These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Industrial Content - Lay Claim to Asteroid Belts With Mining Charters

Author
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#21 - 2013-05-08 16:13:32 UTC
im concerned that it will not drive conflict, but more a first come first serve system.

it would be a lot harder to muscle in on an already claimed belt than to defend it. Anyone wishing to contest ownership would have to acquire a suspect flag and wait to be shot at by just about anyone, the ppl attacking him may not even be the miners, so he may never get to contest the belts ownership at all.

and if u try to bring a fleet to muscle another fleet out and all go suspect, the defenders are still able to engage the attackers one by one under the suspect mechanics.

lets hope these permits are expensive

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

kyrieee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-05-08 16:48:07 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
im concerned that it will not drive conflict, but more a first come first serve system.

it would be a lot harder to muscle in on an already claimed belt than to defend it. Anyone wishing to contest ownership would have to acquire a suspect flag and wait to be shot at by just about anyone, the ppl attacking him may not even be the miners, so he may never get to contest the belts ownership at all.

and if u try to bring a fleet to muscle another fleet out and all go suspect, the defenders are still able to engage the attackers one by one under the suspect mechanics.

lets hope these permits are expensive


Well you could require the anchoring of some module in order to mine in the belt. That has a purchasable killright equivalent to the price of what the miners paid for the belt initially. So someone can pay a fee to contest your belt.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#23 - 2013-05-08 17:09:10 UTC
kyrieee wrote:


Well you could require the anchoring of some module in order to mine in the belt. That has a purchasable killright equivalent to the price of what the miners paid for the belt initially. So someone can pay a fee to contest your belt.


ummm...POS bashing on belts?

or mini decs against corps over mining belts only without a 24 hour waiting period (ha ha yes!)

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Andrea Griffin
#24 - 2013-05-08 17:23:47 UTC
Alx Warlord wrote:
Owning a place to mine is some what easing the life of botters and dificulting the life of new players... I don't see this feature being positive in the end...
We shouldn't design or not design game features because of what bots might or might not do; CCP's security team is responsible for handling that situation. Also, please report those accounts as bot accounts. It really does help.

That said: This change wouldn't affect or protect botters at all. They will continue to warp to public belt X and go on their merry way with loads of Veldspar. You can still suicide gank them all you want (and I encourage you to do so).

If the bots want to use a scanned-down site with better ore, then:

1. They must be a member of the corporation that owns the belt, opening them up to war declarations; or
2. They must pay the person who scanned the site in order to mine there (hey, at least you get something out of it); or
3. They just go mine the site anyway, at the risk of being blown up by the owner.

But I imagine they'll just hug public belts as they do now and go about their merry way.
Andrea Griffin
#25 - 2013-05-08 17:25:45 UTC
kyrieee wrote:
Well you could require the anchoring of some module in order to mine in the belt. That has a purchasable killright equivalent to the price of what the miners paid for the belt initially. So someone can pay a fee to contest your belt.
I like this idea as well. My only concern is that people looking for easy kills will attack the structure for the sake of shooting people instead of control over the resource.
kyrieee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-05-08 17:31:56 UTC
Well, you could always give them a suspect timer for shooting it
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#27 - 2013-05-08 17:35:39 UTC
Andrea Griffin wrote:
kyrieee wrote:
Well you could require the anchoring of some module in order to mine in the belt. That has a purchasable killright equivalent to the price of what the miners paid for the belt initially. So someone can pay a fee to contest your belt.
I like this idea as well. My only concern is that people looking for easy kills will attack the structure for the sake of shooting people instead of control over the resource.


that was actually the best part of it. u shouldnt have the rights to something without having to defend it and urselves.

having rights to a belt should make u vulnerable to attack. the worst possible outcome (imho) of this proposal is invulnerable miners mining invulnerable belts. because that IS a first come first serve system and not conflict at all.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Andrea Griffin
#28 - 2013-05-09 21:52:18 UTC
Bump for more visibility / discussion.

It seems that the core concept has broad appeal, it's the specifics that need hammered out (as above).

There's a couple ideas floating around for staking claim:

1. Purchase mining rights from an NPC group; rights can be bought and sold. With sites being "Scare" war declarations between mining corporations would have some effect at giving one group an advantage over another.
2. Anchoring a structure that needs to be attacked. Anyone can lay claim to a site and anyone can contest the site. This provides more potential conflict (I worry that it might be too much).
3. (From FHC) A module fit on a ship, instead of a structure, is what provides a claim over a site. This would prevent people from keeping a claim after having logged off which is handy.

Ultimately CCP would decide but we can keep arguing about it here. We might come up with something brilliant. : >
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
#29 - 2013-05-10 06:40:49 UTC
The idea is nice but I see a nasty way to exploit it.

What prevents sufficiently large corp/alliance from scanning and claiming all those sites out there (you said they are to be scarce, so it should be doable) and then... doing nothing? Or just waiting in cloaky Proteuses, like one poster mentioned?
Choc talar
Miners Legion
Already Replaced.
#30 - 2013-05-10 07:00:54 UTC
I like the idea so +1

This would add some interesting dynamics to war decs and their after math. As they sit now, a war dec just ends, its over, its finished, no more pew pew. There is nothing in place for signing treaties etc. This system could add these things. A war is started by corp A against corp B for mining rights etc, Corp A wins and as part of the treaty deal corp B is now forced to give the mining charter over to Corp A. or some amount of valuable charters etc. Wars now become something with a purpose and a definite reason behind them (in High sec anyway since null has sov mechanics). If you can defend your stake you keep it, if you can't you lose it. Botters would quickly lose since they lack the ability to fight back. This could easily drive more high sec wars into existence as well as the need for indy corps to band together and work together as alliances etc.

Adding a mechanic that allows chartered belts to rented out would also be nice. Corp A pays a fee to Corp B and they are allowed to mine there without being flagged (I am sure some sort of mechanic could be worked out). This could also lead to a new profession line of charter trading or some such.

I would add something more than just a one time charter fee however. make it similar to sov mechanics where there has to be an upkeep fee paid in order to keep the charter active which would make it so that the belt would have to be mined to turn a profit rather than just horded.

Something like this could also possibly lead to mining platforms being placed at a belt similar to moon mining. Just an idea here and it may not work and if done I would make the platforms a rather expensive investment thereby driving dedication into the mix. A destroyed platform during a war would become a hefty loss which would again drive wars.

CCP has already stated (in the new video released at fanfest) that the idea of capsuleers challenging the empires, and this could be a means of kicking some of this challenge off as corps and alliances begin to own pieces in high sec. Again good idea and a needed boost to the hated mining profession.
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
Roadhouse Regulars
#31 - 2013-05-10 08:10:02 UTC
Interesting proposal. I can see the problem of griefer corps/alliances snapping up all of the charters, leading to turmoil in the markets. The idea of limiting the number of charters per corp is good, and if the corp needed a membership of at least ?? then it would stop griefers firing up small corps all over the place. Any corp whose membership drops below ?? would have ? days to get the membership back up or the charter would be revoked. Charters would need to be unavailable to corps with any trial account toons; the obsessives WOULD create a load of toons for just this purpose.

Choc talar wrote:

Something like this could also possibly lead to mining platforms being placed at a belt similar to moon mining. Just an idea here and it may not work and if done I would make the platforms a rather expensive investment thereby driving dedication into the mix. A destroyed platform during a war would become a hefty loss which would again drive wars.


Something like a T2 orca, perhaps? Deployable with a refinery onboard that works only in deployed mode. Obviously a vastly increased ore bay over the T1 variant and a bay for the resulting minerals. Other attributes to be discussed. Making a T2 orca would be suitably expensive; the T1 costs enough. Add the T2 bpc AND the upgrade components and you have your expensive mining platform.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.

Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2013-05-10 08:14:32 UTC
Me gusta.


Quote:
Owning a place to mine is some what easing the life of botters and dificulting the life of new players... I don't see this feature being positive in the end...


While I agree that that may be true, I still think this is an issue active GMs could actually tackle...
I mean, when it is that obvious that an actually botter is on the move, GMs should be nuking the hell out of them as well as ban their arses immediately.

Unfortunately, not a perfect world as we still see too much botting happening in EVE.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-05-10 08:27:59 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Andrea Griffin wrote:
kyrieee wrote:
Well you could require the anchoring of some module in order to mine in the belt. That has a purchasable killright equivalent to the price of what the miners paid for the belt initially. So someone can pay a fee to contest your belt.
I like this idea as well. My only concern is that people looking for easy kills will attack the structure for the sake of shooting people instead of control over the resource.


that was actually the best part of it. u shouldnt have the rights to something without having to defend it and urselves.

having rights to a belt should make u vulnerable to attack. the worst possible outcome (imho) of this proposal is invulnerable miners mining invulnerable belts. because that IS a first come first serve system and not conflict at all.


This is exactly why this is a terrible idea... and for the same reasons there will never be player owned pocos in hi-sec this should never be implemented.

tl;dr

OP wants mechanic to lock rogue miners out of his local belts. Doesn't want others to be able to interfere with his ownership of said belts.

...

Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#34 - 2013-05-10 09:53:20 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:
OP wants mechanic to lock rogue miners out of his local belts. Doesn't want others to be able to interfere with his ownership of said belts.


Aptly named although might I suggest a subtle change to "TheMisunderstandingSkeptic". I'm pretty sure that the OP isn't saying that she wants immune belts to mine in. You're trying to argue from a null standpoint, I'm afraid. People could still mess with the miners. In fact, it's been argued that it could increase combat in highsec due to allowing the concept of traps to be set. On top of this, the concept isn't to replace belts altogether, merely add a new level to the mining that already exists. Please feel free to correct me if you think I've said anything erroneous.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-05-10 16:08:34 UTC
Andrea Griffin wrote:
Alx Warlord wrote:
Owning a place to mine is some what easing the life of botters and dificulting the life of new players... I don't see this feature being positive in the end...
We shouldn't design or not design game features because of what bots might or might not do; CCP's security team is responsible for handling that situation. Also, please report those accounts as bot accounts. It really does help.

That said: This change wouldn't affect or protect botters at all. They will continue to warp to public belt X and go on their merry way with loads of Veldspar. You can still suicide gank them all you want (and I encourage you to do so).

If the bots want to use a scanned-down site with better ore, then:

1. They must be a member of the corporation that owns the belt, opening them up to war declarations; or
2. They must pay the person who scanned the site in order to mine there (hey, at least you get something out of it); or
3. They just go mine the site anyway, at the risk of being blown up by the owner.

But I imagine they'll just hug public belts as they do now and go about their merry way.


I totally agree with you about Bots.

But I was wondering... This kind of mining sites could be built instead of found. This would add a new layer to the game. Keep in mind that the next expansion will be "build your empire" Themed. This would be something like a private asteroid farm.

Maybe if you could build near your POS an acceleration gate that would lead to an private gravimetric site, that would slowly replenish itself. And this acceleration gate would need the charts to work.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-05-10 16:21:22 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
TheSkeptic wrote:
OP wants mechanic to lock rogue miners out of his local belts. Doesn't want others to be able to interfere with his ownership of said belts.


Aptly named although might I suggest a subtle change to "TheMisunderstandingSkeptic". I'm pretty sure that the OP isn't saying that she wants immune belts to mine in. You're trying to argue from a null standpoint, I'm afraid. People could still mess with the miners. In fact, it's been argued that it could increase combat in highsec due to allowing the concept of traps to be set. On top of this, the concept isn't to replace belts altogether, merely add a new level to the mining that already exists. Please feel free to correct me if you think I've said anything erroneous.


Because comments like this...

Andrea Griffin wrote:
I like this idea as well. My only concern is that people looking for easy kills will attack the structure for the sake of shooting people instead of control over the resource.


... make it look like it's less about PVP and more about claiming, controlling and harvesting a hi-sec resource for themselves.

It's hi-sec... if you want your own belts/sites join a null block, rent space or whatever and you will have all the resources you want. I think there was even talk of the ores out there getting a bit of a buff?

...

Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2013-05-11 04:41:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
TheSkeptic wrote:

Because comments like this...

Andrea Griffin wrote:
I like this idea as well. My only concern is that people looking for easy kills will attack the structure for the sake of shooting people instead of control over the resource.


... make it look like it's less about PVP and more about claiming, controlling and harvesting a hi-sec resource for themselves.

It's hi-sec... if you want your own belts/sites join a null block, rent space or whatever and you will have all the resources you want. I think there was even talk of the ores out there getting a bit of a buff?


That's exactly his point OP wants PVP for the sake of claiming a resource, not drive-by PVP for the sake of padding a killboard. But he wants to make it available to another set of players without the overheads of 0.0.

Re: stopping people claiming belts and not using them.
Simple: build in a clause that a certain amount needs to be mined per time period or the charter reverts to NPC corp and can be repurchased.

Amount should be low enough that a small number of medium skilled players can achieve it.
Amount should be high enough that it injects sufficient minerals into the market to ensure market stability.
Time period should be long enough that you don't need to be constantly active and can stop-and-start provided that when you are active you are very active (ie 4-6 hours).

Re: stealing.
Just make anybody claim jumping suspect it's easiest.

Note by claim jumping I mean mining in a belt without any rights to mine in that belt; not trying to acquire the rights from the rights-holders. (See below).

Re: forcefully acquiring a claim.
I don't like Pew-Pew mechanics for this. This mechanic is about mining and driving conflict through mining. If you want to pew-pew a corp/alliance who is in your space claiming your belts, Wardec them or get Mercs to wardec them. This will give you a period where they're vulnerable. (I get that Wardec's are delayed, they should be seen as a longer term solution).

When it's a disagreement over just one belt (ie short duration, not worth a Wardec), my preferred solution is to make it a mining competition.
Ie.
1. new corp (Corp A) spots a belt they want, but it's already been claimed (Corp B).
2. They pay the NPC corp in question a fee (similar to but higher than the original fee for the charter) and get the ability to mine in the belt for a window.
3. During this window the value of ore mined by Corp A and Corp B (or by people renting rights through Corp B) is tracked, at the end of the window whoever has mined the most retains/acquires the claim.

This means there is a benefit to legitimately claiming a belt (it's cheaper than trying to claim-jump); but that benefit is not absolute and must be exercised (or you lose it).

It also means that miners can do what they do best: mine. We're not forcing them to Pew-Pew. Either way it's PVP - just the mechanics are different.

Also: there are sufficient tools in Eve already to disrupt mining ops. (Suicide ganks, threats of suicide ganks, bumping etc.)

Re: claim fees.
My thinking is that it's most logical to make the fee a % of the total value of the belt. This means that what your risking in claiming a belt scales to the potential benefit if you can mine it all.

You also sell partial stakes for players/corps who don't have the time to mine out the belt completely.

Ie, somebody buys the exclusive rights to mine 25% of the total value of a belt. Whilst the right is active only they can mine the belt, but the right expires once they've mined 25% of the value of the belt and become available to purchase.
A second corp comes along and purchases the exclusive rights to 100% of the value of the belt. Their cost is based on the value of the belt at that time ie of 75% of the original value of the belt.

Re: scarcity
The way to make scarcity work for this is to make Ore's scarce in time. (Ie at any one time in the game there is a finite amount of ore) but infinite in depth.

Ie. make ores a limitless well, with a narrow opening. The fight then becomes about controlling the opening; but shouldn't change over all supply.

As prices increase due to conflict, mining increases in value, more players mine to make isk, belts are cycled quicker*, conflict increases, supply remains in pace with demand.

* This assumes that these belts work like 0.0 mining anoms: ie they respawn immediately / quickly once they've been mined out.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-05-11 04:58:44 UTC
I'd like to see a special type of station anchorable at a belt which could be fit with POS weapons, storage and refining units and maybe even manufacturing units. It would not have a POS shield but the weapons would offer defense.

But however the idea works out, I'd like to see a way to claim a belt.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-05-11 05:58:58 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:

...stuff...


You're missing my point.

It's hi-sec... the resources available should never be claimable by an entity. This is why pocos are NPC owned, moon minerals cannot be mined, ore, ice belts & station slots are a first come first served basis.

If this idea went through all that would happen is you'd claim your belts and then just use a tornado character in system to warp around and gank anyone else mining them without getting concorded.

...

Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#40 - 2013-05-11 06:11:23 UTC
at first glance I thought no
but read through it and now +1, supported, /signed, etc.

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt