These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aria Ning
White Rabbit Industries
#421 - 2013-04-29 04:14:59 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
It does seem a bit strange to announce that 50% of EvE players, play solo and then introduce more things that require multiple players.

Not really.

Many solo players opt to have multiple accounts and multi-box, rather than play with others. More than a few of those mining fleets are run by a single solo player.

And, more accounts per player means more money for CCP.


So when CCP says 50% of all players in EvE play alone does that include the many solo players who have multiple accounts? If not then I would imagine the number would be a lot higher?
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#422 - 2013-04-29 04:20:42 UTC
Aria Ning wrote:
So when CCP says 50% of all players in EvE play alone does that include the many solo players who have multiple accounts?

I would guess "yes". I seem to recall these sorts of questions being asked on one of the recent surveys.
NAIRA HOKULANI
Bordello of Bleu's
#423 - 2013-04-29 04:37:05 UTC
CCP you must never been an industrialist in a Null Sec Alliance.

Alliance
1. We must go help kill that XXXX Dreadnaught/Titan etc over 2 region over.
2. We need everyone to be in a fleet because we might need a Call to Arms to go Save Alliance XXX's bacon.
3. We need everyone in a Fleet because we want to look good/important to our brother Alliance members during this op.
4. Etc

Industrialist
1. We need to have to protection for our ore mining/ice mining Fleets?
Alliance: wanker off you wimps we have more important things to do like rat.

I have been in several Null Sec Alliances over my years they all end up like the 1, 2 and 3.
Reason why I am in High Sec now.
I love being in Null sec just the "Drama" does not make it worth it for myself.

From my years of experience industrialist are the Red Headed Step Children in most if not all Null Sec Alliances.

So Thank You CCP I will stay in High Sec finding ways to not have to go to Null Sec like you wish/desire.
NAIRA HOKULANI
Bordello of Bleu's
#424 - 2013-04-29 04:41:11 UTC
Aria Ning wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
It does seem a bit strange to announce that 50% of EvE players, play solo and then introduce more things that require multiple players.

Not really.

Many solo players opt to have multiple accounts and multi-box, rather than play with others. More than a few of those mining fleets are run by a single solo player.

And, more accounts per player means more money for CCP.


So when CCP says 50% of all players in EvE play alone does that include the many solo players who have multiple accounts? If not then I would imagine the number would be a lot higher?

Chuckles

I know of a player in a Null Sec alliance that has 14+ eve accounts working his way to 20+ accounts.
He is a mining fleet by himself. 2 Rorqual Pilots, 1 Combat Pilot the rest are Mining toons.
1 weeks worth of part time mining was sold for over 7 billion isk.
I have seen spod rocks in Grav sites visibly shrink.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#425 - 2013-04-29 05:39:42 UTC
NAIRA HOKULANI wrote:
CCP you must never been an industrialist in a Null Sec Alliance.

Alliance
1. We must go help kill that XXXX Dreadnaught/Titan etc over 2 region over.
2. We need everyone to be in a fleet because we might need a Call to Arms to go Save Alliance XXX's bacon.
3. We need everyone in a Fleet because we want to look good/important to our brother Alliance members during this op.
4. Etc

Industrialist
1. We need to have to protection for our ore mining/ice mining Fleets?
Alliance: wanker off you wimps we have more important things to do like rat.

I have been in several Null Sec Alliances over my years they all end up like the 1, 2


Your inability to see the wood for the trees is impressive. What you describe is a symptom of the existing imbalance between 0.0 and empire - there's currently no reason for sov powers to assist or accomodate industrialists in their space since using Jita jump freighter runs for everything is the outright superior option. Fix that imbalance, incentivise nullsec player activity over moon mining alone, and nullsec powers will either evolve to accomodate you, or lose their space to others that do.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#426 - 2013-04-29 07:26:37 UTC
Cathrianne wrote:
Making mining sites so they have to be scanned down, and not static, I like that. Making it so that they are found with the on board scanner; hmmmm... while in High, Low, and Null sec this makes little difference as to how quickly a miner can be found. It does however appear to be able too foil the bot miners. In Wild space, this will spell certain doom for miners. It is already difficult to mine in Wild space. With no static belts, and only 'random' spawn of grav sites. The only chance miners have in wildspace is the off chance they catch probes or unknown ships on the D scanner. With targeting being what it is in EVE even having a combat fleet on standby in the grav site with the miners will not stop them from meeting death should someone with less than noble intentions suddenly show their face. It's not like you can sit someone on the gates to the system and know when people come in. Sure you can sit scouts on the known worm holes. But the random incoming holes, the only defense against those is the D scanner. Making mining now more like anomaly sites takes away that slim chance that miners currently have in wildspace.

Mining in WHs is not worth it, but for completely other reason. Refine rate.
As this change obviously increases risk, I advocate to increase reward as well. Time to rethink yeilds of refining array, CCP.
Captain Semper
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#427 - 2013-04-29 07:28:31 UTC
I realy dont like that Gravimetrics will no longer need to be scaned with probes.

CCP, you want mining be a bit more popular? So why you do this change? Its only increas numbers of bots.

Let me explain:

Mining very very very boring process. You could mine hour and nothing will happen. For example i use 5 accounts for mining and they all have mackinaws. W\o bonuses it take 30 min to fill 100% ore bay. So i can be still at PC, working or watching moves and cheking every few minutes local for enemy. Becuase i know that it will take a time to find me.

With you change i forced to watch how "interesting" my miners mining... Because enemy need ~30 sec to find me. And nobody will save me. I mean even if i have 100 freindly ppl in a local in a fleet, they just will be late, becuase barge die in a few seconds (no tank and save utility).

In other words - nobody want to sit down and watch how cool barge drill asteroids, only because of fear of potential enemy. And you will be rewarded less then NPC hunting. You need new mining mechanic for make this work. I mean interesing mining, not boring mining.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#428 - 2013-04-29 07:36:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Liz Laser wrote:
I'm repeating this slice of a previous post and hoping people will express an interest in such a census to CCP, as well as an interest in them publishing the results. While I am skeptical of what I call flogging high-sec players into null-sec, the CSM, CCP and the player population needs to know if such measures succeed or not in their intent.

Liz Laser wrote:


It would be very easy for CCP to prove me wrong or right and be able to inform the CSM of the changes in player behavior (or lack thereof).....

THIS week, do a census where you note which players are in hi-sec. Measure 10 times including over the weekend. If on any of those censii they are in null or low-sec throw them out of that hi-sec count. Then 90 days after Odyssey do another 10 censii over a week and see how many of those same players get spotted in null. My prediction is it will be a very very very small number and will be due to other factors (like me regaining the leisure time for null-sec).

While I *hope* high-sec will endure and pay their subs, I'm *convinced* that you won't turn them into null-sec players by making high-sec less rewarding, less fun, or less afk-able.

Prove me wrong. You already have the flogging high-sec into null policies soon to be instituted, so just get them to make the measurements and be scientists about it rather than religious zealots about it. Measure your results and throw them in my face if you're right.

While I myself may sound like a zealot in how firmly convinced I am that you can't flog them into null-sec, just remember that *I* am the one asking for the measurements to be taken.



More data is always useful. Just one thing, though:


cen·sus
[sen-suhs] noun, plural cen·sus·es, verb
noun
1.
an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc.
2.
(in ancient Rome) the registration of citizens and their property, for purposes of taxation


Not every noun ending in -us takes the -ii plural form. In fact very few do, and they're greek derived words, not latin. This should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
OkaskiKali
Aussie Carebear OverLords
#429 - 2013-04-29 07:45:47 UTC
i'm not sure this is the answer to eve's null sec emptyness.

Forcing people to go and play their game in an area that means eve becomes a full time job is not the answer.

I'm not too keen on the idea of increasing the need for R64's and increasing the amount of R64 moons. I feel this will not change the face of null sec. in 2008 the situation was R64's were the catalyst for fights, in todays game that is still the case.

CCP, guys, please STOP thinking with reactive heads. What i mean by this is stop nerfing things and thinking that the only way to solve a situation is by doing something negatively. Start thinking with more proactive heads, think more out of the box. Ice nerf will not force people into null sec they will merely turn their 15 man ice mining fleets into 15 man tritanium mining fleets it's simple, i've been around the game for 8 years and in those 8 years many people entered null sec with idea's of becoming rich beyond belief. The sad story is null sec turns eve into a full time job.

Whilst i believe what makes eve great is the sense of loss, ill be damned if the way i want to play the game means alarm clock ops and mandatory home defence. I did that for 4 years and I will never play the game that way again.

Null sec should be about groups of people creating eco systems. it shouldn't be about the concept that resource allocation will force people to live in an area. At the end of the day people move to null sec so that they can legitametly get away with blowing stuff up. Do us a favour get it into your skulls that blowing stuff up is null sec, n
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#430 - 2013-04-29 07:49:13 UTC
A question about nullsec ice.
Right now, you can only find "precious" - I mean useless - krystallos in systems with best truesec. Most systems also miss glare crust. Are you going to fix that, or it works as intended?
OkaskiKali
Aussie Carebear OverLords
#431 - 2013-04-29 08:02:41 UTC
Quote:
Creating a new home for these miners also provides opportunities for pilots interested in PVP, as mining is an activity that can be both disrupted and protected by small gangs of ships.


This simply is not true. it is too easy to counter.
OkaskiKali
Aussie Carebear OverLords
#432 - 2013-04-29 08:06:51 UTC
OkaskiKali wrote:
Quote:
Creating a new home for these miners also provides opportunities for pilots interested in PVP, as mining is an activity that can be both disrupted and protected by small gangs of ships.


This simply is not true. it is too easy to counter.


Quote:
We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their ship’s built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance.


This I love. I said it about a year ago that hidden mining belts created a massive disadvantage to hunters.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#433 - 2013-04-29 08:20:15 UTC
OkaskiKali wrote:


CCP, guys, please STOP thinking with reactive heads. What i mean by this is stop nerfing things and thinking that the only way to solve a situation is by doing something negatively.


Now this is irony.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#434 - 2013-04-29 09:06:32 UTC
Nomad I wrote:
the Rorqual is able to compress 500ice blocks per hour. Thats not really much, with the new harvesters.Please adapt the Rorqual too

This.

Currently 4-5 hulks fils a rorq's compression slots, if it's ice. With regular ore, it's around 20 or so. With doubling the ice harvesters' performance, something needs to be changed to adjust the rorq's compression performance on ice.
ConranAntoni
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#435 - 2013-04-29 09:09:24 UTC
As a former high sec dweller who delved into both explosions and industry, I whole heartedly support this product. Stay the course CCP, finally going in the right direction.

Empyrean Warriors - Recruiting now.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#436 - 2013-04-29 09:14:59 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:
I'm not spending it mining. I'm spending it in SWTOR. The limited possibilities available for small 45 minute chunks of time in Eve already lost my playing time...

If mining doesnt suit into your RL schedule, you can quit EVE to swator or whatever... or you can find something else in EVE, like PI, exploration, ratting, production, etc. Why do you think mining should be adapted for YOUR personal schedule?
Loney Slave
Sky Net Industries
Artificial Intellagence
#437 - 2013-04-29 09:24:31 UTC
Magic Crisp wrote:
Nomad I wrote:
the Rorqual is able to compress 500ice blocks per hour. Thats not really much, with the new harvesters.Please adapt the Rorqual too

This.

Currently 4-5 hulks fils a rorq's compression slots, if it's ice. With regular ore, it's around 20 or so. With doubling the ice harvesters' performance, something needs to be changed to adjust the rorq's compression performance on ice.


+1
Loney Slave
Sky Net Industries
Artificial Intellagence
#438 - 2013-04-29 09:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Loney Slave
Master Account wrote:
Horny Guy wrote:
Loney wrote:
COPY AND REPLY TO THIS IF YOU THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA SO THE DEVS WILL TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT IT

Overall I like all the changes suggested in the Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog... However I have a suggestion related to the ICE mining.

If CCP is reducing the ICE in HIGHSEC and giving more ORE incentive for players to move players to LOWSEC or NULLSEC then you need to do something about the COMPRESSION game mechanics.

Suggestions

1. Buff the RORQUAL stats for compression.
a. Increase the ICE/ORE HOLD by 100%.
b. Increase the COMPRESSION FACTORY SLOTS by 100%
c. Decrease the COMPRESSION TIME by 50%.

If my numbers are not realistic (I think they are) please do your own calculations and adjust them as necessary.

2. Create a POS module for ICE/ORE COMPRESSION.
a. Make it big like a Rorqual and take up a lot of CPU/POWER resources on the POS.
or
b. Make it small like a refinery so you can put several of them on a POS.

This could be done instead of changing the Rorqual stats or it can be done as a added feature/option.

Thanks,
Loney

COPY AND REPLY TO THIS IF YOU THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA SO THE DEVS WILL TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT IT


+1


I like this idea... Doing this would give much more incentive for moving to 0.0 and mining since its a pain in the @$$ to haul the ice/ore... even when if one chooses to refine it before hauling!


I like the idea of making more options for compression instead of just the Rorqual as the bottleneck factor, but I think if they just change some of the stats on the Rorqual there would not be a need for other things like a POS or Station compression mechanics.

My ides for Rorqual:

GOOD THINGS

First - Make the ORE and ICE be taken from the ORE ICE cargo hold of the ship before compression and delivered to the SHIP cargo hold after compression. This will allow for 250 pieces to be compressed in one time instead of the CURRENT LIMIT of the SHIPS cargo hold.

Second - Give the Rorqual a ship bonus of -%5 production time for compression per level of ship skill. So with a level 5 Rorqual pilot you would have a -25% reduction time in the compression of ORE ICE products.

Third - give the ship more production slots. The current 4 slots limits the ships ability to actually be useful for compression when conducting a mining operation. Currently with the Exhumers abilities to mine massive amounts of stuff and with the suggested -50% decrease in ICE cycle time 4 slots is not enough to keep up with mining productions. I say increase the slot to at least 8-11 slots.

Okay now: I understand CCP's whole ISK sink vs faucet debate so I can't give recommendations for making things better without making them worse too!

BAD THINGS

First - For all the above added features of the Rorqual there should be some cost, right? Well I say that you should TRIPLE the Heavy Water usage while in siege deployed mode. This will not only make the extra features of the ship justifiable but also give a rise to the very under utilized and poor market factor of Heavy Water (though not by much honestly).

Second - Okay I don't have any other things.

This is my thoughts and I'm sticking to them!
Garan Nardieu
Super Serious Fight Club
#439 - 2013-04-29 10:31:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Garan Nardieu
OkaskiKali wrote:

Quote:
We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their ship’s built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance.


This I love. I said it about a year ago that hidden mining belts created a massive disadvantage to hunters.


Lol @ massive disadvantage. There is a difference between hunting and shooting clay pidgeons, y'know.
At least before you had to put some (minimal) effort into hunting what is basically defenseless prey (unless its a bait ship) and now they've dumbed that down to a simple scanner sweep and warp-to action (and I'm saying this from a hunter's perspective).
This is wrong as it increases risks for miners extremely while not providing any means of handling it (venture isn't really worth the effort for anything but gas). Yes, you can put wcs in lows of your barge but that just cuts into your mining yield per hour, which will very likely be crap to start with due to every frigate jumping into system wanting to get an easy killmail by warping to anomaly and killing you. This change basically turns all grav sites into 'regular' belts, and we all know how well belts have worked for mining in lowsec.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#440 - 2013-04-29 10:56:04 UTC
I have removed some personal attacks on CCP from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents