open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Mining
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (18)

Author Topic

Crexa
Star Mandate
Posted - 2011.08.15 23:56:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Ineka
Originally by: S8nt
1. There has to be a reason to move to null sec, moving all ICE there would benefit low sec and give people that are prepared to take the risk all the return they deserve. Too many people macro ICE mining.


W8 a sec.

Where are the proofs of what you're talking about?
-because the high sec ice belts where I mine I see the same guys since one year and some new ones. Now every one in this ****ing game knows where bots are most used and some times by dozens: null sec

So if you guys are about to keep saying the same stupid false arguments again and again, at least prove it. Because in what concerns null sec alliances using them it's not a secret for anyone, now in high sec? -sure maybe a few ones but there are so many "anti-bot" nerds at each belt you'll never do anything than believe yourself in what you're talking about.

Ice should not be removed completely from high sec has end ores from worm holes, for what I see in this forum the only requiring this are goonies their alts or corps not having other choice than post "yes sir", another terrible idea for the whole game community coming once again from your alliance and has many other of your ideas concern your selfish point of view.

If you can't recruit miners to mine ice/ores in your belts maybe you should spend more isk protecting them or lower your rent prices of space you're incapable to defend properly.
Even better, stop being *******s you'll find people interested to join you other than 1 week noobiesLaughing and help you with ice mining, hell you would even stop begging at eve tv Laughing




^For some reason...^ I like you.^

Riveting Tale Sibling
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:14:00 - [92]
 

Oh, and CCP, if you really want to balance ABCs and wormholes, then maybe you can remove the advantage of local from all the Null-Sec bots so they can be just as unsafe as your typical W-Space miner. It takes huge balls of brass to mine in a hostile system with no local. Remember that.

You know, just in the interest of risk vs. reward.

LiNuXb0y
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:28:00 - [93]
 

I agree with all of it but ice mining. It should be possible to get ice in empire, just you should get more reward for your time with increased amounts of risk.

Make ice in lowsec and null give more product, while reducing the amount you get from ice currently in empire.

Most of the people that live in 0.0 have little to nothing to do with pos's and jump bridges that require the ice. I dont believe they understand the impact it would have, I would dread to think the price of ice products would be if they were removed from high sec completely. The price of running pos's and jump bridges has increased significantly just from the implementation of pi. Running a moon goo pos unless it is r32 or r64 will simply become unprofitable.

The effect on t2 ship prices and module prices would also be massive. While a good amount of t2 is produced from bpo's a great number is still invented. What do you think will happen when the price of running a small invention pos in empire rises for the 150 ish mill a month now to the, who knows how high? 5-600 mill? Really would not surprise me if the increase in pi products is anything to go by. As it it t2 ships are regulay being replaced by cheaper t1. Not many people regularly pvp in commands and hacs as it is, why would you when you can get 80% of the performance from a bc. These ships will simply cease to be used due to the massive price rise that will happen. Only the r32 and r64 moon alliances will be able to regularly afford to use these ships frequently.

This cannot be what ccp has in mind for eve? Or did they even think about it? After recent events following the release of Incarna I'm not so sure they did Rolling Eyes

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:51:00 - [94]
 

I support the removal of ABCs from WH and Ice from highsec. 0.0 alliances need something to keep their RMTing bots working towards! Hey now those supercaps cost a lot of RL dollars and lets face it, moon goo alone does not support enough RMTing to supply them with all the supercaps they need.

We do need more 0.0 only items in the game to help make those alliances richer and enable to field a large enough blob to keep everyone else out of 0.0 space.

+1 CCP, keep up the good work!


Sephiroth CloneIIV
Rim Worlds Republic
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:37:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Sandra Smith
From an immersion/RP/common sense perspective null sec should be resource rich but facilities poor compared with Empire.

Simplest solution to boost null mining is not to remove/move anything from elsewhere but to provide a yield multiplier based on system sec status/soverenty. So the same miner in the same ship mining the same asteroids will get more yield the lower sec status is.

Wrong thread I know but could apply the same idea to invention output – i.e. ME modifier based on sec status where invention job takes place.




That's a big thing, no one in the right mind in nullsec would mine the giant spudmium or veldisapr roids, making them even bigger wont change things. If afk safe chars or bots can do it in empire, then the profitability is shot down, and its better to just import them. Miners go for ABC because its the only ores worth it to get isk anywhere near ratters.
If the yield on roids is increased in null (have them all/majority the highest maybe even add two levels of higher yield quality). That would defiantly add to desire to mine in null. You could even have less restrictive distribution of high quality ore in low or empire just make it very few quantity and rare, and of worse quality. (Keeping flavor of finding something different or better then veldispar in high sec, more shiny rocks, but still not as profitable as end-game)

Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:48:00 - [96]
 

keep ice mining in highsec, maybe make it so u have to scan for ice sites ( kinda like grav sites in highsec, but u find ice as well.

it sounds like u want nullsec to be the sources of all the higher end game content, which is a bad move.. yes nullsec should have amazing rewards and chalenges, but the best way for it is simple

Highsec supplies lower tier modules, some T2 mods, and cheap ships, as well was the lower end minerals
everything in highsec can be done in low or null, but with the number of highsec mining and the demand of nullsec ships, the lower ores will be harder to get in nullsec in sufficient numbers.
lowsec provides some deadspace modules, and capships
nullsec has super cap production, abundant ice and high end ore fields to mine if settle down. anoms and sigs that have chances of good loots and all the other stuff that comes with nullsec goodness.

destur
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:00:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: destur on 16/08/2011 02:12:05
Edited by: destur on 16/08/2011 02:11:22
Edited by: destur on 16/08/2011 02:10:28

0/
sorry my englişh bad u translate turkişh
size sıkıntımızı anlatalım
eve onlinenin madenciliği git gide komedi ve fiyaskoya dönüşüyor.her ne hikmetse gerçek madenci bu maden pastasından hakkını alamıyor. isteyen herkes 180m 200m maden gemilerini bir iki salvoda patlatıyor.
1. hulk gemileri kağıt gibi .kamikaze yapan pilotlar çok ucuz maliyetli bir gemi ile gelip bir iki vuruşta hulkun canına okuyor.
2.mackinav kargosu ziyadesi ile fiyasko ! t1 kargohold rig tak 7935m3 hehe 65m3- ne yapmak lazım 1 t2 kargohold takmak lazım 75m isk
3. pazartesi ve cuma günleri her ne hikmetse empiredeki tüm beltler oyle kısırlaşıyor ki yeme de yanında yat .ama buz beltlerine bakıyoruz kimi buzlar sadece bir adet buz 105 000 birim o da 105 000 000 m3 buz yapıyor eğer bu adalet ise bu adletten memnun değiliz !
4.BOTH kullananlar malı parayı götürüyor gerçek madenciler nal topluyor.

tüm bu sitem ve serzeniş imizi umarız birileri dikkate alır

/tüm yazılarımız empire için di / null secc durumu zaten malum

0/

google translate

---------
0 /
sorry my bad english translate turkish u
let us explain to you distress
Online's mining house fiasco dönüşüyor.her increasingly comedy and heaven knows why not get a real miner's right to the mineral cake. Anyone who wants a two salvo da swings with 180m 200m mining ships.
1. hulk ships, such as paper. kamikaze pilots who come up with very cheap cost of a ship in a two-stroke reading hulkum lives.
2.mackinav cargo of fiasco with ziyadesi! t1 kargohold rig plug-65m3-7935m3 hehe What to do first have to install t2 kargohold ISK 75m
3. What is wisdom in every Monday and Friday empiredeki eating all the belt so that the next yacht kısırlaşıyor. but only one ice ice beltlerine looking kimibuzlar 105 000 105 000 000 m3 of ice in the unit he is doing it justice if you are not satisfied with these adletten!
4.BOTH miners Users of real property takes the money collecting duct

All of this site and we hope someone takes note of reproof imizi

/ All Articles for Empire di / null SECC area was already known

0 /

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:13:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Lucrative
Mining in nullsec should make you a "good" amount of money, ie trending slightly above the average for nullsec professions. A good supply of minerals is necessary for our industrial goals, and ensuring payouts are good is one tool to encourage this.


The way to make mining lucrative is to make the ore harder to come by. Move all ore into grav sites. Keep relative abundance of ores disparate between regions. It should not be possible to be self sufficient. Trade of some sort must be inevitable. If there is no trade, there is no ISK flowing, which means nothing can be lucrative. If nullsec is "99% self sufficient," where's the ISK coming from to make things lucrative?

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Motivational
Mining should be something that you do because you know you're achieving something, not just because it makes you money - the minerals created should be contributing towards larger goals.


You'll know you're achieving something when your alliance is hurting for lack of the thing that you're providing them. Scarcity increases value.

The challenge of being first to a deposit should be part of life as a miner. Even better, make all grav sites simply "small", "medium", "large" or "extensive". No more hints about composition of sites. No hints about composition of asteroids either: they should simply be displayed as "asteroid". When a surveyor is on-grid, they might determine differences between asteroids (that one is grey, it's probably pyroxeres, that one is glistening, it's probably glacial mass), but the actual composition should only be revealed when the asteroids are mined. Some asteroids might look very large but have very low content. Other asteroids might look very small but have very high content. That is, the physical size and "units of ore" should not be linked.

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Sole source of ice and high-end minerals
For further discussion. Nullsec should be the only place we're injecting (at least some of the) ices, zydrine, megacyte and morphite into the game. This ensures that nullsec mining retains a unique value proposition, and guarantees that mining time for these types is priced according the risk and effort involved in nullsec extraction.


Limit the spawn rate of ice sites in hisec, but don't remove it entirely. Limit the spawn rate of grav sites in unknown space, but don't remove them entirely. Adjust the available sites to suit each specific region. Aridia should have different spawn tables to Solitude - not just due to sec status differences, but simply because they are different regions. It should not be possible to source all materials for manufacturing from one region.

Again, the goal is scarcity.

Originally by: "Nullsec Development: Design Goals"
Investable
It should be possible (at most if not all levels of power) and desirable to invest directly in mining activities in a given area. We want mining to be something that requires settling down and investing in space if you want to maximize efficiency. (Ninja mining is still desirable and should also be supported).


Upgrade POS refineries. Simple solution to the problem. Investing in the POS, the Sovereignty, the IHUB upgrades and the Refinery means you'll have better yields for your mining, meaning better profit due to the relative scarcity of the materials you're mining.

Even better, limit the refineries to small or medium POSes to provide more targets for small gangs.

As far as ninja mining goes, how about this scenario: Enter system, anchor small tower, anchor high-efficiency refinery, fuel the tower, get to mining. Refine the ore, stick it in the Orca, unanchor the POS, leave. The entire operation from starting anchoring to filling an Orca and getting the heck out of Dodge should take in the order of one to two hours.

Ninja miner resource denial only works if resources are scarce to start with.

Leia Hertz
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:52:00 - [99]
 

I don't think these changes will do anything good for me and basically force me to change my play style which will make me reconsider if Eve is even fun anymore.

The justification given that these changes are necessary seem to be a stretch. I don't think these changes will have any of the intended increases to get people to move to 0.0. As someone who doesn't really care what happens in 0.0 as well, there are plenty of other areas in Eve that could use improvement.


Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:53:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Darod Zyree
Edited by: Darod Zyree on 15/08/2011 11:28:18
Since wormholes were specifically mentioned in the industry paragrah, does this mean that when talking about mining ice and ABCs will/should become nullsec thing only? meaning no more in wormholes even while wormholes being 0.0 space too?




Ok, so here's the thing about wormhole space: it doesn't need mining as a reward type. All the other stuff you can get out of sleeper sites is more than enough to make w-space viable as an area of the game, with the sorts of activities we were hoping to cater for with it. Further, having miners sitting around in sites (and/or warping off starbases) doesn't really add a whole lot to the overall dynamic. The only thing it's really achieving is giving people a pretty safe place to mine high-ends and make a lot of money.

Nullsec on the other hand benefits a lot from having mining ops around - they add a lot to the overall ecosystem. As it stands though it seems to be the case that minerals from wormholes are depressing the prices of high-ends and making it not really that profitable to mine them in nullsec. Given this, finding ways to stop people mining high-ends in wormholes to sell on the market is a good thing for us.


That said, wormholes do need smallish amounts of high-ends for on-site construction. This is something we'd prefer to maintain, as we like a bit of self-sufficiency. The problem is supplying them in a way such that organized groups can still get enough to build, without allowing people to sit in C2s all day mining ABCs. One of the things we're looking at in this regard is ensuring there are high-end rocks inside combat sites, so that if you want your high-ends for construction you can have the barges roll in along with the looters and salvagers once sites are cleared, but you need to be continually clearing combat sites to keep your miners busy.


REALLY like to see the data on this.

IF WH mining is depressing the market, then it *would* need to be scaled back some (similar to the refining of meta 0/1 items from the mission runners a while back). I could understand that, and get behind a change. But it just seems counter intuitive (to me anyway) that tonnes of Ore/Mins are coming out of WH's atm...

Please, CCP Greyscale, give us the data (and why this data isn't included in the Quarterly Econ report is beyond me). This data should be collected and distributed every quarter. Automate the data collection as much as possible.

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:27:00 - [101]
 

ok this is going to get flamed, but i am going to say it anyways and explain why in detail. this will be TL;DR

only have ice and veld in high sec. remove the ability to haul ice/ice products in jump capable ships in lowsec, have haulers warp to 5km (increase the RNG that drops you out of warp so you cant avoid it with cleaver BMing). remove the ability to have ice mined from NPC corp players, decrease ice mining cycle times.

why? so big nulsec groups can have their supply chains cut off even by the smallest alliance if they are not protecting their supply lanes. i would love to see a covert convoy moving its way through lowsec trying to avoid attention. or a massive convoy with full flight protection moving in a line. spies selling of routes to "the other guys". yes it would make logistics a nightmare, but think of the rush to the haulers and the protection fleet as they plod their way through lawless space.

having only player corp players mine ice means you can slow/stop an alliance's main fuel corp in highsec and put a damper on botting as well. there is no tax on mining ice so there is no need for a player to leave an NPC corp to be a miner. the only thing that can stop an NPC corp miner from mining in highsec is a gank, and that is avoided with some common sense and a good buffer tank.

having haulers jump to 5k will let people jump the convoy, it far enough away to let them get grabbed and attacked, but close enough to not make the slow boating to the gate that painful. i say increase the drop out distance RNG because you want to avoid people just jumping to bookmarks and avoiding the issue altogether.

reducing the cycle time for the miners is to increase productivity, more ice will get destroyed and it will also decrease the long wait for ANYTHING to happen.

flame on.

Ferrenc
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:36:00 - [102]
 

from something mara rinn said, i think they should make a smaller, almost defenseless, modular mining station (mini tower) that can be anchored quickly, set up for refining and used for a short time then taken down quickly and moved, advantage would be gangs can get in, ninja mine and get out, drawback would be extremely expensive for the unit, and vulnerable to atack and relatively quick destruction if they're discovered, maybe even anchorable at an asteroid field, with say double the time to unanchor than to anchor, just think this is a cool idea that offers mining opportunities to those who dont have massive sov holding alliance backup

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:39:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Crexa
I would love to hear from the master-miner. Or former heavy-weight miner, Chribba.


Looking at my Rorq, Orca, Hulks, Skiffs and Macks that have been collecting dust for a year and a half I'd say you are right, we should rely solely on Chribba's idea's, because he is the only person who matters in EVE Rolling EyesRolling Eyes

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:41:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Ferrenc
from something mara rinn said, i think they should make a smaller, almost defenseless, modular mining station (mini tower) that can be anchored quickly, set up for refining and used for a short time then taken down quickly and moved, advantage would be gangs can get in, ninja mine and get out, drawback would be extremely expensive for the unit, and vulnerable to atack and relatively quick destruction if they're discovered, maybe even anchorable at an asteroid field, with say double the time to unanchor than to anchor, just think this is a cool idea that offers mining opportunities to those who dont have massive sov holding alliance backup


You do this the sov holding alliance will drop a nice fleet on your mining op.

Ferrenc
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:44:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Ferrenc on 16/08/2011 04:46:14
would take balls to be sure, but fortune favors the bold, and it would reward those who did recon, watched the system(s) in question, planned it out etc, a new opportunity for fun profit for those creative and clever enough to pull it off, not all of null is buzzing with security at all times, maybe even people coming in through wh's grabbing ore and getting out, i think it would break up some of the monotony of too much structure in how ore is procured, basically it would be like being able to show up with a rorq in your pocket, the point would be to reduce the size of the ore, to make it more mobile, maybe even instead of a refinery it could have compressers

Laashanna
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:53:00 - [106]
 

Is mining ore in worm holes really that big of issue? I've spent over a year with various worm hole corps. Mining in a worm hole is a far less safe than null sec. At any moment a cloaked bomber, t3 cruiser or recon can appear. Then you are dead. Your only chance is to spam dscan and hope you see the probes or the brief window of time when a ship moves away from a wormhole. In null sec most mining happens deep in alliance held space, and all you need to do is watch local.

Personally what little mining I do is done in a heavily tanked BC or during corp mining ops when we are watching all wormholes. If you take out the high value ores I'd stop mining entirely. It's bad enough that

People seem to think a C1-C3 with a static high sec is very safe. It isn't people are always scanning for worm holes in high sec, and they love easy kills. Personally I find it's safer in a C4-6 that doesn't have a static low or null sec. Then you don't have to worry as much about high tourists. Not to mention the pain it is to haul the ore out as each trip pushes the hole to collapse.

One thing I can recommend for null sec is increasing the number of grav sites or the amount of ore in them. The nice thing about a grav site is it's harder to gank someone in a grav than a belt. With a belt you just warp to all the belts. With a grav site you have to scan for it. This gives the miner more time to see someone in local, and prevents drive by ganking.

PS- If you take ice out of high sec you are going to stop a lot of worm hole habitation. It will price out all the newbie corps from putting up a tower.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:55:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 16/08/2011 04:57:09
Originally by: Ferrenc
Edited by: Ferrenc on 16/08/2011 04:46:14
would take balls to be sure, but fortune favors the bold, and it would reward those who did recon, watched the system(s) in question, planned it out etc, a new opportunity for fun profit for those creative and clever enough to pull it off, not all of null is buzzing with security at all times, maybe even people coming in through wh's grabbing ore and getting out, i think it would break up some of the monotony of too much structure in how ore is procured, basically it would be like being able to show up with a rorq in your pocket, the point would be to reduce the size of the ore, to make it more mobile, maybe even instead of a refinery it could have compressers


Only people who don't understand how 0.0 security works think this is viable. Thus this isn't feasible as I will simply drop a few dreads, MS, titans or whatever else on you and you will do what?

Originally by: Laashanna
One thing I can recommend for null sec is increasing the number of grav sites or the amount of ore in them. The nice thing about a grav site is it's harder to gank someone in a grav than a belt. With a belt you just warp to all the belts. With a grav site you have to scan for it. This gives the miner more time to see someone in local, and prevents drive by ganking.

PS- If you take ice out of high sec you are going to stop a lot of worm hole habitation. It will price out all the newbie corps from putting up a tower.


Increasing available ore increases mineral, doesn't increase demand thus prices drop even lower.

Ferrenc
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:57:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Ferrenc on 16/08/2011 05:00:05
agreed it will price everyone out of a tower, i also agree with those who posted earlier saying that there shouldn't even be local in null, i get it in high sec, but it doesnt seem as appropriate in null, why should wh's be more dangerous than null sec, when so many more live in null and its considered the end of the road. (removing local also addresses the issue of ninja miners being immediately noticed, identified and executed)

Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:04:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 05:04:38
LOL, nerf ice mining -> fuel spikes -> suddenly wspace is expensive -> suddenly 3billion tengu hulls to cover pos expenses -> WIN

I LIKE THIS NERF!!!!!!!!!!!



Man, I would ****ing get a 10000000000 terabyte harddrive just to fraps the month long failcascade of most of eve after that.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:10:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Super Whopper on 16/08/2011 05:12:47
Originally by: Ferrenc
Edited by: Ferrenc on 16/08/2011 05:00:05
agreed it will price everyone out of a tower, i also agree with those who posted earlier saying that there shouldn't even be local in null, i get it in high sec, but it doesnt seem as appropriate in null, why should wh's be more dangerous than null sec, when so many more live in null and its considered the end of the road. (removing local also addresses the issue of ninja miners being immediately noticed, identified and executed)


CCP have already said they don't like local full stop but unless a new tool is developed that allows system scanning, without spamming dscan they aren't removing local. Also if they did it wouldn't benefit miners nor would it help industry, prices will still go up and what have you achieved? You will have achieved nothing as you will not get more people to mine, especially with no local.

Originally by: Jack Tronic
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 05:04:38
LOL, nerf ice mining -> fuel spikes -> suddenly wspace is expensive -> suddenly 3billion tengu hulls to cover pos expenses -> WIN

I LIKE THIS NERF!!!!!!!!!!!



Man, I would ****ing get a 10000000000 terabyte harddrive just to fraps the month long failcascade of most of eve after that.


I would actually mine ice in 0.0 if it becomes more profitable than my current ventures, which it might when isotopes hit 2000. Oxygen would be massively expensive, resulting in a lovely price increase in T2 production.

Ferrenc
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:17:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Ferrenc on 16/08/2011 05:20:28
<shrug> would be fun, something small and well organized groups could do outside of the large alliance structure, but you're correct, it wouldnt change the amounts involved, only benefit the small numbers of peops who used it. as for removing local it would address an issue that many complain about though, that large alliances have total domination within their borders, as you said, a group of ninja miners would be instantly wiped, without local though even with sov its use it or lose it, if you're not watching ppl will start to sneak under your fences, which would shake up established large entities somewhat, i just think the opportunites for ninja mining are very few, and there should be more opportunity for that and ninja ratting/plexing. as for a system scanning device/mechanic, if they do that they might as well keep local, since it would have essentially the same effect

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:17:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Thur Barbek on 16/08/2011 05:19:09
Originally by: Jack Tronic
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 05:04:38
LOL, nerf ice mining -> fuel spikes -> suddenly wspace is expensive -> suddenly 3billion tengu hulls to cover pos expenses -> WIN

I LIKE THIS NERF!!!!!!!!!!!



Man, I would ****ing get a 10000000000 terabyte harddrive just to fraps the month long failcascade of most of eve after that.


You mean a 10 zettabyte harddrive?

Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.16 05:34:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Jack Tronic
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 05:04:38
LOL, nerf ice mining -> fuel spikes -> suddenly wspace is expensive -> suddenly 3billion tengu hulls to cover pos expenses -> WIN

I LIKE THIS NERF!!!!!!!!!!!



Man, I would ****ing get a 10000000000 terabyte harddrive just to fraps the month long failcascade of most of eve after that.


LOLOLOL!!!

I GO BUY LOTS OF TENGU NOW AND RESELL THEM FOR 500 MILL!

Franny
Mentis Seorsum
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:13:00 - [114]
 

nerf to high sec ice, means my pos comes down, no more invention for me

not sure if i'd sell my ogre 2 bpo, depends on how much all the loss of invention pos's effects it, but will be a pita to have to station build it ugh

Mistah Ewedynao
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:18:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Mistah Ewedynao on 16/08/2011 06:27:42
I am all for this idea, not bad for an {Ammarian, Caldari Dude, Trogledite or AHD Goon)

I would suggest eating more Goon's Nads, after all you guys act like they pay your salary. One fell swoop, with a wave of (Your/Mittani's) placebo magic wand, and the Goon's will soon control everything!

And the Goon's stated Goal is....Oh yeah, ruin the game for everyone else.

Design any cool skirts lately Greyscale?.......Rolling Eyes

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:37:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Ferrenc
would take balls to be sure, but fortune favors the bold, ……..
Tell me something. How does fortune favor a company that causes a large portion of its customers to be angry again and again in a competitive market place? Is that called being bold or is it called screwing the pooch? Take your time.

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:50:00 - [117]
 

Moving ice to nullsec is the worse idea i ever heared
What you will do is give the nullsec alliances even a bigger monopoly on the industry, they are already way to powerfull for a balanced game
Second. You will kill off high sec research pos. Creating even longer waiting ques in the stations with research facilities
If the ourpose isto stop macro ice mining , create a gamemechanic that prevents macro mining

Butthis is just plain unfair against the majority of players that play casual
Please don t give these null sec idiots and *************anymore power over the game

El 1974
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:59:00 - [118]
 

I thought CCP employed economists. You cannot make 0.0 self-sufficient, make every activity highly profitable and leave nothing for the carebears in highsec to do. It would wreck the economy and would make carebears find something else to make isk (like even more lvl 4 missions). Mining is boring, let the people in highsec do it. Or you could try to chase the carebears out of highsec and find that you chased them to some other game that does give them an environment that suits them.

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 07:12:00 - [119]
 

Another thought
If you want people to mine more of the common minerals in null sec , make it safer for them to do, (t3industrial module on a exsisting t3 hull?)
Preventing macro mining need a new game mechanic to prevent macro s

I know alot of people who mine a few hours to relax after a long hard day at work, hitting the d scan and constanly watching local or intell channel iin null sec isstressfull , that is why alot of miners prefer high sec , nerfing their income will only drive away people from the game

Risk vs rewards yes but don t nerf one thing to buff something else that is not being used optimally

Basil Exposition
Caldari
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:43:00 - [120]
 

Break the 2 dimensional mining mold:


  1. Think about the true scale of asteroid belts.

    • Their should be WAY more mass in a belt & per roid even if most is "waste"

    • Vastly increase number of asteroids in a belt

    • Asteroids should have a much wider dispersal

    • Players should have to "hunt" for resources, especially the best resources.




  2. Take the "static nature" out of mining. Belts should evolve and change.

    • Mining should have an impact but more on the scale of ice mining. IE roids do not pop in minutes, if ever.

    • Rogue gravitational bodies (non visible downtime events) could change belt locations, introduce matter from outside the system creating new belts and re-seeding old ones. This process could also alter the minerals available in a belt / system over time

    • Instead of small clusters of rocks that 6-10 ships can eradicate in an hour, populate thousands spread out to the point where most are out of site of each other (keeps the grids manageable and game play more interesting).




  3. Introduce a lot more randomness to mining.

    • There should be predicable locations (belts), stable rogue entities (fixed off grid), and unstable rogues (off grid and moving at a fixed velocity).

    • Instead of all "veldspar" roids having an even dispersal of ore, make roids more generic or have a few base types. Each roid would have veins of various types, qualities, and saturations. Players should have "Eureka" moments when they "hit pay dirt".

    • Success should be 20% skills, 20% gear, 50% experience / strategy, and 10% dumb luck.




  4. Create new levels to mining beyond just ships. Mining should be more than grind skill, buy ship, stare at rock.

    • Players should have mining probes / skills to pinpoint roid locations and types. Once locations are found and scouted, players would use new and improved scanners to locate veins of ore (Think planetary interaction style)

    • Tier 1: players could warp to "100%" belts and mine without scanning for belts or veins. This requires the least skill / effort and yields the worst results. Concord response time 100% of normal

    • Tier 2: players go to the "100%" locations but survey the asteroids to select better mining sites to harvest. Concord response time 100% of normal

    • Tier 3: players are scanning out asteroids near to the "100%" sites. Concord response time 125% of normal

    • Tier 4: players are scanning out fixed off grid asteroids. Concord response time 150% of normal

    • Tier 5: players are scanning out moving off grid asteroids. Concord response time 175% of normal

    • Tier 6: + low sec

    • Tier 7: + null sec





  5. New gear

    • Mining command centers ala PI

    • Mining Rigs

    • T3 mining ships

    • Anchorable, secure storage of a volume actually usefull to mining. Structures would have 100k+ m3 storage etc. These would degrade over time and not last longer than 36 hours, requiring that they be unanchored.

    • Anchorable mining platforms / mini bases / refineries. The number of units anchorable should be limited per character based on skill and proximity of other anchored structures.

    • Scramblers anchorable only near asteroids that would reduce or even mask the signatures of ships and equipment from scanning probes. The better the equipment and skill the more effective. The more ships / gear in the area, the less effective the scrambler. This would be a defense from PVP and could also protect the location of "rich veins" from "claim jumpers" who would rather scan out mining ships than veins of ore themselves.







Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (18)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only