These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: Industry & Mining

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Merritoff
Zod's Minions
#81 - 2012-05-24 23:43:39 UTC
Mining: here I think a lot of players are mistaken about any buff to the exhumer class. By inherant nature Eve players are adaptive and any increase would be a temporary respite. Because raising the bar (ergo more Eligible Hit Points) would result in a ante up in the combat ship/s which would be used against exhumers. Miners require education, starting with the understanding that regardless of activity - this is a combat game. If I really had to change a facet of the Exhumer - it would be changing the Standard Active Shield certificate over to the Improved Passive Shield certificate in Recommended.

Two-Step, there has been a some discussion about changing the requirement of fleet boosting. This also impacts mining for vessels like the Orca and Rorqual. Basically the sides are for and against Off-Grid effective fleet boosts. Firstly, what is your own view in this issue and have CCP said anything to the CSM in regard of this?

If I was looking to the future. I would like a mobile refinary ship, scaled in the same tree as the Noctis.

And a Field Command styled exhumer. Unbonused strips x 3 with a utility slot and make the cargohold smaller. I'll exchange cargo space for a dedicated crystal pocket (why not, so many other ships - not just combat - get access a ute-slot). Fitting concession for a single ganglink, option to fit proto/improved cloak, tractor, RR. (think creative) A mining Foreman.

Manufactoring: so Eve has setting saving for overview and ship fits. But for Blueprint handling I need for each event to repeat manually every step. Knowing that I am going to put 10 catalyst BPO upto ME10.

1. Could I select all 10 to do in one go?
2. Could I default the Corp POS
3. Could I pre-save which destination? The ME amount, the hanger etc etc etc?

Oh, and here is an interesting request. Can the users of public slots be made public? I should be able to see who my competition is.
None ofthe Above
#82 - 2012-05-25 00:33:03 UTC
Brisco County wrote:
You know that if you give them a new mining barge with more lows, these muppets would just put another MLU in it and then continue bleeding all over the forums about how unfair Eve is.

50% of the hulk's HP are in the hull, but I've never once seen a killmail with a damage control.


Let me widen your horizons:

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13451616

Was in the top 10 on the hulkageddon killboards:

http://hulkageddon.goonswarm.com/

I grant you its fairly rare. That's part of why I am not advocating a boost to the base EHP of the Hulk. Just the ability to fit a decent tank without too much difficulty. If people still can't manage to put a DCU II on it or a MSE II, well then no change; their hulks would remain as tissue paper around an aluminum can.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-05-25 00:35:18 UTC
300m on hulk, 300k on t1 tanking modules

lol
None ofthe Above
#84 - 2012-05-25 00:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
300m on hulk, 300k on t1 tanking modules

lol


Almost all Hulk tank fits are lol-worthy, because the PG of the Hulk is the same as that of the Procurer.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hulk
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Procurer

There isn't even compensation for the increased number of high slots. What idiot over at ORE put a frigate powergrid into ALL of the barges and exhumers?

You either have to have a lame t1 tank, or a sort of lame tank on a blinged out loot pinata.

PS - Wasn't putting that forth as an exemplar fit, Mr. County simply hadn't seen a DCU on a Hulk killmail so I posted the first one I found. Only took a moment.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Jabba Fat
Violent Alternatives
#85 - 2012-05-25 03:28:26 UTC
My 2 cents on Mining

Issue #1
Asteroids can be found in every belt that will yield ore. The Roid-Fairy has been hard at work and labelled every roid for us so picking the most profitable to mine is easy. This is one big problem. There is no need to do any prospecting / surveying to find ore in the EvE universe. Compare this to moon mining, at least you need to survey the moon and figure out what is available, then make a decision if it’s worth the effort or not. Compare this to Planetary Interaction, in this case you even need good skills to get a good reading on material location, then plan your structures accordingly.

Fix #1
A complete redesign of how roids are located in the universe is needed. How this is done is probably best left to the developers that need to take into account space-constraints and server-efficiency. But imagine roid belts that actually stretched all the way around a plant or a sun. Then each belt was divided into 1 to 360 sectors you could warp to. Roid belts don’t appear as a 40km half arc close to plant… do they?? So in short, increase the amount of roids by many folds. Remove all roid labels, every roids in the universe should be named ‘Asteroid’ or something similar colourful. Make majority of roids worthless. Make use of the skills already in place. The higher Astrogeology skill the more accurate scan results. Maybe even introduce a ship specific to the task or new modules. There are many opportunities for new skills, ships and modules here.

Result #1
This will accomplish many things. Firstly, people need to survey roids in order to find profitable ones. I believe this will be a nice change compared mind-numbing way mining is now. The more thorough the upfront work the better the ore yield. This in turn makes botting somewhat more difficult as they can’t blindly warp to a roid and get valuable ore. If only 1 in 20 roids actually has valuable ore this should hopefully put a dent in the botters pockets.


Issue #2
Yield in roids are the same in the entire universe. Take Veldspar as an example, a batch (333 units) will refine to 1000 Tritanium. It does not matter if the ore was mined in High Sec or Null Sec, the end result is the same. This is a big issue as the reward vs risk doesn’t scale. Yes, yes, yes….. I know what you’re thinking. There is high end ore in Null Sec, why not mine the high end valuable ore? This is true of you are just mining for profit, but what if you are mining to manufacture. You still need the low end minerals for manufacturing and you need lots of it. Why should the yield be the same when the risk is not?

Fix #2
Introduce a yield % to ore and let the yield increase as the Sec gets lower. Lets use Veldspar as an example again, a batch (333 units) refines to 1000 Tritanium. 333 units of Veldspar has a volume of 33.3m3, 1000 units of Tritanium has a volume if 10m3, so the Veldspar ore yields is 30%. Mercoxit has a yield of 0.053%, this means you need to mine 10,000m3 in order to get 5.3m3 of Morphite. Kernite has multiple minerals when refined and the yield is as follows, Tritanium 0.804%, Mexallon 1.61%, Isogen 0.804%

Result #2
This will ensure there are a difference between High, Low and Null Sec when it comes to mining and profit. There are some correlation between risk and reward. It is also an incentive for High Sec miners to try Low / Null Sec as the rewards there are greater.
Brisco County
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#86 - 2012-05-25 03:30:58 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Brisco County wrote:
You know that if you give them a new mining barge with more lows, these muppets would just put another MLU in it and then continue bleeding all over the forums about how unfair Eve is.

50% of the hulk's HP are in the hull, but I've never once seen a killmail with a damage control.


Let me widen your horizons:

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=13451616

Was in the top 10 on the hulkageddon killboards:

http://hulkageddon.goonswarm.com/

I grant you its fairly rare. That's part of why I am not advocating a boost to the base EHP of the Hulk. Just the ability to fit a decent tank without too much difficulty. If people still can't manage to put a DCU II on it or a MSE II, well then no change; their hulks would remain as tissue paper around an aluminum can.


Well, there's one. My horizons are ~broadened~.
Flamespar
WarRavens
#87 - 2012-05-25 04:16:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Flamespar
It would be good to hear where things are at in regards to the ring mining (and the graphics update)
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#88 - 2012-05-25 10:54:30 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
It would be good to hear where things are at in regards to the ring mining (and the graphics update)


Totally Agree here.

.
Serpentine Logic
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2012-05-28 23:22:47 UTC
The skill tree for mining and industry is IMO too shallow.

I concur with those who propose a capital mining ship, both for the boost to non-highsec mining, and the increased progression available to mining characters.

I also suggest that manufacturing prerequisite skills be rationalised the same way piloting skills are.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#90 - 2012-05-29 07:04:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
The basic problem with mining is that the actual act of mining is incredibly dull. When it becomes something that draws attention to the screen rather than repels it, a lot of problems with mining go away.

To make mining actually some kind of fun, you need to make it a mental challenge. In fact you need to make it actual gameplay, and historically, CCP have been very bad at gameplay.

Still, what if the actual act of mining were completely different to how it is now? Consider this possibility:

Each asteroid is represented as a 3-dimensional object, with veins of ore ruunning through it in a semi-random, non repeating way (ie: unpredictably). The concentration of ore varies from, say, 10-33% of the rock by volume. There are two way you can mine such an asteroid.

The first is the simplest: to lock onto the rock, activate your mining laser and let it chew through the entire rock, as we do at present. This will eventually extract all the ore in the asteroid in the time it takes your ML to pulverize the entire thing*.

The second is more complex but more efficient: you use an asteroid scanner* to see those veins of ore, and you target your MLs on the asteroid to chew through to get the good stuff. The angle and focus with which you target your MLs determines how efficiently you can do this (ie: how much ore you can get while mining out as little "dead rock" as possible.

On some rocks, this will be a fairly simple puzzle; on others, it will be very tricky to get optimum yield. Thus we can reward actual player intelligence and skill, whilst still leaving the possibility of making some ISK being semi-AFK and studying for exams or whatever (many miners seem to be deeply attached to this playstyle). By procedurally generating the ore veins every time the rock respawns, we can make them significantly hard to macro efficiently; bots will almost certainly "mine dumb" and just chew through the whole rock. Thus smart human players actually playing the game will be able to gain a significant advantage (3-10x) over macro bots if they choose to. Since their attention will actually be directed at the screen, they can also maintain situation awareness and all the safety benefits that entails.

*We will assume that mining lasers automatically filter out and eject as space-dust the "dead rock", with only the ore being deposited.

*Additionally, all ORE vessels have asteroid-scanning capability built in to the ship, with no need to add an asteroid scanner. Non-specialised mining ships like Ospreys and Rokhs have to give up a midslot or "mine dumb".

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Traidir
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2012-05-29 10:36:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The second is more complex but more efficient: you use an asteroid scanner* to see those veins of ore, and you target your MLs on the asteroid to chew through to get the good stuff. The angle and focus with which you target your MLs determines how efficiently you can do this (ie: how much ore you can get while mining out as little "dead rock" as possible.

That sounds like an excellent (and very familiar idea).

Some other things to consider:
Use of tractor beams and explosives to tear apart rocks (along with a scanner for "seeing" fracture lines).
Calibration of mining laser cut "depth".
Limited "image resolution" and "scan depth" of scanners.
Booby traps (mercoxit creating gas clouds if you cut into the wrong thing for example).
Specific patterns and shapes of "veins" in the rocks for each type of asteroid (more experienced players have the advantage of knowing how the veins (and traps) are likely to appear within the rock, despite scanner depth/resolution limitations) Some examples of possible vein shapes: lightning shapes, nuggets, tapered cylinders, sheets, crystals... This would also give a great deal of variety to the challenge of ore extraction for the different asteroid types.

Almost all of these can be based on skills already in game (e.g. Astrogeology for scanning, Mining and its various Specializations for depth calibration and cut precision, Graviton Physics for tractor beam attenuation, ect...).
Prince Kobol
#92 - 2012-05-29 12:02:59 UTC
Let cut the BS and get straight to the point.

We all know that most if not all the CSM only care about Indy in regards how it affects them in null.

So how about this.

Why not just make so you can only manufacture T2 ships and mods in Sov Space. Whilst we are at it why not just remove all ore expect veld out of high sec?

After all isn't this what you really want?
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#93 - 2012-05-30 06:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Revolution Rising
Prince Kobol wrote:
Let cut the BS and get straight to the point.

We all know that most if not all the CSM only care about Indy in regards how it affects them in null.

So how about this.

Why not just make so you can only manufacture T2 ships and mods in Sov Space. Whilst we are at it why not just remove all ore expect veld out of high sec?

After all isn't this what you really want?



Well.. the.. wait.. what ?

Dude have you even spoken to any of the CSM members? MOST of them are indy guys or at least interested in some serious change to indy this time around.

I would've thought mittani being replaced by seleene would've made some impact in your conscioousness along this thought process.

I guess not.

If the conversations I've had over the past 6 months or more with Seleene and others mean anything I would be expecting a BONUS to invention in 0.0, t2 mining of some kind, improved mining mechanics - spodumain rocks for 3 days is no way to mine, possibly CCP will start along the lines of POS reinvention over the next year.

If you want something in the CSM to imrpove, you need to be active in this arena.
I can't even understand people that come on and rage about their imagined perceptions like this.

If you want to rage at someone about datacores, rage at Soundwave.
I don't understand how mining with guns is bad, but mining for datacores with guns is good personally. So I would agree with that if that was the point of your awfully constructed post.

.
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#94 - 2012-05-30 07:14:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The basic problem with mining is that the actual act of mining is incredibly dull. When it becomes something that draws attention to the screen rather than repels it, a lot of problems with mining go away.

To make mining actually some kind of fun, you need to make it a mental challenge. In fact you need to make it actual gameplay, and historically, CCP have been very bad at gameplay.

Still, what if the actual act of mining were completely different to how it is now? Consider this possibility:

Each asteroid is represented as a 3-dimensional object, with veins of ore ruunning through it in a semi-random, non repeating way (ie: unpredictably). The concentration of ore varies from, say, 10-33% of the rock by volume. There are two way you can mine such an asteroid.

The first is the simplest: to lock onto the rock, activate your mining laser and let it chew through the entire rock, as we do at present. This will eventually extract all the ore in the asteroid in the time it takes your ML to pulverize the entire thing*.

The second is more complex but more efficient: you use an asteroid scanner* to see those veins of ore, and you target your MLs on the asteroid to chew through to get the good stuff. The angle and focus with which you target your MLs determines how efficiently you can do this (ie: how much ore you can get while mining out as little "dead rock" as possible.

On some rocks, this will be a fairly simple puzzle; on others, it will be very tricky to get optimum yield. Thus we can reward actual player intelligence and skill, whilst still leaving the possibility of making some ISK being semi-AFK and studying for exams or whatever (many miners seem to be deeply attached to this playstyle). By procedurally generating the ore veins every time the rock respawns, we can make them significantly hard to macro efficiently; bots will almost certainly "mine dumb" and just chew through the whole rock. Thus smart human players actually playing the game will be able to gain a significant advantage (3-10x) over macro bots if they choose to. Since their attention will actually be directed at the screen, they can also maintain situation awareness and all the safety benefits that entails.

*We will assume that mining lasers automatically filter out and eject as space-dust the "dead rock", with only the ore being deposited.

*Additionally, all ORE vessels have asteroid-scanning capability built in to the ship, with no need to add an asteroid scanner. Non-specialised mining ships like Ospreys and Rokhs have to give up a midslot or "mine dumb".


I love this idea, however..

tbh, I'm far more interested in the low hanging fruit at the moment. I'm all for ADDED bonuses to mining based on such systems in the future, as long as it doesn't interfer with current gameplay. Looking out for reds in 0.0 while trying to solve a puzzle is going to be harsh to say the least.

Sometimes I just want to go to the kitchen and grab a coffee while my lasers run too... I don't want to stop mining to do this.

Sometimes I need to work out corp contracts while I'm mining.

Sometimes I just want to chat to others while mining.

I don't want these types of gameplay and added gameplay to be effected by puzzle games that are unnecessary to the current system.

If it is just an ADDED system, whereby I can grab more yield if I'm concentrating, fine.

I would hate to see CCP just run with one part of this idea and take out current gameplay.

CCP don't have a good track record of gameplay change before this last expansion, sometimes it's best to keep it simple with them ;)

.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#95 - 2012-05-30 15:58:12 UTC
In other words, you want to just PUSH BUTAN RECEIVE ORE, and you don't want anything to affect the yield of that.

Do we really have to explain comparative advantage all over again? /o\

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
The Fourth District
#96 - 2012-06-01 04:10:26 UTC
Player Awareness - Linking Manufacturing to the Market

Inferno introduced price estimations (based on local market) into all hangars and items, it would be awesome to extend this to the manufacturing "preview" window. Even the most basic T1 module is built using items that have a market value. Before accepting the run, cost of the facility and lose of items, anyone should be able to easily see how much ISK they can expect to earn (or lose!) based on the current market without relying on out-game utilities (eve-central, battleclinic, spreadsheets etc).

Mitigate the "If I mine it, it is free" mindset by educating them as they step through the process of building an item.

*Warning: may cause the price of T1 items to rise to exceed mineral cost! P

Cooperative Industry - Project Management Tools

There is no simple solution to encouraging miners, researchers, and manufacturers to group up and cooperate. It is very possible to engage in all of those activities solo in a non-player corp and not encounter any downsides. The primary reason to form a player corp for industrialist is the ability to setup starbases for more readily available Material Research & Copy slots.

Introduce straight forward, non-time intensive tools that make cooperative corporate industry easier as part of having a corporation could be very useful. It might include standing contracts that refresh when filled, "programmable" project trees, etc.

Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Kreeia Dgore
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2012-06-01 11:20:27 UTC
No big surprise here: boost exhumers tanking capability. Destroyers, and the minnie one in particular, have been boosted in terms of DPS. The balance existing until that moment was broken when every noob with lousy equipment is able to gank any exhumer, no matter how well is it tanked. I want nothing else than boosting their defence capabilities by the same % the destroyers got.

Other than that, mining should be more fun. I find that folks are still happy mining (=doing activity that was boring 9 years ago and didn't improve ever since) an unpleasant evidence of higher incidence of masochists in general population in the last years. Sorry, I just don't see any other way of looking at it.
Nevryn Takis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2012-06-01 17:59:48 UTC
Mining is boring .. we all know that.. lots of people (including me) have made proposals ove rthe years to fix it .. they all get ignored
so we're now in the positiion(thanks to the goons) that mining is dead as a profession..
Am I going to risk my tanked 300m hulk in high sec when it can be reduced to ash is 6 seconds by 3 1.5m fit catalysts or thrashers..
No chance.. Any competant player can run a l3 mission and replace said catalyst/thrasher in 20 minutes..
Replacing the hulk thats 30 hours running L4 missions ..
For the casual player who has a couple of hours a night to play thats just not worth doing ... risk/vs reward ...broken
Am I likewise going to risk a 150m mack that can't tank for toffee no matter how you fit it to mine Ice to supply a pos .. no chance
With all the rest of the changes theres a lot of people who are now seriosuly considering un-subbing..
Perhaps then ccp and goons will get the message
Flame me all you like and talk about tears .. it'll just make the decision easier...
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2012-06-01 22:31:11 UTC
If supply of minerals decreases enough from miners leaving their profession, demand will increase to the point where mining ore and ice will be well worth the hazards. If not, suicide ganking was not a real problem to begin with.
None ofthe Above
#100 - 2012-06-01 23:24:27 UTC
Kreeia Dgore wrote:
No big surprise here: boost exhumers tanking capability. Destroyers, and the minnie one in particular, have been boosted in terms of DPS. The balance existing until that moment was broken when every noob with lousy equipment is able to gank any exhumer, no matter how well is it tanked. I want nothing else than boosting their defence capabilities by the same % the destroyers got.


Actually the Catalyst in particular, Gallente. But yes destroyers got a big boost, and also for high end ganking Tier 3 battlecruisers.

That's two pretty major buffs to ganking without a commensurate buff to its primary prey.

I recommend a boost to Mining Barge and Exhumer Powergrid and CPU so they can fit a decent tank without so much difficulty (particularly on the Retriever, Covertor based hulls).

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.