EVE Search - Ore Streaming Technology

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ore Streaming Technology

» 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)
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.28 00:01:00 - [1] How about as a means of getting ore from a hulk or mining vessel to a hauler,instead of jetcans u had a device that could send ore particles straight to a hauler by means of another beaming device,and a in the cargo bay. The decompiler device in the cargo bay of the mining ship would take the ore in question then atomize it whilst generating waves of magnetized neutrinos which would pick up the ore molecules up to a depth of 3 molecules thick around the neutrino.Then the neutrinos would be sent via a beam down to the haulers compiler which demagnifies the neutrinos then picks up the ore molecules and compiles them back into ore.Maybe there should b a limit of cycle time for example every 30 seconds a certain amount of ore is streamed. To reduce lag it may be a good idea to keep the beams length to 2 or 3k maximum from the hauler.skills that may come into affect from such a technology may be. ore streaming. which may give a 20 percent bonus to the amount of ore that can be streamed per 30 second cycle. advanced neutrino understanding. which would allow use of the compiler/decompiler.
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.28 00:01:00 - [2] How about as a means of getting ore from a hulk or mining vessel to a hauler,instead of jetcans u had a device that could send ore particles straight to a hauler by means of another beaming device,and a in the cargo bay. The decompiler device in the cargo bay of the mining ship would take the ore in question then atomize it whilst generating waves of magnetized neutrinos which would pick up the ore molecules up to a depth of 3 molecules thick around the neutrino.Then the neutrinos would be sent via a beam down to the haulers compiler which demagnifies the neutrinos then picks up the ore molecules and compiles them back into ore.Maybe there should b a limit of cycle time for example every 30 seconds a certain amount of ore is streamed. To reduce lag it may be a good idea to keep the beams length to 2 or 3k maximum from the hauler.skills that may come into affect from such a technology may be. ore streaming. which may give a 20 percent bonus to the amount of ore that can be streamed per 30 second cycle. advanced neutrino understanding. which would allow use of the compiler/decompiler.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.09.28 00:28:00 - [3] How about something more general for this: Remote Cargo Transfer This allows a industrial to access the cargo of ships withing the same fleet that are equipped for it. It requires two modules: A Remote Cargo Transfer Array and a Cargo Transfer Management Processor. The first one is a high power slot module, the latter a low power slot module. The industrial pilot has to keep the Remote Cargo Transfer Array active to be able to access the cargo of the other ship remotely over a certain transfer range, like 10km for example. Cargo can then be transfered to and from the linked ships. -------- Ideas for: Mining
murder one Gallente Invincible Reason	Posted - 2008.09.28 00:31:00 - [4] Originally by: maphell How about as a means of getting ore from a hulk or mining vessel to a hauler,instead of jetcans u had a device that could send ore particles straight to a hauler by means of another beaming device,and a in the cargo bay. The decompiler device in the cargo bay of the mining ship would take the ore in question then atomize it whilst generating waves of magnetized neutrinos which would pick up the ore molecules up to a depth of 3 molecules thick around the neutrino.Then the neutrinos would be sent via a beam down to the haulers compiler which demagnifies the neutrinos then picks up the ore molecules and compiles them back into ore.Maybe there should b a limit of cycle time for example every 30 seconds a certain amount of ore is streamed. To reduce lag it may be a good idea to keep the beams length to 2 or 3k maximum from the hauler.skills that may come into affect from such a technology may be. ore streaming. which may give a 20 percent bonus to the amount of ore that can be streamed per 30 second cycle. advanced neutrino understanding. which would allow use of the compiler/decompiler. Terrible idea. Horribly exploitable by macro miners. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Cuckoo	Posted - 2008.09.28 08:21:00 - [5] Terrible idea. Horribly exploitable by macro miners. well macro miners have it easy anyway so wouldnt make it easier or harder 4 them if u introduced a 4 digit code that had to be typed in every 30 mins randomly generated this may help stop macro mining. it would stop can flipping though which is a good thing. and it is not a bad idea.
Archiaron Gallente Midnight Enterprises Alternative Realities	Posted - 2008.09.28 09:04:00 - [6] I like the idea but a miner can still fill it's cargo hold faster then most haulers can make their runs to a station and back. What I would recommend then is perhaps larger containers placed out by the haulers that you could instead send out ore to, this would allow for a more strategic approach of miner placements. Or as a faster solution for a more secure way of using jettisoned cans. Be able to put a fleet code on every can. If someone in the fleet has perhaps a special warfare link that lets you do this, then an automatic code is set on every can and you will need it to open and empty the cans. / Damn portrait :P
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs	Posted - 2008.09.28 09:18:00 - [7] Edited by: Clansworth on 28/09/2008 09:18:46 Some sort of an Ore transfer beam might be a nice thing. A mid slot module that can have the ore loaded as 'ammo'. It is activated on a target (either a can or a ship). Each cycle, it's contents are transfered, and it 'reloads' just as any other ammo based module with the same type of ore. Range should be limited, though since we're talking about using a slot, vice the built in cargo transfer mechanism (draging and dropping) I'd agree that it could be slightly more than 1,500m. I'd be agreeable to up to a 5k range. The capacity/cycle time of the transfer beam should be somewhat limited, so perhaps it might not even keep up with a skilled miner on a 1:1 strip:beam ratio. There's also the issues of what to do if the target is full. Obviously, it should deactivate the module, but what of the contents of that 'transfer'. Does the excess get lost, just like a miner when the hold is full? (I think this is a reasonable idea). This would make it so it still requires some sort of oversight, just without the carpul tunnel. I sure would love to have something like this on my Mining Director/Tank/5 MDCM-II Vulture... Also: the beam MUST be visible.. I want even more bright colored streams flying through my asteroid belts! New Prospector Class
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.28 11:16:00 - [8] thx for u posts guys. Also: the beam MUST be visible.. I want even more bright colored streams flying through my asteroid belts! yea i like this neutrinos themselves are invisible there similar to electrons only they do not carry any electrical charge, so maybe the color would represent the type of ore your transporting and its biggest mineral content.so tritanium would be yellow ,nocxium would be dark gray,mexallon would b green etc etc
Yamato Gasaraki Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 13:31:00 - [9] Originally by: maphell so tritanium would be yellow ,nocxium would be dark gray,mexallon would b green etc etc Sidenote: That are Minerals, not Ores.
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.28 15:13:00 - [10] That are Minerals, not Ores. well u dont say incredible, and its they not that.the beam would take on the color of the mineral that is most common in the ore.
Kiki Arnolds Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 15:29:00 - [11] It should be a highslot item, transfers 2k M^3 per minute. You can have the function, pay less attention, but it will cost you a mining laser... ç¦
Cuckoo	Posted - 2008.09.28 22:13:00 - [12] the only problem with using a high is there are not many of them on mining barges to start with.plus how can u have a external gun placement atomizing ore in your cargo bay,maybe a medium or low 4 them or cargo bay modules.
Kiki Arnolds Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:22:00 - [13] Originally by: Cuckoo the only problem with using a high is there are not many of them on mining barges to start with.plus how can u have a external gun placement atomizing ore in your cargo bay,maybe a medium or low 4 them or cargo bay modules. The point of the highslot is so that miners have a choice, max yield, or allow semi afk mining. Every miner would trade a mid or low for something like this, making it over powered. ç¦
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.09.29 01:20:00 - [14] This wont happen for very obvious reasons. 1. AutoBots and not the good ones will be epic and undefeatable then... you cant just go steal ore. 2. You cant steal ore... they made jetcans unsecure(and perhaps insecure) and quite fragile for a reason. So that others can screw you. 3. This makes jetcans worthless. Which is utterly stupid. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?"
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.29 14:12:00 - [15] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 29/09/2008 14:12:40 Originally by: Jason Edwards This wont happen for very obvious reasons. 1. AutoBots and not the good ones will be epic and undefeatable then... you cant just go steal ore. Quoting just point 1, because in fact points 2 and 3 are the same thing. As has already been pointed out, you lose a high slot to achieve this mining. To me that's a perfectly good trade-off between ore security and yield - you want full yield, use a jetcan - you want secure transfer, you have to accept lower yield. As for the effect on macros - who cares? - if they use this system, they get a lower yield and so have less economic impact. You shouldn't be stealing or shooting them at all; you should be petitioning them. I'd rather get them removed from the game than impact their profit margin by a tiny tiny bit. If every vigilante that we don't need actually petitioned macro users instead of trying to find new ways to screw over legitimate players so they can shoot macros, we'd probably have half the problem we do today. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.29 14:22:00 - [16] a logical and fair and sane argument,people like jason are just gutless people that unhappy with there own inadequacies as human beings and that weak minded they need to fight people who cant fight back to make themselves feel better bout there lives.or vent there small minded opinion and hatred on peoples forum posts.thats why i just ignored replying tbh not worth the typing.
Asno Malo	Posted - 2008.09.29 14:55:00 - [17] Greetings, Originally by: Astria Tiphareth As has already been pointed out, you lose a high slot to achieve this mining. To me that's a perfectly good trade-off between ore security and yield - you want full yield, use a jetcan - you want secure transfer, you have to accept lower yield. Perhaps we are reading different proposals, but I see no where in this proposal for a reduction in yield. Personally, I am against this proposal for the detrimental affects it would have on the economy overall. Additionally, this would simplify the work of the macro miners even more than it is already. And adding a Captha to it like was proposed above would just be one more thing for legitimate miners to get screwed over by.
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.29 19:17:00 - [18] the reduction in yield would come because instead of having 3 strip miners on a hulk, u would have 2 strip miners and the particle streaming device.
Asno Malo	Posted - 2008.09.29 19:25:00 - [19] Originally by: maphell the reduction in yield would come because instead of having 3 strip miners on a hulk, u would have 2 strip miners and the particle streaming device. Would reduce mining efficiency on a per cycle basis, not yield, your yield would remain the same. Now, add to the efficiency of direct transfer and the resulting loss of risk and this might actually increase your overall efficiency.
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.29 21:51:00 - [20] i hear what you are saying but macroing has been rife for years and still ccp has not implemented anything effective to stop it so maybe they dont care.anyhow macroing is another thread.1 things 4 sure whilst popping there ships might slow them down temporarily it will never have any impact on the overall problem.they only people that will suffer are legitimate miners.
Asno Malo	Posted - 2008.09.29 22:29:00 - [21] Originally by: maphell i hear what you are saying but macroing has been rife for years and still ccp has not implemented anything effective to stop it so maybe they dont care. Actually, CCP does care, unfortunately, it is the players who do not care. You want to help put an end to macro miners, petition them. CCP has said that many times. Quote: they only people that will suffer are legitimate miners. Wrong, everyone will suffer. Yes, the legitimate miners will suffer by having to do a Captcha especially in low and no sec, which will cause many of the more casual miners, as well as some of the more industrial miners to simply stop mining, which will result in a reduction of minerals available. As the number of minerals is reduced, the price of those minerals will rise. As the price of minerals rise, the price of modules / ships will rise. No, if you really want to be mine safely, go to 0.0. It is extremely rare that you will find a can flipper, and if you play smart, you will be far safer in 0.0 than you will in high sec. It is a common misconception told by the carebear crowd that high sec is safer than low sec or 0.0. This is very much incorrect, but most carebears are too much like cattle or sheep to find out for themselves.
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.30 00:56:00 - [22] thx 4 posts:)but no point carrying on argueing about macro miners wrong thread.
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs	Posted - 2008.09.30 01:07:00 - [23] The use of a high slot for this is silly, as it seriously WON'T be used (at least not on barges). If you want a yield penalty, let it be a midslot item, and apply a penalty to miner yield. (RP Basis: The high energy discharge of the ore transmission beam causes interferance with the cohesion of the ore recovery beam in the mining laser. This allows a small portion of the extracted ore to escape recovery, and be lost to the void.) This will allow it to be used on any mining ship, and still provide the proper balancing. The high slot use would mean it could be used on a BS miner with virtually no impact on its mining ability. Why the unfair extra penalty for ACTUAL miners? My goal here is not to make mining less attention required, but instead to make is less repetitive-motion-injury prone. New Prospector Class
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.30 09:04:00 - [24] ah yea like rigs affect/speed/hull points u mean yea i prefer this to using a high slot.say maybe a 10-15% reduction in yield,i am not sure about using a mid though this would affect the tanking ability of a barge from gankers.hmm maybe it should take the form of a rig you use a rig slot for,or a low??
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.30 09:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Clansworth The use of a high slot for this is silly, as it seriously WON'T be used (at least not on barges). If you want a yield penalty, let it be a midslot item, and apply a penalty to miner yield. That's a fair point, I'd forgotten about BS mining - I just think that you'd never get this through without some downside to using a system that increases your ore security so much (regardless of the mindless thugs that have to shoot macro miners instead of petition them, real ore theft should remain feasible). An earlier poster does make a valid point about hauler cargo space vs miners - without a jetcan to work as a buffer for hauling, you'd need a lot more haulers and directly transport to them. That said, one could argue this coupled with reduced yield are sufficient drawbacks to make said transport possible, worthwhile, but requiring more organisation.
maphell	Posted - 2008.09.30 12:32:00 - [26] yea the idea is evolving, there has been sum good points made,and slowly the idea is taking shape please keep posting ur ideas:)
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs	Posted - 2008.10.02 09:42:00 - [27] I wouldn't use this necessarily for beaming ore to a hauler, as it would require retargeting constantly every time the next hauler comes in. I am looking more just to save from the constant, repetitive drag/drop scheme. I would end up beaming the ore to a can probably, and the haulers just picking up from there as i currently do with the jet cans. This would provide the buffer room needed to ease the flow. New Prospector Class
Clansworth Burning Sky Labs	Posted - 2008.10.02 09:52:00 - [28] Originally by: maphell ah yea like rigs affect/speed/hull points u mean yea i prefer this to using a high slot.say maybe a 10-15% reduction in yield,i am not sure about using a mid though this would affect the tanking ability of a barge from gankers.hmm maybe it should take the form of a rig you use a rig slot for,or a low?? I still think it should be a mid slot. High's are obviously out, low's don't make sense, as it has an external effect. Also, if it was a low slot, it would already cause a drop in yield, as the loss of an upgrade slot. The tradeoff of tank is acceptable. If you're in such an organized operation that this would be useful, you ought to have some protection anyways. Perhaps whatever skill is used for this (particle streaming or something like that) would increase the confinement of the beam, resulting in a lower yield penalty. (much like mining upgrades skill reduces it's CPU penalty. New Prospector Class
Raven Timoshenko Fighting While Intoxicated Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.10.02 11:39:00 - [29] There is an easy solution to this which also helps ore thieves. Have a deployable system. The miner links to it via a high slot which transfers the ore in the cargo hold to the deployed module for a range of say 30km. Haulers then just pick it up from the deployed module, however this also means that ore stealers can access the deployed module and steal the ore =P
Asno Malo	Posted - 2008.10.02 11:51:00 - [30] Originally by: Raven Timoshenko The miner links to it via a high slot which transfers the ore in the cargo hold to the deployed module Now that I could get behind and support so long as the deployed module doesn't disappear the way a jet can does when it is empty, and resets the recycle timer each time it is accessed. My main concern here is that the deployed module has to expire after a time the way a jet can does, but it can't disappear when it is emptied the way jet can does. And like a jet can, it cannot be lockable / anchorable. This will make it a bit more difficult for the less creative can flippers, but will still be exploitable and solves the complaint about moving ore.

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.