore suddenly showing up by chance in your cargo hold while mining?
- What do you think of the idea of judging an asteroid's quality by how fast they rotate and how the veins on the surface of the rocks look?
- As stated later in the thread linked here and in reference to question #2, what do you think of the idea regarding survey scanners?
Welcome to Eve Online. Don't expect people to be nice to you. |

Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 16:26:00 -
[52] - Quote
I believe that the most important thing to fix about mining, or even just industry in general, is getting it out to nullsec. As it stands, there isn't enough incentive for nullsec alliances to really want industrialists around, beyond having a guy that can actually run the supercap blueprint in a POS.
When mining and industry become essential enough for all of those PvP-centric nullers to actually want an industrial core to protect out in nullsec, it will be fixed. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1009
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 19:35:00 -
[53] - Quote
Triskian wrote:Issler Dainze wrote: A mining processing towers is an idea that also warrants discussion.
Refining mods for towers already exist, they are pointless to use as they are so inefficient as to usually warrant just flying the ore to any station with a reprocessing plant.
I am not talking about the current POS arrays. I want something I can anchor in the belt without a tower and in any sec system.
Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1009
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 19:38:00 -
[54] - Quote
Sidus Sarmiang wrote:I'm gonna seriouspost here as I do that sometimes.
The basic problem is that mining in its most fun form is basically hanging out and chatting with people while pushing a button or two every twenty to thirty minutes, which is how I remember it from the days when I shamefully mined in S-U. Mining is virtually unaffected by actual player involvement in the activity, which is why botting is so effective.
Make it so if people want to just mine and chill, they can get as much as they do now, but add an additional, optional puzzle game to the process. It's not like there're any shortage of those. Make it so performing well in it results in a significantly increased yield of minerals. It's not like the end user cares whether his or her ship is made from botted or player mined minerals, and counterbalancing the removal of bots by adding an activity that would make mining mildly fun like a nice crossword puzzle is sensible enough that CCP would probably never do it.
Wow, I am agreeing! Thanks for a serious (and good) post!
Issler |

Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
76
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 20:49:00 -
[55] - Quote
I'm really interested in how CCP/CSM will reinvigorate the mining (as well as t2 industry clickfest and other mechanics, but mining most especially) industry in-game.
I'd like to point out this post from a highsec mining ganker.
Quote:The data covers the 393 exhumer kills during the months of December and January.
Out of these kills, a whopping 328 of the remaining pods remained in the belt for greater than 10 minutes after their ship was destroyed.
That's 83.6 percent of ice miners did not warp their pods off after having their ships destroyed.
Out of these 328 pods, an alarming 113 of the pods continued to warp back and forth to the station after having their ship destroyed.
That's 34.4 percent of remaining pods continue to warp between station and belt in a pod after having their exhumer purified.
Frankly, I find it shameful that this number of people are able to make free isk (no work invested) and CCP continues to allow it. Till CCP does something about these slothful players, we will continue the purification.
Manufacturing Papercuts ***CSM Interstellar Debate - Mining Profession**
|

Velicitia
Open Designs
689
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 21:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:Triskian wrote:Issler Dainze wrote: A mining processing towers is an idea that also warrants discussion.
Refining mods for towers already exist, they are pointless to use as they are so inefficient as to usually warrant just flying the ore to any station with a reprocessing plant. I am not talking about the current POS arrays. I want something I can anchor in the belt without a tower and in any sec system. Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate
ugh, no. Please don't try getting this.
IF there was an inefficient POS module (e.g. 1 compression run/hour) then *maybe*. Otherwise you're stomping all over the Rorq ... (sure it boosts and can cynojump around ... but the compression is by far the nicest thing it has). |

Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
46
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 22:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:I am not talking about the current POS arrays. I want something I can anchor in the belt without a tower and in any sec system.
Issler Dainze The Miner's Friend CSM 7 Candidate ugh, no. Please don't try getting this. IF there was an inefficient POS module (e.g. 1 compression run/hour) then *maybe*. Otherwise you're stomping all over the Rorq ... (sure it boosts and can cynojump around ... but the compression is by far the nicest thing it has).
I remember reading somewhere that Industrial Ships were originally intended to be mobile refineries. This at least explains why they have so much CPU (there was supposed to be a module they could fit that would allow them to refine ore in the belts.)
Not sure why that idea was discontinued. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |

Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
183
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:03:00 -
[58] - Quote
I'm a big fan of removing named module drops from NPCs and replacing them with broken modules. Broken modules can be turned into equivalent named modules by adding minerals, so new demand is created.
I'd like to see module compression 'fixed', either by resizing modules, or simply ensuring that enough minerals are guaranteed to be wasted on reprocessing that it's less viable - but without a change in drone drop mechanics this would give the Drone region supercap lines an even bigger advantage over the other sov holders, even if drone goo was size balanced to nerf compression we would still see the non-drone region alliance forced to import the bulk of their build cost.
Another less direct miner boost would be to rework refine rates at stations across hi-sec to increase the mineral loss. Specifcally we see Military Stations with 50% refine rates and Mining Stations with 35% rates, this is ass backwards. I'd propose 35% rates for most stations, with factories getting 40% and the dedicated mining corps being hte only places to get that 50% refine rate in hi-sec.
Replacing asteroid belts with grav sites sounds alluring, but, it does raise the bar for newbies, and also we have to remember that asteroid belts also serve as hunting grounds for rats. Rat spawning should be made more common near planets and other celestial bodies to compensate for this. Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68506 |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1011
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:47:00 -
[59] - Quote
Mechael wrote:I believe that the most important thing to fix about mining, or even just industry in general, is getting it out to nullsec. As it stands, there isn't enough incentive for nullsec alliances to really want industrialists around, beyond having a guy that can actually run the supercap blueprint in a POS.
When mining and industry become essential enough for all of those PvP-centric nullers to actually want an industrial core to protect out in nullsec, it will be fixed.
I've thought that making industrial activity part of the sov mechanism would drive some interesting change in behaviors out in null.
Issler |

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
1011
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:I'm really interested in how CCP/CSM will reinvigorate the mining (as well as t2 industry clickfest and other mechanics, but mining most especially) industry in-game. I'd like to point out this post from a highsec mining ganker. Quote:The data covers the 393 exhumer kills during the months of December and January.
Out of these kills, a whopping 328 of the remaining pods remained in the belt for greater than 10 minutes after their ship was destroyed.
That's 83.6 percent of ice miners did not warp their pods off after having their ships destroyed.
Out of these 328 pods, an alarming 113 of the pods continued to warp back and forth to the station after having their ship destroyed.
That's 34.4 percent of remaining pods continue to warp between station and belt in a pod after having their exhumer purified.
Frankly, I find it shameful that this number of people are able to make free isk (no work invested) and CCP continues to allow it. Till CCP does something about these slothful players, we will continue the purification.
I've vigorously maintained that CCP needs to increase their focus on eliminating botting!
Thanks for sharing that post!
Issler |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |