These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Mining Mechanics: Multi Ore, Multi Methods

First post
Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2014-12-10 09:07:48 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i understand his concern.. people do tend too choose the most optimal gameplay available so some minor nerfs to the lower spectrum of your plan might be needed too avoid that potential outcome

You didn't read it either. He mentions heavy nerfs to passive mining, in fact it's one of the main focuses of the article.

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."

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#162 - 2014-12-10 09:30:15 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i understand his concern.. people do tend too choose the most optimal gameplay available so some minor nerfs to the lower spectrum of your plan might be needed too avoid that potential outcome

You didn't read it either. He mentions heavy nerfs to passive mining, in fact it's one of the main focuses of the article.


theres no actual nerf figures or even mention of the word really ... theres lots of varying percentages .. nothing actually concrete like nerf such and such by x%

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2014-12-10 09:35:05 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
theres no actual nerf figures or even mention of the word really ... theres lots of varying percentages .. nothing actually concrete like nerf such and such by x%

It's mentioned several times throughout the article; just because you can't find it by searching the document for the word "nerf" doesn't mean it isn't there.

Abrazzar wrote:
The Mining

Strip Mining is simple. You point your mining lasers at a rock and let them roam, sucking everything up that may be valuable and jettison the rest. Disadvantage is that you don't get to choose. Mining will yield all ores in the rock relative to the distribution in the asteroid. T1 Mining Lasers and Strip Miners are used for this method (non-modulated T2 versions may be created). Yield drops when the ore density falls, around a 2:1 ratio. So if the asteroid is at 50% ore density, the yield will be 75% and it goes towards 50% when density approaches zero.

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."

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2014-12-10 10:02:28 UTC
heh, has the OP been changed at some point? I didn't remember the nerf to standard yield...I like the idea of active mining but not at the expense of the current mining mechanics. This should be in addition to, not instead of..
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2014-12-10 10:07:02 UTC
Neither post has even been edited. They don't have an edited by remark at the top. So any lack of grammatical errors is original.

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."

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#166 - 2014-12-10 10:07:44 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
heh, has the OP been changed at some point? I didn't remember the nerf to standard yield...I like the idea of active mining but not at the expense of the current mining mechanics. This should be in addition to, not instead of..

There needs to be a nerf in one place to allow a boost at another in order to retain the overall balance.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2014-12-10 10:08:22 UTC
I am in no way going to comment on grammatical errors as the combined gods of hypochrisy and touchscreen keyboard errors would evaporate me in an instant...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#168 - 2014-12-10 14:40:09 UTC
If we make mining actually worth the effort for paying attention to details this way, I doubt respect for quasi AFK grinders will be enough to support protecting their play style.

The cherry pickers will swoop in, exchange effort for faster results, and leave nothing for the grinders except the leftovers.

In any case, the devs would decide on how to balance it.
Quasi AFK mining, in my view, should be treated like setting a ship on autopilot and sending it across half the game.
Sure, you can do that, but it takes longer and your results are subject to interference by other players.

As I believe it should be.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2014-12-10 14:49:31 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Quasi AFK mining, in my view, should be treated like setting a ship on autopilot and sending it across half the game.
Sure, you can do that, but it takes longer and your results are subject to interference by other players.

As I believe it should be.


That's already how mining is, afk means the likelyhood of being CODE squished and is much less effective than active mining
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#170 - 2014-12-10 15:27:39 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Quasi AFK mining, in my view, should be treated like setting a ship on autopilot and sending it across half the game.
Sure, you can do that, but it takes longer and your results are subject to interference by other players.

As I believe it should be.


That's already how mining is, afk means the likelyhood of being CODE squished and is much less effective than active mining

I get what you are saying.

Yes and no, I think fits best.
Yes, like the autopilot, once you start the process it runs till it completes. (Well, the current targeted asteroids at least)
It is clearly possible to have other players interfere, as well.

As for the current active part, your only options are to let it run, or cut it short so you can become defensive or evasive.

That, to me, is not really active. It is watching a progress bar shaped like an asteroid, being cut and pasted into an ore format in your ore hold or cargo bay.
The most you can do to operate at top speed, is to have the next asteroid targeted and swap over the laser at the right time.

Active to me, would be using the scanner and an interface that lets you target higher concentration areas of ore, and skip over the parts you least want.
The interface for planetary interaction is a decent example of how they already know how to do this kind of thing.
A mining interface that let you work a team of drones, coordinated with your lasers, would feel a lot more interesting to me.
Solj RichPopolous
Silent Havok.
H A R D L I N E R S
#171 - 2014-12-10 19:01:08 UTC
+1 Im not a miner in any way shape form or fashion and i hate everything industry related but I think this would be a great addition to the game.
Brutalis Furia
Hammer and Anvil Industries
#172 - 2014-12-11 02:14:47 UTC
I the spirit of "more ideas are always good, even if the ideas aren't", I offer a counter. Asteroids no longer have the +5%/+10% yield variant, but for every unit of ore, there is a % chance that it will be that +5%/+10% variant. Mining lasers give a bonus to the chance of ore being bonused, where strips pull mass amounts.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#173 - 2014-12-11 14:31:41 UTC
Brutalis Furia wrote:
I the spirit of "more ideas are always good, even if the ideas aren't", I offer a counter. Asteroids no longer have the +5%/+10% yield variant, but for every unit of ore, there is a % chance that it will be that +5%/+10% variant. Mining lasers give a bonus to the chance of ore being bonused, where strips pull mass amounts.

That sounds to me like playing scratch off ore tickets, in an automated manner.

For a competitive game, anything automated cancels out as a means to compete with.

I am thinking we could use a reactive interface that offered a chance to convert time and effort into results above those from simply time invested alone.

Heck, it would be a cool spin if we could adapt this into a combat aspect. Imagine, studying the shield patterns of an opponent, and being able to focus fire where they were weakest? Or defensively being able to reinforce areas facing opponents?
Grezh
Hextrix Enterprise
#174 - 2015-01-02 15:27:32 UTC
+1 to entire post

On the idea of vein mining I think it would be very interesting to have the output of such mining very dense ore (maybe when refined it's comparable to the mineral in m3) this could quite possibly cripple high end prises however I really like the concept of roaming null in a prospect and cherry picking the veins. It would be almost like a mining exploration hybrid with the desire to go where its most dangerous or where few tread in order to get the most reward.
Rhydic Ujbikist
Spacegoat Enterprises
#175 - 2015-01-13 22:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhydic Ujbikist
I like these ideas, but it doesn't seem like they significantly address any issues with risk/reward problems in lowsec and wormhole space.

I wrote up most of an OP but figured it would be better to start here with the stuff I'd like to see, since it's somewhat related to this. Here you go.

Mining is unlike most of the recently updated features in eve such as exploration in that more thought and activity has very little effect on mining output; as of late, this issue has been exacerbated with the relative improvement of highsec ores over nullsec and lowsec ores. Arkonor, supposedly the greatest ore in the game, is now second only to omber in its worthlessness. There is almost no difference between a person idling in a skiff in highsec pressing f1 every 5-10 minutes and a person actively watching and waiting for his cycle timer in a wormhole system. The only "advantage" of mining in nullsec are refining bonuses, since hedbergite, the current best regular ore, spawns in highsec anomalies and is not even as valuable per cubic meter as fiery kernite; mining in lowsec is almost entirely pointless. There is something wrong with the risk/reward ratio of mining when some three-month-old mining character in a 1.0 system mining massive scordite can make as much money as someone mining hedbergite in an unsecured wormhole system.

This coincides with the (currently mostly irrelevant) fact that the ore composition of asteroids is abysmally low; the best untouched asteroids I could find in highsec belts in terms of volume had an ore concentration of approximately .04% to .1%, while the worst were the largest veldspar asteroids with concentrations as low as .00000037%. In spite of these incredibly low concentrations, a veldspar asteroid with three trillion cubic meters takes only about twelve minutes to, with perfect accuracy, extract the 120,000 units of veldspar and vaporize the other 2,999,999,880,000 cubic meters using 480 gigajoules of energy, the equivalent of approximately 80 barrels of oil. This doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality.

It seems reasonable to add a factor of volumetric efficiency to mining income instead of only increasing the amount of ore per asteroid as security status drops. This would significantly improve the importance of mining in lower-security systems as even consistently bad ores like omber become profitable enough to mine, and would increase the amount of risk being taken even in highsec, as expensive exhumers would move into the higher-efficiency .5 and .6 systems. The ability to tweak the general increase in ore concentration would also allow CCP to easily balance highsec with lowsec, nullsec, and wormhole space and allow ore sites in highsec to become more relevant again, since most of them spawn common ores. Of course, this would require a vast increase in mining laser volume and a vast decrease in the volume of asteroids to have this make any sense, or an efficiency multiplier for mining lasers that multiplies the effective density of asteroids and can be improved with skills, modules, implants, and boosts. Other changes, such as giving regular mining lasers (not strip miners) a bonus to their production efficiency, might help to keep balance and relevance among the various mining modules.

Mining minigames have been suggested since ages past, but the argument that passive mining should be possible usually dampers any significant traction with such ideas. I believe an optional minigame could be accomplished with the introduction of a new, specialized mining ship that can fit a unique precision laser that can carve off and destroy pieces of asteroids with uselessly low mineral concentrations with some kind of minigame, improving the ore concentration. It would also allow the user to vandalize the asteroid belts of enemy alliances in a short amount of time, though this would need some kind of counterweight in highsec to prevent the destruction of entire systems, such as a cooldown that increases with security status and the prevention of usage in starter systems.

Also the ability to see the volume of and concentration of ore with a scanner. Make this a thing.
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#176 - 2015-02-19 20:54:37 UTC
All I can say right now is this.
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#177 - 2015-02-20 09:46:06 UTC
Quote:
Deposits show as a heat map on the asteroid. You can switch through the ores similar to PI scans and you need to aim your mining lasers at the targeted deposit to mine it.


+1 for that.

But the idea of vein mining is kind of redundant i think. Deposit mining would be enough for a form of interactive mining.
They both are the same approach. Scan for better ore, extract only that. No need for two versions of this.

So a differentiation between regular mining (like it is now) and PI like interactive mining (heat map) would be the best approach to this, in my opinion. Not overly and unnecessary complicated, but enough interaction for the non-bots.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2015-02-20 22:00:45 UTC
No wall of text. Some good ideas, some not so good, but an addition to make active mining a thing and more modules and play styles easily gets a +1, supported from me.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#179 - 2015-03-02 22:21:20 UTC
Bump for the only real big improvement that I personally want to see in the game Big smile

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2015-03-02 23:32:15 UTC

The proposal mentions nothing of how ISK per hour is affected. Mining is near bottom for this stat, so does the increased complexity (read: AFK unfriendliness) make up for itself by providing more ISK/hr?

Mining needs more of explo like discovery and procurement (which you are loosely proposing here), but if all this does is cut into overall yield from undock to dock, then I'm afraid none of these changes make any sense.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.