These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Expanded ore hold rigs
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
John Hand
#21 - 2015-04-09 02:38:37 UTC
Any buff to mining or production is overall, a GOOD thing.

"but the market will be flooded", Last I checked that is a good thing to have happen when it comes to Materials, means CHEAPER ships.


Cheaper ships, means you can PvP more and have to Rat less to feed the PvP god. Cheaper ships, means more ships being killed, which raises demand for ships, and the cycle continues.

The better Null sec can mine, the more ships alliances can produce in "house" regions, meaning less resilience on High sec, which is what the entire aim of the new nullsec mining rework is about.



I would think this rig would be good, but should be limited to only ONE rig per a ship, much like how a Higgs anchor is limited to one. A 20% buff to Ore holds would go a long way to fixing a few things on the Hulk when it comes to ICE mining (thing is like 500m3 short for a full 3 cycles, and it gets annoying).


The easier life is for Industrialists, the better life for PvPers gets, you CANNOT have one without the other.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#22 - 2015-04-09 03:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
John Hand wrote:
Any buff to mining or production is overall, a GOOD thing.

"but the market will be flooded", Last I checked that is a good thing to have happen when it comes to Materials, means CHEAPER ships.

Blanket statements that would frame every potential proposed idea positively are bad.

BC need a buff: An idea with broad consensus.

BC need turbocharged microwarp drives so they can do 10km/sec and instablap titans : bad, despite falling under the above good idea.

Just because PvP needs ships, and ships need production does not mean that all ideas that benefit producers are good ideas.

Remember drone poop? The greatest mineral faucet in the history of EVE, upon which most of the games production relied upon? The mechanic that was removed because it had extremely toxic effects on the in game economy?

Each idea must stand on its own qualifications. "It helps ______, and that makes the idea good" is not a valid reason.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#23 - 2015-04-09 05:32:05 UTC
John Hand wrote:
Any buff to mining or production is overall, a GOOD thing.

"but the market will be flooded", Last I checked that is a good thing to have happen when it comes to Materials, means CHEAPER

Cheaper ships, means you can PvP more and have to Rat less to feed the PvP god. Cheaper ships, means more ships being killed, which raises demand for ships, and the cycle continues.

Of course this is wrong. If flooded markets are so great why not just take your idea to the extreme and seed ore on the markets for 0.01 ISK or just add a new Jove structure in every belt that gives miners infinite ore for free? Cheap ships for everyone! followed shortly by no more industry at all as every quickly aquires everything they would ever need for next to nothing. PvP becomes inconsequential and the game is a now a sandbox in name only.

CCP has people whose primary job is to not let that happen to the economy. They will not lightly add a module that is a significant across the board buff to mining efficiency.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#24 - 2015-04-09 11:39:18 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
actually - a module I'd love to see from the point of view of J-space is a low-slot module to expand PI hold, simply because everyone now fits epithals with a full rack of warptabs....

Fixed a word. - ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2015-04-09 13:59:43 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
most people will instantly dismiss theses. but

rig will expand the ore hold of the ship its fitted to by 20%
Drawback of the rig is a 20% reduction to shield hp

or even 10% reduction in shield, armor and structure hp

meaning if the lazy ones want more space, they lose even more hp, making them easier to gank
easier to kill means more wrecks, more content and higher prices.


Do you really think your the first with this idea or are you just to lazy to use the search function ?

-1 vote 4 close --> repost
erg cz
Federal Jegerouns
#26 - 2015-04-09 14:27:07 UTC
-1. If you want to boost active miners - support this suggestion. Your suggestion will just support afk miners - they can stay in belt longer.

Absolutely free head start for newcomers!. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP!
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#27 - 2015-04-09 15:37:22 UTC
well. a simple modification then.

20% more ore bay
20% reduction in yield

how does that sound?
John Hand
#28 - 2015-04-10 09:55:14 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

Remember drone poop? .



Sure do, I started null sec living with IRC out in Cobalt Edge, and life was good. Ships were cheap, carriers were super cheap (750mil for a thanny) the whole of the EvE economy was cheaper, and Trit was at TWO ISK.


A PLAYER run economy has its own checks and balances built right into the system, buffing mining and procuection, would drive the prices of ships down till it hit its new equilibrium, very possibly back down to the good ol days of Drone Goo.

The module in question being proposed does NOTHING to boost mining Yield or Time, it just buffs the ability to HOLD more ore before having to Dump it into an Orca/Roqual/Jet Can/Anchored Can. So no change would happen to...well...anything really, just would make mining life just a little bit...better/easier. No major profits, no massive "OMG I just one cycled Spodzilla!" just a Quality of Life buff.
Previous page12