EVE Search - [Proposal] Secure Can Rebalance/Enhancement

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Secure Can Rebalance/Enhancement

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.15 17:59:00 - [1] Edited by: Valen Drax on 15/09/2008 18:02:11 After my previous post yesterday, I figured I would place this as a single item. I will do the others at a later date. The purpose of this proposal is to look at a retooling of the secure cans and their purpose. This is not only to make them more useful, but to reduce load on the servers and to fulfill their original purpose. That being to protect miners from can flippers and thieves. This would be done through two key methods, increasing the SecCans m3 to surpass that of the JetCan and allowing a new function in space, assembly in space. Oh and almost forgot, it would give the animators something to do as they could probably come up with a really cool animation for it assembling and disassembling in space. m3 Increase SecCans suffer from a lack of space, this limiting factor is their primary failure. Their lack of capacity limits their usefulness by miners as miners would need to place 7.05 giant seccans to every one JetCan. By increasing the SecCans capacity to surpass the JetCan their usefulness will be more evident. A giant Secure Can could feasibly be double the capacity of a JetCan and thus fulfill its roll. But this opens a problem, what could be large enough to cary this HUGE can. The answer is simple! Assemble in Space! A can is nothing more then walls and empty space, why does it need to be assembled before it is deployed and anchored. Players planning to use the new cans could do so simply. 1) Drop Secure Can in Space 2) Anchor Secure Can 3) Assemble Secure Can When your done using it, you reverse the steps. This would allow an industrial to carry a Giant SecCan in the hold. Even if the SecCan was just a 10x reduction in space. One that has a capacity of 55000m3 (double the jet can) could compress down to 5500m3 for transport, just 500m3 more then a disassembled frigate. And far less then the capacity of even a moderately outfitted industrial. This alteration would mean that can swapping, flipping, and thieving would be reduced. And with fewer entities in space, less activity, and more security, miners can do their jobs as intended when the Secure Cans were originally created. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Kyle Haque Solstice Systems Development Concourse Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.15 18:21:00 - [2] Edited by: Kyle Haque on 15/09/2008 18:22:23 Let start out with why do you think miners are entitled to worry free mining with out taking some loss in productivity? Tbh I think is too easy just to sit there and mine away as it is. NPC's pose no real threat to most miners in highsec, all they have to worry about is the occasional can flipper and even then if they are paying attention and aren't complete noobs they don't run any real risk of getting destroyed. Miners currently have the choice to avoid the whole thing by fitting expanders or mining in to Secure cans. For this they pay the price lower productivity and thats how this game works you get rewarded for taking risks and the last thing we need to do is to remove the little risk that is left in mining.
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.15 18:57:00 - [3] I do not believe that entitlement has anything really to do with it. Can flipping was a side effect of a faulty fix. Criminal flagging was a product of the insecure nature of things. The developers originally created the Secure Can to help stop ore thieves. Some thing hat was much more common after beta. But because of the size of the cans, they never were popular. Can flipping came about with the Criminal Flagging system, that being an attempt to make thieves more accountable for their actions. But given miners rarely mount enough weapons any way to stop an ore thief and that the one "fix" opened up another can of worms, flipping cans. It just opened another hole to cause grief to people that sit there for hours repetitively mining. The goal of this is just to close those holes that CCP tried to close in the first place but could not through five years of work. And frankly, everyone benefits from miners, even the pirates and griefers. Plus, eventually many of us will find a group and goto lowsec or 0.0. At that point it is not our ore on the line but our ships and pods. I just feel in that situation that our ore be safe (relatively speaking) and that any losses be recuperated through it's retrieval. This would allow that and hey you get your kills and our stuff. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:18:00 - [4] Originally by: Valen Drax Can flipping was a side effect of a faulty fix. It is my understanding that jetcans were never meant for mining, and that originally, there was no such thing as 'jetcan aggro'. This meant that if you discarded of anything in space, and someone else picked it up, there was no aggro. Doesn't sound like a 'faulty fix' to me, since CCP has stated that jetcan mining is a byproduct of someone's original thought, and not a reason for having jetcans in the first place. We're Recruiting!
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:24:00 - [5] Originally by: Valen Drax Can flipping was a side effect of a faulty fix. Nope. That is what the bears asked for. They wanted the ability to kill the thief. Because thieves were snaking cans and could nothing about it. And they got exactly what they asked for. And the jet can was NEVER and intended feature for mining. So you have a balance.
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:26:00 - [6] Jetcan mining came about as a byproduct of CCP giving the jet can a ludicrous 27,500m3 capacity. The intended cans could not compare and were relegated to obscurity. But ore thievery was becomming an issue in those days. CCP created the Secure cans as a way to fight that. But the capacity of the Secure can was nothing compared to the JetCan. Eventually, CCP created the Criminal Flagging System (CFS) that made Jetcans and things killed by a player that players property. That did little to really stop thieves unless the mining op was heavily armed. And created the can flipping griefer, something that had not existed before the CFS. That is why I stated that the CFS was a faulty fix, as it did not completely fix ore thieving and created can flipping. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:31:00 - [7] Originally by: Valen Drax That is why I stated that the CFS was a faulty fix, as it did not completely fix ore thieving and created can flipping. You, yourself can fix ore thieving by simply using the 'intended' cans, yet you're looking for the 'perfectly secure' method with huge returns and no risk. Suck it up, and either take that risk, or mine smarter. Have an Alt or a buddy in a Hauler pick up from a secure can, as you fill it. There are already a huge number of solutions. You're just looking to complain about the lack of the one you want. We're Recruiting!
Kyle Haque Solstice Systems Development Concourse Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Tchell Dahhn Originally by: Valen Drax Can flipping was a side effect of a faulty fix. It is my understanding that jetcans were never meant for mining, and that originally, there was no such thing as 'jetcan aggro'. This meant that if you discarded of anything in space, and someone else picked it up, there was no aggro. Doesn't sound like a 'faulty fix' to me, since CCP has stated that jetcan mining is a byproduct of someone's original thought, and not a reason for having jetcans in the first place. This is my understanding of it as well. Jet can aggro was only added after miners complained about not not being able to defend themselves from people taking their cans now they have the option to fight back. Its there option to fight it doesn't force the engagement at all. Regardless I think that the idea of these super large secure containers atleast in highsec applications completely distorts the risk/reward ratio. That being said I wouldn't mind them for lowsec/0.0 useage cause there getting you can stolen is the least of your worries and could be quite useful in a number of appilcations.
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:35:00 - [9] What you are asking for is a no risk afk mining solution. There is a myriad of different solutions. Yet those solutions might be too inconvenient for you, you might be required to play the game.
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Farrqua What you are asking for is a no risk afk mining solution. There is a myriad of different solutions. Yet those solutions might be too inconvenient for you, you might be required to play the game. We keep running into each other, and seem to share the same ideas. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. We're Recruiting!
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:40:00 - [11] I am not complaining. I have merely stated a fix to the original solution that did not work. And I accept that there are those that will dislike it because it closes off their mode of fun. As stated, if miners are happy to mine in high sec for piddles, then so be it. Let them have their piddles. But if they want to goto low sec or 0.0, then they can assume the risk out there. It is after all high sec. Why should pirates and griefers have an easy time of making havoc in an area meant to be secure from that sort of thing. It's not like there are not enough ways to drive people nuts besides this method. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Kyle Haque Solstice Systems Development Concourse Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:47:00 - [12] Edited by: Kyle Haque on 15/09/2008 19:49:19 Edited by: Kyle Haque on 15/09/2008 19:48:33 Originally by: Valen Drax Why should pirates and griefers have an easy time of making havoc in an area meant to be secure from that sort of thing. It's not like there are not enough ways to drive people nuts besides this method. This is where you logic fails. Repeatedly CCP have said highsec is ment to be safer not safe. You either take the safer route and lose some productivity or you take a little risk and potentually lose some ore but bring in larger sums. This is how Risk vs. Reward works and it is the idea that this game is built apon.
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:49:00 - [13] Originally by: Valen Drax Why should pirates and griefers have an easy time of making havoc in an area meant to be secure from that sort of thing. It's not meant to be secure. Even the GM's say so. It's meant to be safer than lowsec and nullsec, but not safe. We're Recruiting!
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.15 19:57:00 - [14] True, I used the wrong term. But even this does not guarantee safety. If the player in in a player corp, they can still be war dec'd. If the player is not paying attention they can still be popped. Heck some one in a retriever can be easily suicide ganked even with the new concord revisions. And the list goes on and on. Heck, given the restriction on anchored cans right now, there is no perfect safety short of staying in a station. But in all honesty, and here is my assumption, are you two at all after the ore? Or are you just fighting it because you do it to cause havoc and the occasional ISK pay out by a noob for the hyjack of their ore. Judging by the resistance, you guys actively are part of the pirate side of things. So what do you loose? "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.15 20:22:00 - [15] Originally by: Farrqua What you are asking for is a no risk afk mining solution. There is a myriad of different solutions. Yet those solutions might be too inconvenient for you, you might be required to play the game. Anything involving containers is not AFK. The no-risk AFK mining solution already exists, and it's called "hauler with a Miner II". Dock up once every 2 hours, and make a good million or so every time you do. The rate of income is pathetically low, but it's easy as falling down, and risk-free with a proper setup. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kyle Haque Solstice Systems Development Concourse Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.15 20:32:00 - [16] Edited by: Kyle Haque on 15/09/2008 20:35:18 Originally by: Valen Drax But in all honesty, and here is my assumption, are you two at all after the ore? Or are you just fighting it because you do it to cause havoc and the occasional ISK pay out by a noob for the hyjack of their ore. Judging by the resistance, you guys actively are part of the pirate side of things. So what do you loose? While I dont really steal cans anymore in my first 6 months or so I used to steal cans for profit. Used a rifter to pick it see if I could get an engagment if nothing happened I would bring in my alt to scoop up the can. But still I ran the risk of losing my ship and I did a few times (rifter vs. hulk == fail). It ended up being a fun way to make isk and its an easy way to introduce yourself to pvp. Alot of pvpers/pirates have grown up in this manner. As a side note to this story the guy that I used to raid his can alot actually starting training pvp skills to fight me and we had all sorts of fun hes acctually joined my corp and now almost a year and a half later we go kill stuff together.
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.15 21:52:00 - [17] Well then with this insight, what might you suggest. The SecureCan suggestion was to help miners hold onto their goods. But that does put the thief completely out of business. Heck it is almost out of business as it stands. But what might make the pill easier to swallow. May be tie it into something else, may be allowing a potential pirate to decrypt the can and access the good inside. So while secure for a short time, not completely fail safe. That could start a lucrative business of thieves, where people are foolish enough to leave there goods and some one can come along and with a little work and time break the lock to the safe. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Farrqua Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.09.15 23:01:00 - [18] Originally by: Valen Drax Well then with this insight, what might you suggest. The SecureCan suggestion was to help miners hold onto their goods. But that does put the thief completely out of business. Heck it is almost out of business as it stands. But what might make the pill easier to swallow. May be tie it into something else, may be allowing a potential pirate to decrypt the can and access the good inside. So while secure for a short time, not completely fail safe. That could start a lucrative business of thieves, where people are foolish enough to leave there goods and some one can come along and with a little work and time break the lock to the safe. Hacking skill. W/hacking and analyzer mods.
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.16 01:09:00 - [19] So pretty much there would be no issue with Huge Secure Cans as long as they can be broken into some how. Ok, that is reasonable. The question is how long would it take to break into the can. And under what conditions. After all can't have them pop open with no effort at all. I mean it is secure after all. Not safe but has to put up some kind of resistance to the efforts to break in. That would be the interesting problem really. How long to be fair to all sides? "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.16 11:54:00 - [20] Originally by: Tchell Dahhn Originally by: Valen Drax That is why I stated that the CFS was a faulty fix, as it did not completely fix ore thieving and created can flipping. You, yourself can fix ore thieving by simply using the 'intended' cans, yet you're looking for the 'perfectly secure' method with huge returns and no risk. Suck it up, and either take that risk, or mine smarter. Have an Alt or a buddy in a Hauler pick up from a secure can, as you fill it. There are already a huge number of solutions. You're just looking to complain about the lack of the one you want. The "intended cans" are 4 years behind the times. They were created when BS mining was the top of the mining activity, so they were never intended for use with the mining barges. The rule that block can for being at less that 5 Km from each other or any astral body is acceptable for cruiser and even BS mining, not for barges that can fill a Secure can in one go.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.16 11:56:00 - [21] Originally by: Tchell Dahhn Originally by: Farrqua What you are asking for is a no risk afk mining solution. There is a myriad of different solutions. Yet those solutions might be too inconvenient for you, you might be required to play the game. We keep running into each other, and seem to share the same ideas. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. You forgot a word before idea, "stupid". You don't even know what you are speaking of. AFK mining can't be done using a jetcan or secure can as you need to drag and drop the ore. For afk mining you need an oversized cargo hold, not a external container.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.16 12:04:00 - [22] Originally by: Valen Drax Well then with this insight, what might you suggest. The SecureCan suggestion was to help miners hold onto their goods. But that does put the thief completely out of business. Heck it is almost out of business as it stands. But what might make the pill easier to swallow. May be tie it into something else, may be allowing a potential pirate to decrypt the can and access the good inside. So while secure for a short time, not completely fail safe. That could start a lucrative business of thieves, where people are foolish enough to leave there goods and some one can come along and with a little work and time break the lock to the safe. Mineral stealing has become less common for 2 reasons: - minerals have a low value - hulk have a good cargo size so docking every time they are full don't cut so much on the mineral production. The hacking idea was suggested several times and it is reasonable, even giving the chance to the ore thief to remove the can after opening it would be reasonable. As things are today ore theft is more a form of harassing hoping for a fight than a system to get isk. Those that are interested in isk do ninja salvaging, better return per hour and almost 0 risk.
DEATHsyphon Gallente IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.09.16 12:19:00 - [23] Not supported. Oh and High sec is already being made safer due to concord buff. And now you want secure mining cans with huge amounts of space....... Seriously EVE is a Harsh place, that is its appeal and it should stay that way. In ending having such secure cans would make EvE one step closer to WoW online. I apologize for saying the "W" word as I know it can cause severe ear strain to many of my fellow hardcore EvE players- DS -------------------- I'm not not going to pod you!
Tchell Dahhn Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.09.16 12:33:00 - [24] Originally by: Venkul Mul You forgot a word before idea, "stupid". You don't even know what you are speaking of. I take particular offense to you calling anyone "stupid", thank you very much. For the record, if you're saying that the word "stupid" should appear before the word "idea", then perhaps you'd like to reexamine your grammar. Secondly, if you are redirecting your next comment to Farrqua, you should have addressed him, as it would also seem that you are saying I'm not abreast of the conversation at hand. (Yes, I know exactly what you were trying to say, and am calling you out for not knowing how to address the issue properly.) We're Recruiting!
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.16 15:18:00 - [25] Edited by: Valen Drax on 16/09/2008 15:21:55 Originally by: DEATHsyphon Oh and High sec is already being made safer due to concord buff. And now you want secure mining cans with huge amounts of space....... Seriously EVE is a Harsh place, that is its appeal and it should stay that way. I take issue with this because of how it was stated. As you may have read, I was considering alternate methods also that equalize gain vs risk. Second, the concord buff was only to prevent the Suicide Gank and to make malcontents face a better punishment for their efforts. Obviously, you count as one of said malcontents due to your own comments, admit it. The Concord Buff though would have not relevance on this due to the fact that the pirate would need to attack the can. If hacking was used to break open the can, I do not see that as an attack, more of a subversion of the cans processes. If you still feel like suiside ganking...goto where it belongs, so has spoken CCP. Other wise, find another way to have your fun and get your gank on. Edited for insulting comments...sorry. I have to remember to be a good boy. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.16 16:52:00 - [26] First off... while everyone here is slugging out there ideas and thoughts with proposals and counter proposals and arguments and counter arguments... you need to keep a few things in mind. 1: Minieral Theft is very much alive thank you very much. Just ask any of my corp members and they will tell you there are plenty of can tippers. I hear it all the time and I've been victim of it myself. And don't get distracted by the fact that its called Mineral Theft... the whole point of it today is hardly the minerals that are stolen... its to gank your ship. They come up and steal what would be considered wholly worthless and then while you may assume the ship they are flying is hardly considered buff.... they kick your butt to kingdom come. I'm quite certain this has happened to every miner at least once. The point here is they can tip you because they are bored and want to grief you. They don't care about anything else and are nothing but a bunch of spineless cowards who have no sense of honor. They could make an obscene amount of money if they did some missions or went out to low sec space but have no courage or care or concern to do so... they just wish to make your life a living hell. 2: Your proposal for a larger secure cargo can is something I'm keen on seeing... but you got a couple of problems. The AFK miner could just as easily script his ship to dump cargo in any number of very large can's. The Mining Barges (and there brothers the Exhumers) have extremely long range turrets.... it would be a walk in the park for them to park near a bunch of can's and just mine away. The other issue is your bunch of moaning and whiny can tippers who yell and rant and rave claiming your ruining the game when in fact its hardly the case. There was nothing relevant about can tipping to begin with... its entirely a greifing system. If they wantted to steal minerals in the first place... they would do it with a ship capable of hauling a ton of rock. I mean seriously.. so you steal a 1000 units of ______. You honestly going to tell me you can make a good pile of ISK off of that? Hence the comment made by someone pulling in with a hualer.... you have to put alot on the line to do that... and its a waste of resources and time. Which is why I have such a negative view point of such a tactic... I mean Id rather encourage a bunch of pirates attacking a mining barge at that rate... at least your getting a bigger bang for your buck... oh wait... can't do that... CONCORDOKEN would be the last thing you want. So they find underhanded ways to get around the system. If your going to push this idea.... you need to put in a balance to qwell both parties. As this will be an never ending gripe fest. Already its been suggested that the can should be hackable... good. Thats ok by me. Means you need skills. But I think we should spice it up. Grant Kill rights to the victim. Not this 1 to 2 hours crud..... full blown 24 hours or whatever the standard rate is. At least this way.... you can can tip all you want. just be prepared to face down the victims whole bloody corp when they come ah'knockin. And that point.. everyone's happy. And balance is restored. PS: Im not attacking anyone in particular... but being the victim of such griefing... the logic behind it tends to annoy the heck outa me. so Give me some room because I gave you filthy brigands a way to enjoy your little sport... but at least this time.... you have the very strong possibility of getting your but whupped.... or maybe not. As opposed to no consequences period.
Valen Drax Amarr Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace	Posted - 2008.09.16 17:37:00 - [27] Edited by: Valen Drax on 16/09/2008 17:47:06 Originally by: Drake Draconis If your going to push this idea.... you need to put in a balance to qwell both parties. I agree completely, that is why I have not been fighting the pirates, they do have something to loose, though not as much as the miners do. Any game mechanic must be balanced to achieve the purposes of all that may use it. So I have no issue with Can hacking. And really the retaliation for it should be fairly long. I think this then comes down to" 1) How long should it take to "hack" a can? I say this because it should be a descent amount of time to do. Short enough to not be a dead mechanic. But long enough to deter can flipping. 2) Should there be conditions to that time? So if a can has not been used in a certain time frame it is easier to hack then if it has been used in say the last 30 mins to an hour. 3) Repercussions? Bounties, Security hits, kill rights? What is fair for the crime. This is touchy though as either we have the thief on one side. Or the miner looking to protect his/her living on the other. Hurm, forgot something. As for the hated Macro Miners. I doubt anything would really deter them from doing there thing. So really anything you do will just enable them to do it better. So really there is no point as using that as a for or against. They will still do it no mater what you do. "Any body who is interesting is mad, In some way or another anyway." Dr. Who
Kyle Haque Solstice Systems Development Concourse Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.09.16 18:30:00 - [28] Originally by: Valen Drax Edited by: Valen Drax on 16/09/2008 17:47:06 1) How long should it take to "hack" a can? I say this because it should be a descent amount of time to do. Short enough to not be a dead mechanic. But long enough to deter can flipping. 2) Should there be conditions to that time? So if a can has not been used in a certain time frame it is easier to hack then if it has been used in say the last 30 mins to an hour. What I think might be cool is to make the time of hacking a can dependent on the strength of the password. So something like this: No Password: 5 seconds Weak password: 3x (15 seconds) Medium password: 9x (45 seconds) Strong password: 12x (60 seconds) Uber password: 30x (150 seconds) Times could be tweaked but I think I like them where they are atm. It keeps cans at poses pretty safe since you've be destroyed before cracking it.
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.09.16 18:44:00 - [29] make the cans take a full minute to hack and the attacker start flashing red on my overview. that gives me time to respond and do something about it. any more than a minute and the afk miner gets too easy. also using a macro or script is bannable anyway so it is kind of pointless to try to defend against it this much.
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.16 20:31:00 - [30] Nice idea.... But i still say instead of flashing red.. Kill rights should be given. (with the flashing red part) 1 hour isn't enough to round up a posse. Theft shouldn't be given a free ride in High Sec space. That's an invitation to trouble there.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.