Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It would be nice if it looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5toQqcxcNc#t=180

+1 Love it, CCP make it so.
I love everything that makes it more realistic \o/
Edit: i would Mine all day long.

I actually would much rather belts be entirely removed as objects to do that kind of thing.
Instead just do continually respawning grav anomalies. (Possibly not instantly, but on a fairly short timer at least)
Then you only need three or four in a system, rather than 20 or 30 belts. So you can significantly reduce the number of grids in use for mining, as well as removing the time zone bias involved in mining.

This also turns mining more active since you can't just have 10 anchored containers you dump it into and warp to the same bookmark every time, but have to go to a new site each time.

You could easily use the few larger asteroids with veins and some form of yield finding to focus & improve yield as well (I'd say up to 50% yield increase sounds reasonable). But.... Would have to give mining barges real cruiser fittings if you want them all to have to choose how to fit. And just limit strip miners & MLU's the same way as command links are limited on command ships. That way they have enough fitting options to choose from, rather than the current 4 slots total to pick fittings from which are what make for such obvious fits.

One of my friends who have been playing from the beginning once said that the belts used to be like the old ice belts. (ie a big line.) They were several hundreds of km long and very often covered multiple grids. Because of the grids and the terrible scanning system then, a person could hide in the belt at a off grid of the main warp in and be greatly protected from people trying to hunt them. Needless to say people were all upset and CCP changed it.

Now I don't know if this is true. But It would explain a lot.

The whole mining system needs a full overhaul and everyone knows it.

No. the OP never said that muliboxing shouldn't or wouldn't be possible with the suggestion he made.

Just because the attentive miner is being rewarded doesn't mean that the ISBoxer with his 6, 8 or 95 ships is worse of.

How much can you improve the yield of a miner with a mini game before it is considered broken?

10 - 20%?

If you pilot just as much as 2 ships, you'll already be at 200% compared to the single toon guy.

I honestly do not see or understand your problem.

Which was why I proposed making the asteroids larger and farther apart.

Naturally, doing this would generate its own set of issues, so in order to keep mining mechanics similar to what currently exists, I proposed multiple veins for each larger asteroid.

And it's not like the server has to keep track of every single bloomin' asteroid along the belt. Instead, asteroids would be procedurally generated on-grid. Tracking only, say, 30 asteroids on grid versus 100ish (as it is currently). And with procedural generation / removal, the number of 'roids the server has to keep track of would be more than manageable.

Server load wouldn't be as daunting as you'd think -- one person running missions generates all sorts of interactable objects for the server to keep track of. I don't see how this would be much different.

+1

Would also be pretty cool if you could take damage depending on your ship size if you decide to fly through the most dense part of the fields.

I learned something very interesting during the CSM8 Town Hall.

"What did you learn, Alvatore?" Well, I'm glad you asked. I learned that while CCP does watch the threads in F&I for particularly good ideas, what really gets their attention is the number of individual accounts participating in a thread. This goes whether they're in support of or against an idea.

I don't think I need to explain much more than that, although I should point out that CCP does have a way to track which accounts share an email so keep that in mind when you interpret what I just said.

You bring up valid points -- but I'm still not convinced that there is a server-load barrier. Solo mission-runners require entire rooms to be instanced, tracked and followed. Sometimes with 200+ objects when multiple rooms, NPCs, decorative structures, and wrecks are all involved. All because of one player. There's a time-out, of course -- wrecks disappear, missions fail, so on and so forth.

That being said, there's no technical limitation to procedurally generating / removing asteroids with quick time-out timers. And with the deep-space (non beacon, non anomaly) 'roids giving mediocre ore, you may not even have to track these. You could probably remove generic 'roids immediately once a grid is vacated. Even the ones that were being mined. Because when you came back, since everything is generic, it doesn't matter what you've been mining before. Now beacon/anomaly sites, with the more lucrative ores, you'd definitely want to track that. As it currently is.

Also, traveling down an asteroid belt would spawn / despawn asteroids at a manageable rate. Server congestion problems tend to occur when things "burst" onto scene. So in this case, when you warp on field, if the fields are relatively sparse, this spawning process could probably occur as soon as you hit warp--with everything spawned by the time you arrive on-field.

I think what's interesting is that procedural generation gives the illusion that the server is tracking everything as you travel, with belts stretching into the infinite horizon -- when in reality, you'd only be experiencing a moving sliver.

Yes. I never mine, but it's always bothered me that the asteroid belts aren't belts, just random collections of rock sitting around a planet. Of course, I'd also like to see planets that actually orbited, but that's probably not happening anytime soon.
+1