These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

why cant we have mining moved to grav sites?

First post
Author
Mirima Thurander
#121 - 2012-12-12 20:46:22 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
This system also has the ability to make miners hate none another for poaching each others sites, grudges are made bluntys placed war Decs show up and fights happen.


wrong, us euro miners will come along after DT, strip them clean, and sit drinking the tears of the US time zone miners who complain that all of the grav sites have been devoured.

Hurrr the instantly respawn. U have no clue how the scanning system works do you?

I thought there was a finite number of sites each day, and that they respawned after downtime.

This is what I was told when I asked why I only ever found WH's while exploring.


Nope the site spawns are rejoin based aka despawns in one system in the rejoin respawns in the same rejoin different system.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-12-12 20:47:51 UTC
Darenthul wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
This system also has the ability to make miners hate none another for poaching each others sites, grudges are made bluntys placed war Decs show up and fights happen.


wrong, us euro miners will come along after DT, strip them clean, and sit drinking the tears of the US time zone miners who complain that all of the grav sites have been devoured.

Hurrr the instantly respawn. U have no clue how the scanning system works do you?

I thought there was a finite number of sites each day, and that they respawned after downtime.

This is what I was told when I asked why I only ever found WH's while exploring.


That was the old system (I thought that too).

Apparently they changed it sometime in the past, where now they respawn randomly throughout the day instead of just after downtime.

Awesome. Was not aware of this. I always thought having sites respawn at downtime was plain stupid and unfair to people who lived on one half of the hemesphere.
Dave stark
#123 - 2012-12-12 20:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

Awesome. Was not aware of this. I always thought having sites respawn at downtime was plain stupid and unfair to people who lived on one half of the hemesphere.


indeed, seems we learn something new every day.

guess i can still strip all the asteroid belts in the system and get the same result, i love doing that.
Zeko Rena
ENCOM Industries
#124 - 2012-12-12 21:04:27 UTC
Are system wide belts still on the table?
Like a large ring of astroids orbiting a planet

I think huge system wide betls where you have to scan down clumps of whatever ore you are after might be kind of fun.

Could encourage more intresting fleet operations as well, scouts to go out and find ore then the miners / Orca warp in while the scouts continue to look for a better spot.

Astroids in EVE have never really made much sense, as they don't seem to have an orbit as such they just float in belts or in random grav sites

Might be too much effort to impliment though.


But I do like the idea of having to scan down belts, I currently can never find grav sites though, aways wormholes or boring little sites with rats.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#125 - 2012-12-12 21:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
My proposal for updating mining from the old boring mechanism of warp to bookmark, activate lasers.

Key features:

  • Asteroids are anonymous (no longer do you see "Asteroid (Veldspar)")
  • Most belts are moved to grav sites
  • There are more grav sites, some tied to system, constellation, or region
  • Asteroids contain multiple ores
  • Mining with T1 lasers is baseline for "zen" miners
  • Mining with T2 lasers and crystals increases selectivity of ore recovered
  • Move to grav sites with fewer, larger asteroids


Oh, and most of my suggestion requires absolutely no input from the art department. Well, except for adjusting the collision box on asteroids.
Dracones
Tarsis Inc
#126 - 2012-12-12 21:49:50 UTC
The game is already pretty well setup to hand hold new players into working with this idea. The explorer career mission walks you through scanning sites, gives you a probe launcher/probes and even a scanning frigate. And there really isn't a need to fit a probe launcher on your miner. Just probe a grav site out in your scanner frig, bookmark a good site and then come back with your barge.

Not sure about ice mining though. I think ice belts might be limited to certain areas in game for balance reasons. Of course you could just have it that you only normally find comets(or ice roids) in those systems with a small chance of finding a comet in normal systems.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#127 - 2012-12-12 22:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
Darenthul wrote:
Eru GoEller wrote:

Jumping again, your "special gears" sounds to be exatly what the old probes did, also it adds another layer to scanning, which
in itself have enough of micromanaging without adding another one.
Complication for access to more results isn't needless complication.
The thing is, it kinda is in this situation.

Better skills already give players the ability to scan the harder sites more reliably, thereby giving them access to more results.

The beauty of the current mechanic, is that it's a sliding scale. With no hard skill gating. Lower skilled players are unlikely to find the low sig strength sites, leaving them to the higher skilled players. They are not excluded from them however and player skill, implants, probes/launchers used and ships setups, can be tweaked while the player trains his exploration skills.

This entire proposal is based around the notion that there are not enough sites available, if one was to agree with that, the solution would be to add more sites across the entire spectrum of high to low sig strength sites.

The solution is not to introduce arbitrary skill walls to one of the few systems in EVE that allow players to experience sliding progression, without the "You must be at least this high to enter this ship"-mechanic that plagues a lot of the game design in EVE.

Adding site specific probes with higher sig strength, adds no value to the current system. It takes a well working dynamic system, and turns it into an inferior game mechanic gated by skill requirements.

The question if there are enough sites available at any given time, is a completely different discussion, and can be resolved without touching the mechanics that make the current exploration system a small gem among the other EVE game mechanics.
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#128 - 2012-12-12 22:49:59 UTC
Make static belts appear in systems based on the system sec status and probability of depletion.

This means grav sites only in 1.0 systems with an increasing chance of finding a static belt as you go lower in system sec status. Let 0.5 and down be the only places that have a full run of static belts plus the usual grav sites like we have currently.

Obligatory Risk vs Reward statement here.

Profit favors the prepared

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#129 - 2012-12-12 22:50:43 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
Adding site specific probes with higher sig strength, adds no value to the current system. It takes a well working dynamic system, and turns it into an inferior game mechanic gated by skill requirements.


Site specific probes would add significantly to the current system, especially if more grav sites are added to compensate for the removal of static belts.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#130 - 2012-12-12 22:53:48 UTC
Evei Shard wrote:
Make static belts appear in systems based on the system sec status and probability of depletion.

This means grav sites only in 1.0 systems with an increasing chance of finding a static belt as you go lower in system sec status. Let 0.5 and down be the only places that have a full run of static belts plus the usual grav sites like we have currently.


I would do it the other way around. The simple explanation is that this makes AFK cloakers work for their nullsec ganks.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#131 - 2012-12-12 22:56:16 UTC
You all miss a major thing. MINING IS LOW PROFIT.
The guys claiming to make hundreds of million an hour mining are using 5-15 accounts to mine with. The most a solo miner makes an hour is maybe 15 Million. The most someone makes with Orca boosts an hour in maybe 25 Million.
Arkonor might jump that to 20 & 30 million respectively, which already happens to require scanning down in Null Sec.

There is only ONE way a miner can make more profit than this.
Mineral prices go up.
If Mineral prices go up, EVERY SINGLE SHIP PRICE GOES UP.

Meaning relative to the cost of things in Eve, the Miner actually makes at best the same. And everyone elses Incomes are effectively nerfed.

For the profit involved in high sec belts, it's fine as is. There should be no more complexity added to a low profit activity.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#132 - 2012-12-12 23:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
Mara Rinn wrote:
Pohbis wrote:
Adding site specific probes with higher sig strength, adds no value to the current system. It takes a well working dynamic system, and turns it into an inferior game mechanic gated by skill requirements.

Site specific probes would add significantly to the current system, especially if more grav sites are added to compensate for the removal of static belts.
What exactly is being added, apart from increasing some numerical value of available sites?

Yes, changes to static belts would add something to exploration, but that would be due to changes to the mining system, not because site specific probes were introduced to exploration.

The current exploration system already has increasing probe strength with higher skills, doing exactly what the proposed changes do, to non-grav sites, but without fixed hard caps through skill requirements.

Everything suggested, which isn't about changes to static belts, is born from the notion that players with LVL X skills should have access to an exclusive group of sites so they have a higher chance of finding a site when exploring.

That is easily solved by increasing the number of sites overall, if it's something that needs solving at all.

Competition for resources is part of EVE. As players increase in skill, they are encouraged to explore in places where lower skilled players don't venture much because the sites are harder to pin down with low skills. That's what they should do if they want "more" sites, not train to X so they can be handed a set of probes so they don't have to compete on equal footing with the other players in the same area.

All it would do is raise the perceived minimum skill requirements for the mechanic. God knows we don't need more of that in EVE - and everything would end up being the same in due time anyway as players skill up and start competing for the exact same resources again.

If training time and ISK were things you could use to balance game mechanics, supercap profilation wouldn't be an issue in EVE. It doesn't work for things that require months/years to train, and certainly wouldn't work for something with a much lower barrier to entry.

Shuffling numbers around doesn't work in a sandbox were people gravitate towards the best return on investment. That is all these probes would do, might as well just increase the amount of signatures by 100%.

Increasing supply, would lower the reward per site. It might be worth it if too many people are discouraged by not finding anything during an exploration session.
Mirima Thurander
#133 - 2012-12-12 23:47:29 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
Darenthul wrote:
Eru GoEller wrote:

Jumping again, your "special gears" sounds to be exatly what the old probes did, also it adds another layer to scanning, which
in itself have enough of micromanaging without adding another one.
Complication for access to more results isn't needless complication.
The thing is, it kinda is in this situation.

Better skills already give players the ability to scan the harder sites more reliably, thereby giving them access to more results.

The beauty of the current mechanic, is that it's a sliding scale. With no hard skill gating. Lower skilled players are unlikely to find the low sig strength sites, leaving them to the higher skilled players. They are not excluded from them however and player skill, implants, probes/launchers used and ships setups, can be tweaked while the player trains his exploration skills.

This entire proposal is based around the notion that there are not enough sites available, if one was to agree with that, the solution would be to add more sites across the entire spectrum of high to low sig strength sites.

The solution is not to introduce arbitrary skill walls to one of the few systems in EVE that allow players to experience sliding progression, without the "You must be at least this high to enter this ship"-mechanic that plagues a lot of the game design in EVE.

Adding site specific probes with higher sig strength, adds no value to the current system. It takes a well working dynamic system, and turns it into an inferior game mechanic gated by skill requirements.

The question if there are enough sites available at any given time, is a completely different discussion, and can be resolved without touching the mechanics that make the current exploration system a small gem among the other EVE game mechanics.


This

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#134 - 2012-12-13 00:39:28 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Pohbis wrote:
Adding site specific probes with higher sig strength, adds no value to the current system. It takes a well working dynamic system, and turns it into an inferior game mechanic gated by skill requirements.

Site specific probes would add significantly to the current system, especially if more grav sites are added to compensate for the removal of static belts.
What exactly is being added, apart from increasing some numerical value of available sites?

Yes, changes to static belts would add something to exploration, but that would be due to changes to the mining system, not because site specific probes were introduced to exploration.

The current exploration system already has increasing probe strength with higher skills, doing exactly what the proposed changes do, to non-grav sites, but without fixed hard caps through skill requirements.


I was stating that site-specific probes would add to the ability to filter out unwanted signatures. I do not agree with the idea of having skill caps since having sig strength caps on discovered signatures goes against the changes made to probing specifically to prevent people having unprobeable OGBs.

Pohbis wrote:
Everything suggested, which isn't about changes to static belts, is born from the notion that players with LVL X skills should have access to an exclusive group of sites so they have a higher chance of finding a site when exploring.


Not at all. One of the suggestions was having probes that are specific to different types of signatures. While that may have been combined with the idea of having skill-limited sites, the two ideas are easily separable.

Pohbis wrote:
Shuffling numbers around doesn't work in a sandbox were people gravitate towards the best return on investment. That is all these probes would do, might as well just increase the amount of signatures by 100%.


Someone probing for grav sites with grav-specific probes won't be uncovering all those mag, radar, ladar and combat sites. Increasing the supply of grav sites will simply cater to miners. There are no resources in grav sites that science-oriented explorers would be interested in.

There is even scope for an ORE scanning frigate, specialised in probing grav sites, with bonuses to survey scanner range. Perhaps there could be an ORE covert ops ship too, allowing for mining fleets to operate in low sec with greater confidence.
Tech3ZH
Doomheim
#135 - 2012-12-13 00:44:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tech3ZH
moved to grav sites...



Well...there's....an idea... Roll
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#136 - 2012-12-13 01:05:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
Mara Rinn wrote:
Someone probing for grav sites with grav-specific probes won't be uncovering all those mag, radar, ladar and combat sites. Increasing the supply of grav sites will simply cater to miners. There are no resources in grav sites that science-oriented explorers would be interested in.
Everything you talked about is accomplished with the current filters. You filter out what you don't want...

... yes, it requires you to explore the signature, but with high skills, it is fast to get a good enough hit in order to tell what type of sig it is.

Now if you wanted to actually add something to the system, in terms of mechanics, CCP could add feedback to the results that tells you if you had a hit but it was not a type selected in your current filter. That way you could be sure that the signature you are tracking, disappeared from the scan results because it didn't match your filter, and not because you placed your probes wrong.

Again, the grav-site changes are a different discussion - and I agree an exploration/mining hybrid system could be interesting. I certainly agree that for grav sites to impact anything in hi-sec, they need to be more plentiful.

*EDIT* Because I'm tired and that 3rd paragraph didn't make sense Lol
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
Just let it happen
#137 - 2012-12-13 16:57:21 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
This system also has the ability to make miners hate none another for poaching each others sites, grudges are made bluntys placed war Decs show up and fights happen.


wrong, us euro miners will come along after DT, strip them clean, and sit drinking the tears of the US time zone miners who complain that all of the grav sites have been devoured.

The idea is they respawn soon after being cleared, not at downtime. Also there will be alot of them, comparable to the number of belts in a solar system now.

I think normal fields should be the same way. When a roid pops, it respawns somewhere else.

So Ill still say:

If all mining vessels get an extra high slot for a probe launcher,
If grav sites are far more common than now,
If the basic ones (the ones with the same ore as we currently have in a solar system by solar system basis) are quite easy to scan (for new players),
If there is a way to sort site types that does not require scanning it down to 25% first (and is accessible to a new player),

Then maybe its worth dev time.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#138 - 2012-12-13 17:15:08 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
This system also has the ability to make miners hate none another for poaching each others sites, grudges are made bluntys placed war Decs show up and fights happen.


wrong, us euro miners will come along after DT, strip them clean, and sit drinking the tears of the US time zone miners who complain that all of the grav sites have been devoured.

The idea is they respawn soon after being cleared, not at downtime. Also there will be alot of them, comparable to the number of belts in a solar system now.

I think normal fields should be the same way. When a roid pops, it respawns somewhere else.

So Ill still say:

If all mining vessels get an extra high slot for a probe launcher,
If grav sites are far more common than now,
If the basic ones (the ones with the same ore as we currently have in a solar system by solar system basis) are quite easy to scan (for new players),
If there is a way to sort site types that does not require scanning it down to 25% first (and is accessible to a new player),

Then maybe its worth dev time.

If low ores spawn in anomalies the first, third, and fourth points are covered. The second point *is* needed, however.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2012-12-13 17:40:22 UTC
Scanning is too easy as it is, there is too much competition already.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#140 - 2012-12-13 23:50:38 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
If all mining vessels get an extra high slot for a probe launcher,
If grav sites are far more common than now,
If the basic ones (the ones with the same ore as we currently have in a solar system by solar system basis) are quite easy to scan (for new players),
If there is a way to sort site types that does not require scanning it down to 25% first (and is accessible to a new player),

Then maybe its worth dev time.

If low ores spawn in anomalies the first, third, and fourth points are covered. The second point *is* needed, however.


I would suggest that the very definition of moving static belts to grav sites has that part covered :)