These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Moon mining changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harimata
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-04-14 20:20:02 UTC
I believe there is a general sentiment around EVE that moon mining, in its current state, is unbalanced. I'm not going to go into details about it -- that can be discussed in separate threads. Instead, I would like to propose a change to how moon mining works

The proposal is simple: as the moon goo is mined, it accumulates at the POCO at the moon. It is then shipped to the POS at regular intervals (lets say every 6 hours). The 'shipping' can be done via NPC haulers/freighters/containers/etc (similar to the ones near high sec stations). During this phase, the moon goo is vulnerable to be intercepted. A hostile fleet will be able to scan it down and attack the cargo ships. Once the ship reaches armor, it goes into RF mode with a 30 minute timer. After the timer is up, the hostiles can destroy the ship and claim the loot for themselves. The cargo ship should have enough EHP for a small 5 man gang to be able to RF it in 10 minutes (or a 10 man gang in 5 minutes).

What would be the impact of this change?

First of all, moon goo is no longer free money. It will become something that can be potentially stolen by small gangs. The RF timer is to give the defender an opportunity to come in and save the cargo after it has been attacked.

This will also give some strategic purpose for roaming into hostile space. Imagine a raiding party going into a whole region and stealing all the moon goo. The owners of the moons will have financial incentive to form up defense fleets and chase the raiders out of their space. It also creates flash points for small fights -- when each of the timers runs out

I believe this favors small gangs over large blobs. The targets are small enough that 5-10 man fleets can take them out with relative ease. Bringing in large blobs to attack/defend does not make a lot of sense since the drops are relatively small: lets say a POS mines 240m ISK/day. Each cargo shipment will be worth 60m. A small gang can sweep through a constellation, attack all the moon goo haulers and make a reasonable amount of ISK doing it. With larger fleets, you get diminishing returns and it is no longer worth it.

On the defensive side, this will make large alliances work for their passive income. A small alliance should be able to defend their space pretty well -- everything will be near by. Large alliances that are spread out and deployed else where will become targets for raiders

Thoughts?
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#2 - 2012-04-14 21:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Its a very interesting proposal.

I wont lie, I like it.

However, I think it would take a very large amount of CCP resources when a much simpler solution to the "moon goo" problem could be found.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-04-15 06:17:08 UTC
semi afk cloakies are annoying enough already, how many semi afk bombers do we really need outside of valuable moons?

I cant see this as anything other then a way to spike specific prices. technium would be camped 23/7 by people that had bought up a supply of bombers before this change was implemented.

way to further **** up the moon goo markets.

considering that pos's are anchored the same way that POCO's are and generally perform the same function (although not with the same free cargo space, poco fuels?) why add the structure in between? doesn't the player driven logistics operate in much the same way? or do you really just want the automation of a npc hauler out in space?

it seems like a way to just get the goo without having to take the effort of putting up and paying for your own tower. with a regular spawn time you can bully smaller lowsec groups even better as you can either expect a fight and prepare, or steal their goo without much effort or cost.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Harimata
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-04-15 07:19:03 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Its a very interesting proposal.

I wont lie, I like it.

However, I think it would take a very large amount of CCP resources when a much simpler solution to the "moon goo" problem could be found.


This does not attempt to fix the "moon goo" problem per se. I believe the solution to that would be to re-balance the consumption of r64 materials such that a more reasonable profit per moon per month is achieved. Getting rid of passive isk from moons will disrupt a lot of the larger alliances and will be a much more impacting change.




Kusum Fawn wrote:
semi afk cloakies are annoying enough already, how many semi afk bombers do we really need outside of valuable moons?

I cant see this as anything other then a way to spike specific prices. technium would be camped 23/7 by people that had bought up a supply of bombers before this change was implemented.

way to further **** up the moon goo markets.

considering that pos's are anchored the same way that POCO's are and generally perform the same function (although not with the same free cargo space, poco fuels?) why add the structure in between? doesn't the player driven logistics operate in much the same way? or do you really just want the automation of a npc hauler out in space?

it seems like a way to just get the goo without having to take the effort of putting up and paying for your own tower. with a regular spawn time you can bully smaller lowsec groups even better as you can either expect a fight and prepare, or steal their goo without much effort or cost.



That is exactly the goal. The main purpose of this change would be to induce fights over small-ish resources. The semi-afk bomber example can be taken care of via EHP and other mechanics. If one of your tech cargos is being attacked by a single stealth bomber for an hour and you can't send a single guy to defend it.. you probably don't deserve that isk. To prevent attackers from just cloaking up when a defensive fleet comes into the picture, a mechanic that allows the target to warp off and recharge shields unless it is pointed can be introduced. That way if the attackers decide to cloak up, they will lose all progress and have to start over. In the big scheme of things, losing 1 shipment will not make or break an alliance.


The point of this would be to create a way of 'stealing' resources from any entity that engages in passive isk making activities. It creates an element of risk and responsibility in order to ensure their passive isk flow. My favorite aspect of this is that it creates a PVP-oriented way of making ISK by attacking the passive income operations of other players. I would say that most ISK making activities are PvE oriented (except merc work, ganking, scamming, etc).
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2012-04-15 07:48:22 UTC
So if your alliance is, say, Australian, you automatically lose a good chunk of your income? (It's hard to defend against some guy and his five bomber alts when you're asleep after all.)
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-04-15 07:55:40 UTC
Harimata wrote:

That is exactly the goal. The main purpose of this change would be to induce fights over small-ish resources. The semi-afk bomber example can be taken care of via EHP and other mechanics. If one of your tech cargos is being attacked by a single stealth bomber for an hour and you can't send a single guy to defend it.. you probably don't deserve that isk. To prevent attackers from just cloaking up when a defensive fleet comes into the picture, a mechanic that allows the target to warp off and recharge shields unless it is pointed can be introduced. That way if the attackers decide to cloak up, they will lose all progress and have to start over. In the big scheme of things, losing 1 shipment will not make or break an alliance.

The point of this would be to create a way of 'stealing' resources from any entity that engages in passive isk making activities. It creates an element of risk and responsibility in order to ensure their passive isk flow. My favorite aspect of this is that it creates a PVP-oriented way of making ISK by attacking the passive income operations of other players. I would say that most ISK making activities are PvE oriented (except merc work, ganking, scamming, etc).


it jsut seems like a really really lazy way of nerfing dreadnoughts, cause you dont have to kill a tower anymore. and they arent exactly good for much else.

a single cargo isnt going to break an alliance, but two bombers and a cloaky dictor will keep ~50%? 25% of shipments from coming through. no need to reinforce that tower though, cause you can disrupt its functions without having to do anything to it.

and while you got several ships guarding the tech shipment, those guys are hitting the platinum moon or the vanadium or the ~ other goos you have in system. without having to reinforce anything.

~small corps with a foot hold in lowsec. get pushed out of lowsec from roamers that just want to mess with something. when you can log in once a day for 4 hours, how many shipments are you missing? and how much fuel are you paying?

this idea breaks a lot of things.



Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Harimata
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-04-15 14:09:15 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So if your alliance is, say, Australian, you automatically lose a good chunk of your income? (It's hard to defend against some guy and his five bomber alts when you're asleep after all.)


Well... yes. Moon production happens 24/7, regardless of your time zone. From a big picture, does it make sense for your alliance to be making risk-free ISK with no presence in other time zones? No. If this actually does happen, recruit a US/Euro pvp corp and tell them there are plenty of targets to shoot at in their TZ :)

Also, this works both ways. If you are AUTZ, you will have free reign to raid US/EU TZ alliance space.

Kusum Fawn wrote:

it jsut seems like a really really lazy way of nerfing dreadnoughts, cause you dont have to kill a tower anymore. and they arent exactly good for much else.

a single cargo isnt going to break an alliance, but two bombers and a cloaky dictor will keep ~50%? 25% of shipments from coming through. no need to reinforce that tower though, cause you can disrupt its functions without having to do anything to it.



Look at it from the other perspective.. this allows for moon production to be attacked WITHOUT resorting to grinding through POS shields day-in/day-out. Using dreads to siege the pos is still an option, no one is taking that away.


Kusum Fawn wrote:

and while you got several ships guarding the tech shipment, those guys are hitting the platinum moon or the vanadium or the ~ other goos you have in system. without having to reinforce anything.


Cool, sounds like you should get a couple pilots into a fleet and engage them.


Kusum Fawn wrote:


~small corps with a foot hold in lowsec. get pushed out of lowsec from roamers that just want to mess with something. when you can log in once a day for 4 hours, how many shipments are you missing? and how much fuel are you paying?

this idea breaks a lot of things.



I believe that only high-end moons will actually be targeted -- mainly due to the cost of the cargo intercepted. I highly doubt anyone will be chasing after cargo spawns with 5m worth of cargo. Unless, of course, they have something against you. In which case, this change will make things much more interesting...




A couple people have brought up cloaky SBs as a counter-point to this proposal. A mechanic can be introduced to keep 1-2 SB away. Off the top of my head, there can be a small NPC escort (perhaps upgradable via ihub/sov) to deter solo small cloaky ships from being a big nuisance. Also, expect a reasonable amount of EHP on the cargo ship/container/etc. It shouldn't be something a solo pilot can polish off quickly. 10 pilots x 5 minutes x 500 dps = 1.5m damage. So maybe 1m EHP before RF, and 1m EHP after?


Everyone is reading into this thinking they will be under siege from hostiles 24/7. If that actually does happen, I would call this change a success because that means that there will be more targets in space to shoot at. Remember, this works both ways.. while the enemy is raiding your space, you can raid theirs.
Seepy
Caldari Navy Shipyard
#8 - 2012-04-16 16:48:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Seepy
Honestly thats one of the dumbest ideas I heard in a long time.

Try to think about it this way:

Moon Mining plays its biggest part (highest value Goo) in 0.0 Space.
That is where Alliances are fighting over each other TechMoons.
Alliances that can easily bring several hundred Battleships or plenty of Capitals and SuperCaps on the field.
These wont care about the NPC Haulers or whatever you try there. They just blow away the entire tower an place their own.

In Lowsec where the lesser value Goo is found its an entirely different story.
You open up every harvesting tower to interdiction by every prick with a gun unless your Corp covers all TimeZones with a decent PvP presence and can motivate your players to guard the towers all the time. (This imho doesnt qualify for actively playing the game either.)
That in turns means that you threw all small scale Corps that run their own T2 Production Business (some of which dont have a PvP Wing anyways) that cannot cover 23.5/7 out of the T2 Production business.
Increasing T2 Prices might be the Result.

I think we already have enough Powerblocks and huge Corporations/Alliances.
I think encouraging smaller scale operations is the right way, rather then to make it increasingly harder for a bunch of 5 Friends to do anything in this game as you need a 24hour Coverage for any serious undertaking.

Next thing you complain about is that the Skills keep training even while beeing logged of and not doing anything in-game.
So they generate free SP 24/7.

As you can see from the Moon Material Prices (Complex Reaction) its hard enough at the moment to make a profit out of your POS unless you own a high-value Moon such as Technetium.
But even in Lowsec you wont hold your Tech Moon for long if you are unable to defend it against one of the major 0.0 Powers.

Flame away!
Harimata
Doomheim
#9 - 2012-04-16 21:14:21 UTC
Seepy wrote:
Honestly thats one of the dumbest ideas I heard in a long time.

Try to think about it this way:

Moon Mining plays its biggest part (highest value Goo) in 0.0 Space.
That is where Alliances are fighting over each other TechMoons.
Alliances that can easily bring several hundred Battleships or plenty of Capitals and SuperCaps on the field.
These wont care about the NPC Haulers or whatever you try there. They just blow away the entire tower an place their own.


Yes. As evidenced by what happened in Venal this weekend, alliance tech moon combat has turned into a whoever-brings-the-biggest-blob wins. I am trying to introduce a mechanic that would allow combat over tech moons which favors smaller gangs over large blobs.

Seepy wrote:

In Lowsec where the lesser value Goo is found its an entirely different story.
You open up every harvesting tower to interdiction by every prick with a gun unless your Corp covers all TimeZones with a decent PvP presence and can motivate your players to guard the towers all the time. (This imho doesnt qualify for actively playing the game either.)
That in turns means that you threw all small scale Corps that run their own T2 Production Business (some of which dont have a PvP Wing anyways) that cannot cover 23.5/7 out of the T2 Production business.
Increasing T2 Prices might be the Result.


Let me answer your question with an example. Consider a moon that makes 600m per month. That puts it at about 20m per day, or about 5m per cargo shipment. With the proposed EHP, a 5 man gang can take it out in 10 minutes, which comes out to 6 cargo shipments per hour. 5m per shipment * 6 shipments = 30m. This works out to 6m/hour for 5 people for grinding structures in the ideal case. They will probably end up spending more on ammo than they made in profit. Bumping up the moon profit to 1.2b/month will yield 12m/hour. With 5B/month moons, theoretical profit goes up to 50m/hour. Once you factor in travel time, scanning time and availability, the expected return is going to be much lower. Of course, these numbers should be balanced to achieve the desired result. Doubling/halfing the EHP will modify isk/hr potential.

I *highly* doubt that anyone will be chasing low end moons for profit. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the impact will be to T2 production. The way I see it, if they operate in low-sec, they are accepting the risk that comes with the territory.

Seepy wrote:

I think we already have enough Powerblocks and huge Corporations/Alliances.
I think encouraging smaller scale operations is the right way, rather then to make it increasingly harder for a bunch of 5 Friends to do anything in this game as you need a 24hour Coverage for any serious undertaking.


This will actually hurt larger powerblocs more than the smaller ones. They are the ones with the high-end moons that are the intended targets. There is no financial incentive to target the lower-end moons. A small 5 man corp would not be able to hold any of the high-end moons anyway, so I fail to see the point?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#10 - 2012-04-16 21:21:50 UTC

The first problem with your post:

This belongs in F&I until it is well thought out and ready to present to the CSM for discussion.

Now, onto my thoughts regarding your idea:

I like your line of thought.... additional small gang targets are always a huge plus!!! This fits in very well with the Farms & Fields discussion that CCP raised (old forums right before the forum change) around Incarna's release. Stealing Tech would become very much a worthwhile activity.... However:

1.) It makes no sense that they travel to/from a PLANET's POCO's. The mining laser is at the POS which orbits the MOON, and its mining the MOON.... Hence, why is there any interaction with the planet???

2.) For the purpose of logic, you would need to move the mining array, which gathers the materials, away from the storage container (i.e. it's silo). But, both of these are not only located INSIDE the POS, which is powering them, but are also connected to each other... Do you see the logic problems here??? For these transport ship to exist, there should be a need/reason to transport the materials from Point A to Point B.

3.) The only reason you'd want NPC's to move the materials, as opposed player characters, is so it's easier to snag.... Are you planning on providing NPC escorts? Do they web, scram, RR, etc, etc, etc? Taking from an NPC is rather shady IMO...

4.) RF timers suck.... don't add more of them to the game!!!!!!

I would suggest that making a lot of changes, both for the sake of gameplay, and for the sake of sanity....

Here are a couple of thoughts:
A.) Defending a POS structure sucks... and requires time for a response... Hence the stupidly large EHP and RF timers...

B.) The POS owner is putting his money and equipment at 24/7 risk of being attacked..... IMO, if you're going to steal the moongoo from the POS, you should be putting something at risk too (and shooting an NPC doesn't hack it!!!)!!!

A much better alternative, IMO, would be something like the following (This is a very rough idea that just popped into my head):

A mining ray deflector..... Something you anchor between the moon harvesting array and the moon that deflects a portion of the harvested goods into your secondary collecter. Every harvest cycle, the secondary collecter steals moongoo (not necessarily all)...
--- Only allow it to hold 2 hours worth of goo,
--- Make it easily deployed (Under 5 minute anchor/unanchor time and about the size of a medium warp bubble)
--- Make it easily destroyed (Around 100k EHP)...
--- Make it inexpensive (I'd aim at a1m price tag)....
--- Have it create a KM when destroyed (A. To record the theiving alliance, B. To give a defender proof of his efforts).
--- It needs to be deployed on-grid of the POS (But not necessarily within POS weapons range... )
--- When anchored, have it send out the standard POS is under attack notifications.....

The benefits of this:
1.) By remaining out of range of the POS weapons, a small gang can maraude any moon.
2.) Only a small response is necessary to remove the threat.... leaving this a small gang activity...
3.) A pressence near the Moon Mining tower is suddenly necessary in order to maintain a valuable tower.... This mechanic would be a HUGE boon to lowsec dwellers, as while major nullsec alliance typically wield the power to control ownership of these moons, they lack the local pressence to keep them from being marauded!!! They might just pay a lowsec pirate group to do just that!
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-04-16 23:09:21 UTC
Harimata wrote:

I *highly* doubt that anyone will be chasing low end moons for profit. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the impact will be to T2 production. The way I see it, if they operate in low-sec, they are accepting the risk that comes with the territory.

Seepy wrote:

I think we already have enough Powerblocks and huge Corporations/Alliances.
I think encouraging smaller scale operations is the right way, rather then to make it increasingly harder for a bunch of 5 Friends to do anything in this game as you need a 24hour Coverage for any serious undertaking.


This will actually hurt larger powerblocs more than the smaller ones. They are the ones with the high-end moons that are the intended targets. There is no financial incentive to target the lower-end moons. A small 5 man corp would not be able to hold any of the high-end moons anyway, so I fail to see the point?


I want to know if you have ever managed a mining tower chain or single tower. Im not saying that your idea doesnt have a certain logic to it, im saying that its not realistic for this game.

There are a lot more people in lowsec that would kill a goo hauler just to annoy you and not for profit. Saying that there isnt a financial reason to do it, isn't a reason in itself for people not to do it. It means that you have to have someone around 23.5/7 or whenever the goo spawns. or you dont get paid for that time period. larger alliances will mess with small holders just to mess with small holders. where as they wont necessarily get the manpower to kill a tower. (who volunteers to siege a lowsec tower over a roam?)

There is no incentive for a small holder group to attempt to mine goo in lowsec if they cant have some security in their investment. that security is in the RF timer. they have a way to make sure they can respond to the threat. With your hauler idea they cannot. Rather this just means that t2 markets will get even more messed up and those that have stockpiles of t2 mats will become richer, or those that have deep null towers.

powerblocks who can defend their space vs small lowsec holders who cant 23.5/7 secure their space. who wins this isk war?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Harimata
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-04-17 15:31:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Harimata
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

The first problem with your post:

This belongs in F&I until it is well thought out and ready to present to the CSM for discussion.


Thank you for your feedback. This is my first proposal. If anyone can move it to the appropriate subforum, please do so. Thanks!

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Now, onto my thoughts regarding your idea:

I like your line of thought.... additional small gang targets are always a huge plus!!! This fits in very well with the Farms & Fields discussion that CCP raised (old forums right before the forum change) around Incarna's release. Stealing Tech would become very much a worthwhile activity.... However:

1.) It makes no sense that they travel to/from a PLANET's POCO's. The mining laser is at the POS which orbits the MOON, and its mining the MOON.... Hence, why is there any interaction with the planet???

2.) For the purpose of logic, you would need to move the mining array, which gathers the materials, away from the storage container (i.e. it's silo). But, both of these are not only located INSIDE the POS, which is powering them, but are also connected to each other... Do you see the logic problems here??? For these transport ship to exist, there should be a need/reason to transport the materials from Point A to Point B.


I am not attached to any of the specifics here. I believe the best place for this encounter to happen would be somewhere near the moon, but off-grid. If someone wants to fill in the blanks with all the finer details to make it fit into the universe better, please be my guest.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

3.) The only reason you'd want NPC's to move the materials, as opposed player characters, is so it's easier to snag.... Are you planning on providing NPC escorts? Do they web, scram, RR, etc, etc, etc? Taking from an NPC is rather shady IMO...


The point of the NPCs was to counter cloaky SB gangs. There is nothing preventing them from shooting at the target and then cloaking up when the defense arrives. That was the original intention of the NPC escorts. That can be replaced with static defenses/etc. Or if CCP deems SB harassment to be valid, then we can just skip this all together. I'm not a huge fan of this, so if anyone has better ideas of how to achieve the similar results, I'm all ears.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

4.) RF timers suck.... don't add more of them to the game!!!!!!


I'll explain the need for RF timers below.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I would suggest that making a lot of changes, both for the sake of gameplay, and for the sake of sanity....

Here are a couple of thoughts:
A.) Defending a POS structure sucks... and requires time for a response... Hence the stupidly large EHP and RF timers...

B.) The POS owner is putting his money and equipment at 24/7 risk of being attacked..... IMO, if you're going to steal the moongoo from the POS, you should be putting something at risk too (and shooting an NPC doesn't hack it!!!)!!!



A) I'll explain the need for EHP/RF timers below.

B) Risk is balanced vs reward, not attacker vs defender. With the current design, moon mining POSes are not at risk from small fleets, only large subcap fleets or dreads/supers. And with this model, the largest fleet will (generally) always win. This favors the larger coalition -- which is why CFC holds something like 50 tech moons.
Harimata
Doomheim
#13 - 2012-04-17 16:11:30 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

A much better alternative, IMO, would be something like the following (This is a very rough idea that just popped into my head):

A mining ray deflector..... Something you anchor between the moon harvesting array and the moon that deflects a portion of the harvested goods into your secondary collecter. Every harvest cycle, the secondary collecter steals moongoo (not necessarily all)...
--- Only allow it to hold 2 hours worth of goo,
--- Make it easily deployed (Under 5 minute anchor/unanchor time and about the size of a medium warp bubble)
--- Make it easily destroyed (Around 100k EHP)...
--- Make it inexpensive (I'd aim at a1m price tag)....
--- Have it create a KM when destroyed (A. To record the theiving alliance, B. To give a defender proof of his efforts).
--- It needs to be deployed on-grid of the POS (But not necessarily within POS weapons range... )
--- When anchored, have it send out the standard POS is under attack notifications.....

The benefits of this:
1.) By remaining out of range of the POS weapons, a small gang can maraude any moon.
2.) Only a small response is necessary to remove the threat.... leaving this a small gang activity...
3.) A pressence near the Moon Mining tower is suddenly necessary in order to maintain a valuable tower.... This mechanic would be a HUGE boon to lowsec dwellers, as while major nullsec alliance typically wield the power to control ownership of these moons, they lack the local pressence to keep them from being marauded!!! They might just pay a lowsec pirate group to do just that!



My concern with the deflector idea is that a single pilot can go through an entire region, anchor the deflectors on all moons, come back in 2 hours and profit. Any deflectors that are destroyed can be written off at no big loss. This will impact moon miners and hurt their profits, however I don't think it will achieve the goal of inducing fights.

The large EHP mechanic is designed to force a group of pilots to be at fixed point in space for some non-trivial time. A group of 5 pilots, with an average of 500 dps, can deal 1 million EHP worth of damage in 6-7 minutes. During this window, the entire gang has to be on grid and is vulnerable to counter-attack. The RF timer mechanic is designed to give the defense an opportunity to form up and come defend their assets.

With the current POS model, structures have extremely high EHP and long RF timers. This works great for high-value strategic assets (eg CSAAs), but as I mentioned before, it does not fit well into small gang warfare. By creating a smaller target (with lower EHP and shorter RF timer), we would be allowing small roaming gangs to use the same mechanics to get fights -- just on a smaller scale.

One of the imporant things here is that I want to put the defense on equal footing as the attacker. This means balancing rewards (they are both shooting for the same 'prize'), as well as timing opportunities. The defender has to be given adequate time to form up to defend, while at the same time keeping the timers/grinding reasonable for a small roam.
Harimata
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-04-17 16:34:03 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:

I want to know if you have ever managed a mining tower chain or single tower. Im not saying that your idea doesnt have a certain logic to it, im saying that its not realistic for this game.


I have never managed a mining tower chain. I'll be the first to admit that I have limited experience in that part of the game. As I mentioned in my last post, I want to make sure this is equitable for all sides of the equation, so please continue to provide feedback from the pos owner side

Kusum Fawn wrote:

There are a lot more people in lowsec that would kill a goo hauler just to annoy you and not for profit. Saying that there isnt a financial reason to do it, isn't a reason in itself for people not to do it. It means that you have to have someone around 23.5/7 or whenever the goo spawns. or you dont get paid for that time period. larger alliances will mess with small holders just to mess with small holders. where as they wont necessarily get the manpower to kill a tower. (who volunteers to siege a lowsec tower over a roam?)


People kill haulers in lowsec because its a quick easy kill which can potentially yield a juicy kill mail. Haulers die in a matter of seconds, making them very good targets. In my experience, towers are shot for several reasons: 1) financial, 2) to provoke fights, 3) you don't like somebody. I believe the first point is addressed via diminishing time/isk returns. As you mentioned, if no one is around, the second point is moot. As for the last one, I think the proposed mechanic would make the game much more interesting. Its really no different than wardecs or ganking hulks in high-sec. Nothing in EVE is safe from such things, why should moon mining be any different

Kusum Fawn wrote:

There is no incentive for a small holder group to attempt to mine goo in lowsec if they cant have some security in their investment. that security is in the RF timer. they have a way to make sure they can respond to the threat. With your hauler idea they cannot. Rather this just means that t2 markets will get even more messed up and those that have stockpiles of t2 mats will become richer, or those that have deep null towers

powerblocks who can defend their space vs small lowsec holders who cant 23.5/7 secure their space. who wins this isk war?


I believe this fits into the overall eve universe design. There is no safety for investments in eve, and definitely not in low-sec. Right now, moon mining is protected from small gangs by way of huge EHP buffers. This encourages large fleet/blob warfare at the cost of small gangs.

That said, I have no idea what impact this will have on the t2 market. I believe the closest mechanic that this relates to are POCOs. Yes, individual POCOs can be shot and taken out, but does that really have a huge impact on the PI market? My gut is telling me that this will have no real effect on the market (excluding speculation). And if it does, it give mining/production bears financial motivation to get involved with PVP (recruit off-TZ pilots, hire mercs, etc). Either way, it makes the universe more dynamic, volatile, puts more pilots into space, and hopefully creates more pewpew opportunities.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#15 - 2012-04-17 19:46:29 UTC
Harimata wrote:
The point of the NPCs was to counter cloaky SB gangs. There is nothing preventing them from shooting at the target and then cloaking up when the defense arrives. That was the original intention of the NPC escorts. That can be replaced with static defenses/etc. Or if CCP deems SB harassment to be valid, then we can just skip this all together. I'm not a huge fan of this, so if anyone has better ideas of how to achieve the similar results, I'm all ears.


I'm confused with your above statement: A cloaky SB gang will RF your NPC Hauler long before the Moon Miners know whats happening.... There is no way that a response gang can get into system before the cloakers RF the NPC. Once the NPC is RF'd, the cloakers cloak up, and stay cloaked until it comes out of RF. If no-one comes, they decloak, pop the hauler, and scoop the loot. I don't see how your NPC's counter cloaky gangs at all!!! In fact, it makes a cloaky gang virtually risk free and unstoppable... As they just stay cloaked if you bring ships they can't deal with!! All they lose is ammo!!! Nothing forces people to be on field during the RF phase, and nothing keeps them from cloaking!!!

Harimata wrote:
The large EHP mechanic is designed to force a group of pilots to be at fixed point in space for some non-trivial time. A group of 5 pilots, with an average of 500 dps, can deal 1 million EHP worth of damage in 6-7 minutes. During this window, the entire gang has to be on grid and is vulnerable to counter-attack. The RF timer mechanic is designed to give the defense an opportunity to form up and come defend their assets.

With the current POS model, structures have extremely high EHP and long RF timers. This works great for high-value strategic assets (eg CSAAs), but as I mentioned before, it does not fit well into small gang warfare. By creating a smaller target (with lower EHP and shorter RF timer), we would be allowing small roaming gangs to use the same mechanics to get fights -- just on a smaller scale.

One of the imporant things here is that I want to put the defense on equal footing as the attacker. This means balancing rewards (they are both shooting for the same 'prize'), as well as timing opportunities. The defender has to be given adequate time to form up to defend, while at the same time keeping the timers/grinding reasonable for a small roam.


I think you have a very big misunderstanding on how things actually work regarding moongoo....

1.) Any alliance worth their salt can RF a large moonmining POS within 10 minutes (+/- 5 minutes depending on their size). This is not enough time for a response gang to form up, and hence the reason for POS RF timers. RF timers essentially are a tool to allow people on both sides to CTA up for a big fight. RF's are tricky... if it's too long, you get big gangs, if it's too short, noone will respond... 30 minutes is very short...

2.) The valuable moons in a region are rarely close to the owner's home constellation. If you look at where the valuable moons are, and where their population of the owning alliance resides, you'll find they are quite often 10-40 systems away....

3.) If it requires a decent size gang to take down the tower, you need a decent size gang to fend them off.

3.) Moongoo is an alliance resource... Sure some of its income trickles down to average members as ship replacements, cap loans, etc... but, especially for large alliances, the only benefit a Moon provides to average Joe is the opportunity for a fight.

So, your goal is to create a fight for small gangs...

Questions I think need answer:
A.) How are the defenders notified of the attack??? A pos-is-under-attack like mail as soon as you shoot the NPC?

B.) Do these NPC haulers show up on scan? How does the attacking gang know when they are there to attack? What kind of time-window is there to engage the NPC??? It's one thing to look on dotlan and see which systems have a tech moon, and setup a mining deflector on your own time, its another to be on an NPC's schedule....

C.) Given it's very easy to blueball the defenders, why would anyone come to defend? If they arrive, and have nothing to shoot, they will quit coming...

D.) Why would anyone come to protect the NPC hauler? Just blow it up and loot it yourself! Who would know?

The goal is not the loot... the goal is the fight.... In order for the locals to fight, they need a reason to come.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#16 - 2012-04-17 20:14:14 UTC
Harimata wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

A much better alternative, IMO, would be something like the following (This is a very rough idea that just popped into my head):

A mining ray deflector..... Something you anchor between the moon harvesting array and the moon that deflects a portion of the harvested goods into your secondary collecter. Every harvest cycle, the secondary collecter steals moongoo (not necessarily all)...
--- Only allow it to hold 2 hours worth of goo,
--- Make it easily deployed (Under 5 minute anchor/unanchor time and about the size of a medium warp bubble)
--- Make it easily destroyed (Around 100k EHP)...
--- Make it inexpensive (I'd aim at a1m price tag)....
--- Have it create a KM when destroyed (A. To record the theiving alliance, B. To give a defender proof of his efforts).
--- It needs to be deployed on-grid of the POS (But not necessarily within POS weapons range... )
--- When anchored, have it send out the standard POS is under attack notifications.....

The benefits of this:
1.) By remaining out of range of the POS weapons, a small gang can maraude any moon.
2.) Only a small response is necessary to remove the threat.... leaving this a small gang activity...
3.) A pressence near the Moon Mining tower is suddenly necessary in order to maintain a valuable tower.... This mechanic would be a HUGE boon to lowsec dwellers, as while major nullsec alliance typically wield the power to control ownership of these moons, they lack the local pressence to keep them from being marauded!!! They might just pay a lowsec pirate group to do just that!


.....


Additional points with my suggestion:

--- While a lone cloaker could setup deflectors around a region, a lone defender could destroy them all....

--- Coming to defend the Mining POS gets you a KM, meaning you can be rewarded with pretty blue explosions, you get to loot what drops from the deflector, and you're efforts might even be rewarded by your corp... even if you don't get a good fight.

--- The deflector creates a nice staging point for a fight.... Since there isn't quite the same immediacy that your NPC hauler creates, there can be planned ambushes on either side, and only a minor force is necessary to start the fight...

--- Fights escalate on their own.. All big HP structures do is set a minimum number of ships to start the fight... By leaving the number of ships extremely small (1-2), you get more kitchen sink rather than organized response gangs. This creates much, much more entertaining fights!!!! Realize, if they report 5 BC's are RFing your hauler, people won't come with less than 5 BC's, and you're far more likely to get blobbed. If they report 2-4 frigates, defenders are much more likely to come with a manageable and engageable response...
Harimata
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-04-18 15:43:55 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Additional points with my suggestion:

--- While a lone cloaker could setup deflectors around a region, a lone defender could destroy them all....

--- Coming to defend the Mining POS gets you a KM, meaning you can be rewarded with pretty blue explosions, you get to loot what drops from the deflector, and you're efforts might even be rewarded by your corp... even if you don't get a good fight.

--- The deflector creates a nice staging point for a fight.... Since there isn't quite the same immediacy that your NPC hauler creates, there can be planned ambushes on either side, and only a minor force is necessary to start the fight...

--- Fights escalate on their own.. All big HP structures do is set a minimum number of ships to start the fight... By leaving the number of ships extremely small (1-2), you get more kitchen sink rather than organized response gangs. This creates much, much more entertaining fights!!!! Realize, if they report 5 BC's are RFing your hauler, people won't come with less than 5 BC's, and you're far more likely to get blobbed. If they report 2-4 frigates, defenders are much more likely to come with a manageable and engageable response...


Maybe we can combine the two ideas? The attacker has to anchor a module in the system (similar to a SBU). This will reveal the cargo shipments and allow them to be scanned down. Then the attacker has to take down the cargo shipments to get the loot. This will also solve the cloaky SB problem (the defender can just destroy the "SBU" to reset the attack).

So, to re-state the proposal with that in mind:

1) Attacking fleet anchors a "Moon Mining Blockade Unit" (MMBU) in a system. A MMBU should cost ~5m. Anchor/online time is 30 mins. At this point, any corp that has a moon mining pos in system gets a mail saying their operations are vulnerable to attack.

2) Once the MMBU is online, the moon goo cargo shipments (MGCS) are revealed/spawned and can be scanned down. I still believe they should have a reasonable amount of HP (~.5 mil EHP). There will be no static defenses/NPC escort/etc, just some structure in space.

3) Defense can form up and take out the MMBU (~1 mil EHP?) to prevent the attack once it anchors/onlines.

Both the MMBU and the MGCS will generate killmails. MMBU should have a lifespan of lets say 2 hours, at which point it will collapse and vanish. A little bit of thought will have to be put into the timing windows for the spawns. ie, it should not be possible to steal from the same moon twice within a set period of time (eg 6 hours). Perhaps even add a restriction to prevent multiple MMBUs from being anchored in the same system within a 6 hour period. Also need to consider timezones. This method should be viable and equally profitable at all time zones, and shouldn't favor the first TZ to do this.

Thoughts? I believe this addresses most of the concerns with the mechanics brought up so far. The cost of the MMBU will discourage smaller moons/operations from being targeted. Both the attackers and defenders have tangible targets that generate killmails.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#18 - 2012-04-18 16:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I was just going to ignore this thread and hope it went away on its own. Bad ideas don't hang around long unless the thread owner is battling on mercilessly without thought for the amount of support they're getting, which is what your doing.

This idea is a massive massive change that would have huge gigantic game changing consequences. CCP isn't going to pay any attention to this thread, and frankly they shouldn't. Something like this would also have to be the primary focus of CCP for an entire expansion cycle to ever get completed.

No one likes the idea, and even if they did it wasn't going to happen anyway. Let it die.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Harimata
Doomheim
#19 - 2012-04-18 16:07:18 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
I was just going to ignore this thread and hope it went away on its own. Bad ideas don't hang around long unless the thread owner is battling on merciless without thought for the amount of support they're getting, which is what your doing.

This idea is a massive massive change that would have huge gigantic game changing consequences. CCP isn't going to pay any attention to this thread, and frankly they shouldn't. Something like this would also have to be the primary focus of CCP for an entire expansion cycle to ever get completed.

No one likes the idea, and even if they did it wasn't going to happen anyway. Let it die.


Thanks for the feedback.